The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
- Status
Good job BP:
(CNN) -- Oil company BP says it has resumed pumping oil to a ship on the surface after a weekend setback that halted efforts to siphon off the crude spewing from a damaged well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.
Crews re-inserted the tube into the well's riser stack Sunday. The 4-inch pipe is now connected to a ship on the surface, 5,000 feet above the sea floor, and is pumping oil back to the surface, BP spokesman Mark Proegler told CNN.
If successful, the technique will capture most of the oil that is pouring out of the well.
(CNN) -- Oil company BP says it has resumed pumping oil to a ship on the surface after a weekend setback that halted efforts to siphon off the crude spewing from a damaged well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.
Crews re-inserted the tube into the well's riser stack Sunday. The 4-inch pipe is now connected to a ship on the surface, 5,000 feet above the sea floor, and is pumping oil back to the surface, BP spokesman Mark Proegler told CNN.
If successful, the technique will capture most of the oil that is pouring out of the well.
bensonga
Well-known member
Yes, that is great news.....now let's hope the "top kill" or "junk shot" will work to seal the BOP and the well in the next week or so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/us/17spill.html?hp
Gary
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/us/17spill.html?hp
Gary
O
Oxide Blu
Guest
You work for BP ... what does your boss say this "compelling evidence" is ???
PLEASE ... INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!!!
Gary -- YOU are on the brink of becoming famous (and RICH!!!) beyond your wildest dreams!!! All you need to do is provide a single shred of refuted scientific evidence that humans in any way altered weather anywhere at any time. No kidding, Gary -- not a single scientists has been able to do that, yet. You will be the first person ... YOU WILL BE FAMOUS!!! On second thought, maybe you can't do it, either.
World May Not Be Warming, Say Scientists
February 15, 2010 - The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge from scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution. ...
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/world-warming-say-scientists/
Oops!!! That got a little inconvenient, there, didn't Gary.
Scientists Increasingly Dissent With Global Warming Proponents.
January 8, 2009
... It appears that more and more highly regarded professional scientists are coming out in opposition to the science behind alarmist fears over global warming.
http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/scientists-increasingly-dissent-global-warming-proponents
More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Washington, DC: Fifty-nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists ...
http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/...l-scientists-report-skepticism-to-u-s-senate/
This is starting to look bad for you global warming alarmists, Gary. Those 700 scientists that refute the claim humans are responsible for global warming represent 13 TIMES THE NUMBER of scientist that signed onto the global warming fraud. Oops! Did I say "fraud" ?!? Why, yes I did!!! More on that later.
Hey, Gary -- look at this:
"The explosion of skeptical scientific voices is accelerating unabated in 2009."
It's from that same article. It also mentions scientists within the U.N.'s alarmist global warming committee are bucking the wagon.
Gary -- do yourself a favor...do some serious reading/research on the subject. Don't waste your time on the libtard media outlets, and don't waste your time with the right-wing wing nuts, either. Spend your time reading SCIENTIFIC resources.
Do that and if you can come back here sounding even mildly intelligent about the subject global warming, I'll talk to you about it. But if all you are going to do is spew the libtard alarmist mantra, I'll leave you to do it on your own.And just for kicks, take a look at this... Michael Crichton was probably one of the most educated fiction authors of our time. He was a trained scientist, I believe he also passed all courses necessary for an M.D., though he never took the med board final exam. He was a research scientist. As Crichton said after researching the "science" behind global warming, "aliens cause global warming."
From Crichton's website:My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. ...
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
That Crichton article is a good read on the subject of why people believe in global warming ... and that aliens are visiting us.
Last edited:
V
Vivek
Guest
Oxide Blu,
One major problem here is the Al Gore movie and the coining of all these definitive phrases.
When a new product comes to the market, the onus is on the manufacturer to show that it is reasonably safe.
This did not happen (and does not happen due to "lobbyists") with many. It took an enormous struggle to phase out CFCs (compelling evidence there was a stimulated model, btw).
Is asbestos safe? Did anyone show that it was safe before marketing it?
Is Lead in gas safe? Did anyone prove that it was before polluting almost all of the globe?
Is MTBE (the Lead alternate) harmful? Why was it ever introduced?
Is oil leak in the gulf of Mexico a danger? Where is the proof? May be the pressure will subside on its own and "nature" will take care of it?
One major problem here is the Al Gore movie and the coining of all these definitive phrases.
When a new product comes to the market, the onus is on the manufacturer to show that it is reasonably safe.
This did not happen (and does not happen due to "lobbyists") with many. It took an enormous struggle to phase out CFCs (compelling evidence there was a stimulated model, btw).
