TOORISM the gulf and the oil spill

[jamaica_dreamin]

Re: TOORISM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nanook</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let us not forget Haliburton while we're at it.

BP has another new name too!

</div></div>

Sad but true!

[Wahalla]

Re: TOORISM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Marilyn</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sistacaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> They should simply pay every single claim without accessing it?????....</div></div>

nope not at all what i said. i did not say 'every single claim'.

what i DID say is that BP will weasel out of as much as they can - and that many claims which <span style="font-style: italic">should </span> rightfully be paid, will not be, due to subjective red tape

- and that many ppl who DO actually deserve to be compensated, will instead be SOL.

i <span style="font-weight: bold">am indeed</span>, however, of the opinion that some of the business-as-usual rules &amp; regs should be relaxed, so that these ppl who have been put out of business will have some recourse to pay their bills and feed their families NOW - not waiting til after months of fact-checking have passed, and they then also begin to lose their homes as a direct result of what BP has done.

BP has publicly stated they have nuff money to do everything including spending millions on PR - so they can well afford to err on the side of good faith, by paying out some immediate damage coverage which may not be possible to &quot;fully&quot; document right now; perhaps on the order of some flat-rate amount for immediate emergency releif for these business-owners. They caused this horror, they can well-afford to possibly lose a few dollars to err on the side of good faith in compensating the people that have been ruined by their callous greedy cavalier disregard for human lives &amp; basic safety.

it makes me f'in SICK to keep hearing this thing spoken of as 'an accident', as if it was some tragic unforeseen freak occurrence. based upon what the workers say, the ones who were there, and saw and heard with their own eyes &amp; ears, in person, what occurred - it was NO accident. it was a completely preventable occurence that would never have happened, had basic safety measures been adhered to, with regarding to holding down the pressure in the well. </div></div>You are correct, and Nightly news just got through showing the emais to prove that it was no ACCIDENT </div></div>

It was an accident. There were three multiple failures.... singly they would have been inconsequencial they happened in parrell... The rules were adhered to... There were discussions on the rig about what to do prior and these are normal exchanges.. There were differences of opnion and the job owner took descions, that is normal. The . There is a fog of war surrounding this accident and every one is trying to escape the blame. BP apart from pointing out the obvious took ownership. Un til there is an enquirey and all the information is assessed to identify the root causes there will be epople showing emails that individually show issues. No operation can be trouble free there are alot of things on a rig that go sub optimal constantly and these are addressed as they arise.. pulling an email out of context is disengenious.. This well had lossess.. 7 out of ten wells has losses, they were dealt with.. there was a well control issue.. it was dealt with....they were close to the drilling margin.. they were using high density fluid.. these are not unheard and well with in competency.. Tjhey had cased and cemented as per the regulations.. They were suspending the well...

As I keep pointing out BP followed the rules the legistlation... the MMS agreed with the plan that they submitted and they adhered to it....

As for red tape.. BP cannot under the laws they operate simply had over money without first being to demonstrated that the money is going where it suppose to be going....That is british law, that is US corporate law. As funny as this seems they cannot hand out money on good faith other wise they may be subjected to both tax and corporate malfisance. Good faith is not a defense when an individual screws up on their taxes.. This case the auditors will be watching each dispersment as a hawk and BP will have to show that there was a reason.

Try getting money on an invoice without the proper paper work and contract in place. BP will pay but it wont happen instantly...they are subject to rules..

[sistacaf]

Re: TOORISM

oh please. EVERYONE KNOWS THE REASON. its obvious to the whole world. an individual screwing up their taxes is not negligence; it concerns no one aside from the individual. It does not cause injury or death to other humans -- it is not a valid comparison. This is over and above all of that, people are dead, which could have been avoided. and now other lives are actively being destroyed - <span style="font-style: italic">which can now still be avoided.</span> At such an emergency time, human lives take precedence over bean-counting and corporate wonk policy. it would be easy to designate an affected geographical area, within which area, people can easily produce simple proof of their home &amp; business ownership, so they can be compensated without anyone questioning the validity of where it is going and why.

rules were not adhered to. multiple failures or not, there is only ONE failure that is pertinent -- which is, that the job owner overrode the contractor's concern for safety just to save some money. Seawater is not high-density fluid, and we can now clearly see that it was not viscous enough to contain the pressure. the job owner's direct decision to disregard and overide the basic safety measure of filling the well with the proper substance, directly caused the pressure to build up and explode.

futhermore, it was not dealt with, nor has it YET been dealt with.

citing BP's own internal e-mails pertaining directly to this specific action are not 'out of context', they are directly pertinent to what ocurred. nor are they disingenuous; rather they are proof that they KNEW it was not safe and did it anyway. then wrote to each other: &quot;Who cares?&quot;.