Is asbestos safe? Did anyone show that it was safe before marketing it?
Is Lead in gas safe? Did anyone prove that it was before polluting almost all of the globe?
Is MTBE (the Lead alternate) harmful? Why was it ever introduced?
Is oil leak in the gulf of Mexico a danger? Where is the proof? May be the pressure will subside on its own and "nature" will take care of it?
Moderator Warning
There is always seems to be a lot of emotion on both sides of this sort of debate, however, lets be careful and keep our cool especially about comments made by others. This is primarily a photography site even though this is in the "everything goes" forum. In general, politics and religion belong somewhere else.
If this does not happen, the thread will be locked and possibly deleted.
thanks
-bob
There is always seems to be a lot of emotion on both sides of this sort of debate, however, lets be careful and keep our cool especially about comments made by others. This is primarily a photography site even though this is in the "everything goes" forum. In general, politics and religion belong somewhere else.
If this does not happen, the thread will be locked and possibly deleted.
thanks
-bob
bensonga
Well-known member
Agreed. And with a topic like this, one thing leads to another. I appreciate the different views and links to information I might not have otherwise read....even when I disagree with them.
It can be hard to keep our passions in check (I know from personal experience).
On the topic of the efforts to plug the well....I thought some of you might like to see this diagram posted on the BP website of the tube inserted into the riser pipe to capture some of the leaking oil. The estimate reported on the BP website is that they are capturing about 1,000 bbls of oil a day....so it's not the perfect solution, but at least it's something.
Gary
Last edited:
some distilled points of view, seemingly in contradiction:
- the motive of industry is profit, and that in itself is not a bad thing;
- the purported motive of the gov is what, to promote and ensure the environment is protected (in this context)
- draconian gov regulations are, well, draconian
- the gov is not enforcing them, so it bears responsibility for the damages
- the industry would or would not have safety systems in place were it not for the draconia, above
-gov is too big yet gov can't properly enforce
-atmospheric carbon pollution doesn't need gov regulation other than what the industry decides on it's own
-hey, if we can't advertise and sell as many cigarettes in the US due to the skull and crossbones warning, we can always do it overseas (similar argument regarding offshore drilling and attendant hazards)
cut taxes, cut gov spending, gov is too big, let industry police itself, motivated by the bottom line
the bottom line will self correct the system
oops, better unplug the keyboard now...but not before this:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2010/03/trololololo-guy-youtube-stephen-colbert.html
- the motive of industry is profit, and that in itself is not a bad thing;
- the purported motive of the gov is what, to promote and ensure the environment is protected (in this context)
- draconian gov regulations are, well, draconian
- the gov is not enforcing them, so it bears responsibility for the damages
- the industry would or would not have safety systems in place were it not for the draconia, above
-gov is too big yet gov can't properly enforce
-atmospheric carbon pollution doesn't need gov regulation other than what the industry decides on it's own
-hey, if we can't advertise and sell as many cigarettes in the US due to the skull and crossbones warning, we can always do it overseas (similar argument regarding offshore drilling and attendant hazards)
cut taxes, cut gov spending, gov is too big, let industry police itself, motivated by the bottom line
the bottom line will self correct the system
oops, better unplug the keyboard now...but not before this:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2010/03/trololololo-guy-youtube-stephen-colbert.html
In some ways, it could be said that these 'environmental controls and regulations' actually helped contribute to the likelihood of this event. Deep water drilling is certainly much more complicated/technical/difficult/expensive/riskier than drilling closer to shore or on land.
The point of that article is that the risk (and resultant expense) needs to be on who is making the profit. It only makes sense.
In addition, if the regulations end up being bypassed because of bureaucratic red tape, there is not much point in regulating, is there? "Complying with NEPA requirements can take years to fulfill, and the process is subject to litigation. This has led to NEPA exemptions for projects that are deemed to pose little environmental risk, which BP was granted."
What we have is a partnership of sorts between government controlled waters, and enterprise. Partnerships should work together to ensure both profitability and safety. The fault is not entirely private enterprise, and not entirely government.
But I have yet to see anyone present any argument (with merit) that shows how *more* regulation would have prevented this, when the facts show that regulatory bureaucracy actually contributed...resulting in waivers and exceptions.
The point of that article is that the risk (and resultant expense) needs to be on who is making the profit. It only makes sense.
In addition, if the regulations end up being bypassed because of bureaucratic red tape, there is not much point in regulating, is there? "Complying with NEPA requirements can take years to fulfill, and the process is subject to litigation. This has led to NEPA exemptions for projects that are deemed to pose little environmental risk, which BP was granted."
What we have is a partnership of sorts between government controlled waters, and enterprise. Partnerships should work together to ensure both profitability and safety. The fault is not entirely private enterprise, and not entirely government.
But I have yet to see anyone present any argument (with merit) that shows how *more* regulation would have prevented this, when the facts show that regulatory bureaucracy actually contributed...resulting in waivers and exceptions.
bensonga
Well-known member
Thanks for the link Robert....it's an interesting read.
I'm afraid I do disagree with much of what is written there, but I've already expressed those views so no need for me to re-hash them again.
Sharing articles like this is certainly one thing we can do without getting caught up in a mud fight. Food for thought, as the saying goes.
Thanks again!
Gary
V
Vivek
Guest
There are many interesting stories. One company that exploits the oil sands (Canadian wilderness) actually claims that they put back cleaner earth than what they scoop up. Since it is inhabitable to start with, no one will ever know.
We will only start to see the devastation brought about by the gulf disaster when Florida feels the impact of it. Very sad.
(FWIW, I have spent >12 years in research directly or indirectly related to petrochemicals and there is >10 years of association with oil (not BP) through family)
We will only start to see the devastation brought about by the gulf disaster when Florida feels the impact of it. Very sad.
(FWIW, I have spent >12 years in research directly or indirectly related to petrochemicals and there is >10 years of association with oil (not BP) through family)
Last edited:
Not sure I should wade back into this somewhat political and convoluted discussion, but there are points being made all over the place that just seem a bit out of whack. First off, as I mentioned somewhere up above, I worked in the oil & gas industry for about 20 years, first as a research scientist, then an organic geochemist, then as a business intelligence director, and finally as a management consultant for exploration strategy, production planning, mergers and acquisitions, and financial planning. Lots of hats that saw many aspects of how things work. Not bragging, just setting my background a bit.
Couple of things John (jlm) mentioned in his summary that could tolerate some adjustment:
- companies are in business to make money
- the "industry" is created to help companies leverage operations, and as a result of government requests, requirements, and regulations, to create acceptable operating standards for safety and efficiency
- the government's role is to manage the resources of the land for its people, and to both recover remuneration (royalties and taxes), as well provide guidelines and regulations plus enforcement for safe operations both for workers and the environment
The rest of the "motive" part is more politics and speculation.....no offense, but "roles" and "motives" are not the same thing, but both are important when it comes to each doing their job.
As things stand, there are many useful regulations and requirements in place, and most are followed. However, most of the environmental and safety things were put into place around 1978 or so. The royalties and responsibilities stuff has been around much, much longer. They are very different, but closely intertwined things. Companies are granted permits to explore, drill and recover minerals under rather specific sets of conditions between the landowners (in this case, the US) and the operators. There is lot of contractual stuff, as you can imagine, and it keeps growing. Unfortunately, many times corners are cut or trimmed or ignored in order to expedite things (both to get wells drilled more quickly, because they cost a lot of money, as well as to get entire projects completed before lease rights expire in some cases). It is not a clean and simple process by any means, and having the revenue collection and safety management operations under one operation (MMS) is not a very good idea, as it is ripe for corruption, bribery, favoritism, and all the other bad stuff that we will be hearing more about as this gets gutted in the public.
So, going back to something that I mentioned earlier.....all parties are at some degree of fault in this mess. The companies that failed to follow safety and inspection requirements, the operator for pushing timetables for a cost/money reason, the government agencies for failing to carry out their duties properly, both with respect to revenue and royalty collections, as well as safety inspections and disaster recovery plan approvals, to say nothing of having equipment and competent personnel working to enforce and help protect the people's resources and environment.
There are ways to do a lot of this exploration and production more safely, but it will cost more time and money in some cases. The companies, in the interest of their profit requirements, are always looking to cut things as close as possible on costs, and they do. The industry works to help the companies, and lobbies the government to gain concessions in that area. The government is supposed to be collecting all the revenues, and enforcing all the rules and regulations, but has been failing to do this adequately. Much of this has had a blind eye turned toward it when the first oil price shocks underscored just how dependent the US is on imported oil, so there was a very concerted drive to find and exploit more of our own resources....the easy stuff was found long ago and used up long ago also, and politicians were hearing loud cries from folks standing in long lines for high priced gasoline. Not all that long ago, was it? Once the companies and industry looked to be the "hero" by finding more of our own oil and gas, regulations and even royalty requirements were "relaxed" to encourage more exploration and production. That was the beginning of the long and steady slide down a slippery slope.