BP is not even paying the fisherman current wages; they have supposedly been hired by BP to help with the cleanup, yet BP is not paying them.

so please forgive me, but there is no argument that can be made that will convince me that BP was operating in a safe manner, and this was just a freak accident ocurrence. nope. i don't buy it and never will.

[Marilyn]

Re: TOORISM

The government has identified major forms of negligence and shortcuts by bp with warnings that led to this disaster. I would term it at best an accident waiting to happen.

[Wahalla]

Re: TOORISM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sistacaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">oh please. EVERYONE KNOWS THE REASON. its obvious to the whole world. an individual screwing up their taxes is not negligence; it concerns no one aside from the individual. It does not cause injury or death to other humans -- it is not a valid comparison. This is over and above all of that, people are dead, which could have been avoided. and now other lives are actively being destroyed - <span style="font-style: italic">which can now still be avoided.</span> At such an emergency time, human lives take precedence over bean-counting and corporate wonk policy. it would be easy to designate an affected geographical area, within which area, people can easily produce simple proof of their home &amp; business ownership, so they can be compensated without anyone questioning the validity of where it is going and why.

rules were not adhered to. multiple failures or not, there is only ONE failure that is pertinent -- which is, that the job owner overrode the contractor's concern for safety just to save some money. Seawater is not high-density fluid, and we can now clearly see that it was not viscous enough to contain the pressure.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Viscosity has minimal effect to do with pressure. Density is the giver of pressure. The step in question is carried out routinely as part of an abandonment/ suspension process.... Literally thousands of wells are dispaklced from higher density mud to sea water post cement job and the hole abandoned with sea water. The difference in this case the well was not secured by cement. They had pressured tested the cement job and they deemed it secure. A CBL log would have given contridictory information however as no one points out CBL logs are not effective when low density cement is used, in this case foam cement a light cement. The pressure test would have taken presidence. </span>

the job owner's direct decision to disregard and overide the basic safety measure of filling the well with the proper substance, directly caused the pressure to build up and explode.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Then the vessel owner is negligent as he allowed his vessel into danger. The function of the captain is to keep souls safe... I lost count of the time ship owners tell methye are not going to risk theri vessels when I hire them to do stuff. Keeping the rig safe is the primary function of the OIM. The contract between Transocean and BP would have made this clear.. If the OIM knew that this was unsafe tell them to get ££££££. <span style="font-weight: bold">I have no doubt that the OIM on the Transocean rig if he was aware of pressure in the well would have shut down the job.</span> Norwegian OIMs, UK OIMs, do this. It is not unheard of in the USA. . If there was pressure in the well and he let them displace then he was negligent.

Could the pressure been induced because the mud was being changed out ? that is the most likely scanrio. The well is stable with the 14 ppg mud, partially displacing to sea water the lower pressure would have allow the gas into the well. But no one would have been aware of it till it was too late </span>

futhermore, it was not dealt with, nor has it YET been dealt with.

citing BP's own internal e-mails pertaining directly to this specific action are not 'out of context', they are directly pertinent to what ocurred. nor are they disingenuous; rather they are proof that they KNEW it was not safe and did it anyway. then wrote to each other: &quot;Who cares?&quot;.

BP is not even paying the fisherman current wages; they have supposedly been hired by BP to help with the cleanup, yet BP is not paying them.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Do you think BP are not going to pay the fishermen ?

What are their terms of employment ?or are they sub contracted teh ORSL the company who is in charge of the clean up and remidiation ? (yes ORSL is funnded by bp and anotehr 12 big oil companies) are they contractors which normally has a 30 - 60 day post invoice approval payment...This is the internal systems that are put in place to keep prevent fraud... </span>

so please forgive me, but there is no argument that can be made that will convince me that BP was operating in a safe manner, and this was just a freak accident ocurrence. nope. i don't buy it and never will.

</div></div>

obvious does not make it true. Accidents are never freaks. The fact of the matter. BP made bad singular descions..It is the typical pyramid of probability effect. singularly they were explainable... An umber of questions are be raised by congress to BP.

The questions that they raise in congress about the centralisers misses an issue. Running centralisers could have compromised the well / rig safety as it would have increased surge pressure, increased the chances to the getting the casing stuck, getting the casing stuck would have made this well more likely to kick as to de stuck a casing you lower the density of the fluid as they were right on the drilling margin edge this well. &quot; if you look at the quote.. &quot;I would rateher squuezze than being stuck&quot; Being stuck is more likely to losse the well and more likely to kick.. Squuezing cement is pumping extra cement down the string as a remdeial process...

Cement choice has not been questioned they used a foam cement as they were concerned about inducing losses and gas migrations .An alternative was Tuned cement, foam was the cement of choice because it has better gas migration properties.

there was a question of liner vs casing. BP ran a casing string. Liners are riskier to set take longer, setting liners in deep water are never routine . Casing with a cement sheath at least 100 m above the pay-zone is the question better option this covers the source of gas and secures it..