Sorry for the perspective check, but arguing about who was or was not more responsible is a waste of time. We all are responsible. The part about who should pay for fixing this mess.....we are all going to be paying for it directly and indirectly for a long time. Future oil prices will be going up....we will pay there. Since oil is a global commodity, the prices are set that way. The only way companies can make big profits is to recover oil more efficiently (technology, location, etc.), or with fewer encumbrances (royalties, other taxes, penalties, reduced safety and hazard clean-up requirements, etc.) Drilling in 5,000 ft. of water 50 miles from shore is not cheap from a logistics and operational perspective, so where do you think corners are going to be trimmed?
LJ
Couple of things John (jlm) mentioned in his summary that could tolerate some adjustment:
- companies are in business to make money
- the "industry" is created to help companies leverage operations, and as a result of government requests, requirements, and regulations, to create acceptable operating standards for safety and efficiency
- the government's role is to manage the resources of the land for its people, and to both recover remuneration (royalties and taxes), as well provide guidelines and regulations plus enforcement for safe operations both for workers and the environment
The rest of the "motive" part is more politics and speculation.....no offense, but "roles" and "motives" are not the same thing, but both are important when it comes to each doing their job.
As things stand, there are many useful regulations and requirements in place, and most are followed. However, most of the environmental and safety things were put into place around 1978 or so. The royalties and responsibilities stuff has been around much, much longer. They are very different, but closely intertwined things. Companies are granted permits to explore, drill and recover minerals under rather specific sets of conditions between the landowners (in this case, the US) and the operators. There is lot of contractual stuff, as you can imagine, and it keeps growing. Unfortunately, many times corners are cut or trimmed or ignored in order to expedite things (both to get wells drilled more quickly, because they cost a lot of money, as well as to get entire projects completed before lease rights expire in some cases). It is not a clean and simple process by any means, and having the revenue collection and safety management operations under one operation (MMS) is not a very good idea, as it is ripe for corruption, bribery, favoritism, and all the other bad stuff that we will be hearing more about as this gets gutted in the public.
So, going back to something that I mentioned earlier.....all parties are at some degree of fault in this mess. The companies that failed to follow safety and inspection requirements, the operator for pushing timetables for a cost/money reason, the government agencies for failing to carry out their duties properly, both with respect to revenue and royalty collections, as well as safety inspections and disaster recovery plan approvals, to say nothing of having equipment and competent personnel working to enforce and help protect the people's resources and environment.
There are ways to do a lot of this exploration and production more safely, but it will cost more time and money in some cases. The companies, in the interest of their profit requirements, are always looking to cut things as close as possible on costs, and they do. The industry works to help the companies, and lobbies the government to gain concessions in that area. The government is supposed to be collecting all the revenues, and enforcing all the rules and regulations, but has been failing to do this adequately. Much of this has had a blind eye turned toward it when the first oil price shocks underscored just how dependent the US is on imported oil, so there was a very concerted drive to find and exploit more of our own resources....the easy stuff was found long ago and used up long ago also, and politicians were hearing loud cries from folks standing in long lines for high priced gasoline. Not all that long ago, was it? Once the companies and industry looked to be the "hero" by finding more of our own oil and gas, regulations and even royalty requirements were "relaxed" to encourage more exploration and production. That was the beginning of the long and steady slide down a slippery slope.
Sorry for the perspective check, but arguing about who was or was not more responsible is a waste of time. We all are responsible. The part about who should pay for fixing this mess.....we are all going to be paying for it directly and indirectly for a long time. Future oil prices will be going up....we will pay there. Since oil is a global commodity, the prices are set that way. The only way companies can make big profits is to recover oil more efficiently (technology, location, etc.), or with fewer encumbrances (royalties, other taxes, penalties, reduced safety and hazard clean-up requirements, etc.) Drilling in 5,000 ft. of water 50 miles from shore is not cheap from a logistics and operational perspective, so where do you think corners are going to be trimmed?
LJ
bensonga
Well-known member
Hi Robert,
I really don't want to re-hash at great length discussions we've already had, so I will try to keep this short and I won't get into it again after this post.
This op-ed piece is clearly written from the perspective that government regulations are burdensome, ineffective, and private industy can do just fine without them. Surprisingly to me, it claims that ultimate responsibility for this screw-up rests with the government, not BP, Transocean, et al.
"The federal government is the owner of the waters where drilling takes place and bears ultimate responsibility for what happens on its property."
Interesting way to let the private companies off the hook....while at the same time saying government regulations are burdensome and ineffective.....but it's still the government's fault.