The time factor is not only money concern.. They have a well with high pressure the drive is to secure the well as quickly as possible. The quciker option is to run casing... this gives the option to have cement up higher than the top of the liner would allow.. IMHO was the safer call as it is the quciker option. I question the tapered string... It is quicker to run slimmer casing and more effcient.. so why change out the elevators ???? Was there losses during the cement job ???? How high was the cement sheath ????

And yes teh emails are quoted not the entire email which if these guys would have put it in context of what was being said. The emails show multiple opnions within BP multiple scnarios.. and they chose them each individually were not fatal all combined and it went wrong.

Note finally BP submitted their change of plans to the MMS.. It was signed off within four hours of receipt.. So this means that the US goverment agency saw nothing wrong with the process es.

[Wahalla]

Re: TOORISM

there are those experts who seem to think it is an idea to question BP procedures with a air of moral superiotity.. All [censored] stinks .. All procedures are subject to questions...But leaves a bad taste.. He who has no sins cast the first stone... If any of them with years in the drilling industry ever in their career not taken sub optimal descions then they were wonderful.

Note the companies are keeping their heads down..None of them mention their own participation in the Gulf of Guinea, or their record enviromentally in Russia. There are no saints here, no champions of zero enviromental impact.. We are all guilty of the use of oil and its myriad products..

Every single descion taken to the point of displacement made sense and can be explained..

The displacement was the point it all went wrong.. personally I cant wait to hear how the hell the mud loggers did not spot the differences in volumes that htey should have been mointoring.. or why the hell they were backloading mud in the middle of a displacement.. <span style="color: #FF0000">It can be done</span> but sure as [censored] there would have been alarms going off on the rig floor and in the logging shack as the volume was . (you pump down hole from one pit with sea water , you take returns into another pit, the volume would have been constant, presence of gas would have cauese an increase in volume.. at this point you shut the well and flow check via the choke and kill lines .. the problem here is that the difference densities would have caused the fluid to U tube and no one can be certain of stablity.. the gas bubble which would have been in the well as it migrated up once passed the BOp would be expanding exponetial.. Volume is inversely proportional to pressure)

.. Two of the guys that died were mud engineers they would have been overseeing the logistics of the mud and the dipslacement, normally one is on duty so this shows that something either was wrong or they had the extra man up specificly to over see the simultaneous operations <span style="color: #FF0000">And I cant wait to hear if they did a pre-job meeting, where they went over the job the hazards, the mitigations... </span>... or did every one assume through moral hazard that a cement job was solid the well was safe????

And why the hell the BOP did not work ?????

they will focus on the comment in an email that the well was a nightmare... Again context... I wager that there are on every single oil well drilled on the planet there exists an email with that comment made during the operations...as something goes wrong.. as well as teh comment we have never seen that before... So forgive me for saying context is important....
I do question the verasity of the cement pressure tests. I question the functionality of the BOP. Until the displacement the was stable pressure controled, though there was something not right. The mere act of displacing hte well opened it up to an issue <span style="color: #FF0000">I dont question the OIM integrity</span>.. I dont agree with some of the things that BP did... (Granted I am not an american drilling engineer, rig superindent, though I hung out over the years with a lot of oil types guys and have had to understand their processes, skills and arcane languges..)..

I have questioned that if B_P did anything wrong then there is a hell of a lot of oil companies doing stuff wrong.. Was the equipment fit for purpose ???? then they should not be drilling in Brazil where routine wells are drilled pre-salt in deep water.. Next year Cuba must not drill...

Last week Norway it seems has suspended all deep water drilling...

what worries me is the knee jerk reaction.. get rid of oil and hC in the US... may be a long term good thing.. cheaper oil means lower net out flows from sub sahara africa.. but in the short term higher price of oil..

Yestrday there was a worrying item seeming l. Saudi dropped their production last year by a million bbls a day. Means nothing ????... If the GOM deep water plays are not explored then there will be a knock on efffect that will drive the price up in the short term ...

get rid of dino juice ???? good. .give up cars then... L:ets go back to nuclear... There is the shadow of three mile island, Doonray, chenobly... its is forgotten


Dont get me wrong. Bad descions were made.

Context ... It took two years for the Cullen report to come out.. that was twenty years ago.. The Cullen report was into the Piper alpha disaster.. It makes somber reading... but even the quick Congress interveiw will scratch the surface.. so till there is a close <span style="font-weight: bold">detailed </span> cold hard looks at the facts then all is speculation.

[j-kid]

Re: TOORISM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nanook</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let us not forget Haliburton while we're at it.

BP has another new name too!

</div></div>


<span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-size: 26pt">&quot;Big Polluter&quot;</span></span>

[Marilyn]

Re: TOORISM

That's a good one

[ILP]

Re: TOORISM

smaddy send mi dis one...

[Marilyn]

Re: TOORISM

Wow <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ILP_ULOOK_GR8</div><div class="ubbcode-body">smaddy send mi dis one...

</div></div>