I've had quite a few discussions with friends here at BP who are drilling engineers and environmental compliance type folks in the past couple weeks about this accident. Many of us are trying to come to grips with what could have gone so terribly wrong and what the companies and/or the government should do differently in the future to ensure, as much as humanly possible, that it never happens again. I think it's fair to say there's been alot of soul searching amongst people here at BP re safety and our company's role in this accident. Oddly enough, not one of these people have said to me....it's not our fault this rig blew up, it's the government's fault. People who actually work in this industry are willing to accept responsibility for their actions and mistakes (with the possible exception of company management)....we don't need to blame the government every time something goes wrong.
There are two basic issues re government regulations and oversight as I see it:
1) are the regulations themselves sufficient to do what is needed?
2) are the regulations actually enforced?
I think there are serious doubts that the existing regulations were adequately enforced. I'm not an expert on the regulations and so I really can't say if they should be revised or new regulations drafted to close loopholes that the companies and/or some employees or contractors, in their infinite wisdom and desire to please shareholders, upper management or for whatever reason, have chosen to exploit in the hope (on a wing and a prayer) that an accident like this one will never happen.
That's it for me Robert. We clearly have a fundamental disagreement on the role of government and I doubt that we are ever going to reach agreement on this topic. Perhaps only time will tell which, if either of us, is right.
Gary
Last edited:
I might want to add that many of the oil fields now being drilled and developed were "discovered" many years ago, but the cost to produce those resources were too high compared to the price the oil could be sold for, so they were not developed. As leases on those tracts started to expire, companies would sell lease rights to others or partner with other companies to exploit the resource production and share the costs. When oil was selling at $25-30 a barrel, it was not possible to recover those resources and turn any sort of profit, given the operational costs. Now, with oil at $70-80 a barrel or higher, it suddenly becomes much more attractive to extract that oil (and gas) as quickly as possible to maximize profit margins. That drives demand for equipment and rigs, which drives up the daily rates for leasing them, and drives operations around the clock with minimal downtime. Unfortunately, that also tends to drive down safety checks, testing and all the other "proper" things to be doing, because it takes time and that means money not made producing product. Simple and predictable business economics. If you ever worked on a rig, land or offshore, you would quickly see just how strong that mantra of "keep it turning right" or "keep making hole" is. The guys responsible for hitting so many feet per hour or day, are going to do whatever is needed to get there, for the most part, or they are out of a job. The planning and budgeting on some of these projects is so tight and demanding that it invites corner cutting in lots of places. On this rig, the corners appear to have been cut in many places: did not change the batteries and hydraulics on the BOP, did not change the annulus on the BOP when it got torn up. That in turn meant inaccurate pressure testing and the ability to shut the well in. Not letting the cement plugs cure properly before releasing the mud weight pressures. All of these things were driven by a drilling plan timetable that resulted in compromised safety that killed all those hard workers, and is now poisoning the environment. BTW, we even used to factor in those sorts of "incidents" in project planning exercises to see just how much the project economics could "tolerate" any downtime. At $80 a barrel for oil, most project plans could tolerate quite a bit of downtime from best of plan operations, but the guys in charge still want to come in as fast as they can, and move on to the next well. That is the business.
LJ
LJ
bensonga
Well-known member
Thanks for your posts LJ.....good to have someone here who has first hand knowledge of the oil business....instead of just a general and vague idea, like myself. After all, when it comes right down to it, I'm just a bean counter....although I track bbls and mcf produced etc, not beans.
Gary
Gary
Last edited:
bensonga
Well-known member
I watched the CBS 60 Minutes interview of Mike Williams tonight. My god......if his account is correct, it feels like much of what I believed about BP is a sham and a lie.
I didn't think I had any illusions about the company, but now I wonder how deep does the rot really go? How many times have I made silent excuses for BP's safety, environmental and business practices, never admitting to myself that in doing so, I've become part of the problem too? This is really hard to face up to.....I really believed things were different now. Thought the company had changed after the Texas City explosion and the Alaska pipeline spills. This is so much worse. Can't blame Amoco. Can't blame Arco. It's right there in front of me....BP. For 18 years it's been my life.
I didn't think I had any illusions about the company, but now I wonder how deep does the rot really go? How many times have I made silent excuses for BP's safety, environmental and business practices, never admitting to myself that in doing so, I've become part of the problem too? This is really hard to face up to.....I really believed things were different now. Thought the company had changed after the Texas City explosion and the Alaska pipeline spills. This is so much worse. Can't blame Amoco. Can't blame Arco. It's right there in front of me....BP. For 18 years it's been my life.
Last edited:
- Status