Life on an Oil Platform in the Gulf of Mexico

[Trumpetmaster]

The birds did not do this ..... we did...
What did this poor guy do to deserve this?

Should we all turn our heads the other way and forget the fact we are not the only species on this planet?
If we will destroy our resources we will make humans extinct on this planet and a new species will take over and rule this planet......

[Trumpetmaster]

Here are casualties from previous oil spills....

[jamiebk]

Jamie,


If certain people did not throw a fit at seeing platforms from the beach this leak would have been plugged long ago in shallower water. Environmental whackos along with the EPA have forced oil companies to look for oil at the extreme edge of today's technology.

If we'd been able to recover oil closer in shore then we'd have had decades of experience and technological advances that would have better prepared us to drill deeper more safely. There are several fields of oil many times the size of this one in the GOM but (ick) you might have to see the sparkly lights of platforms during the nights.

Now that's about the most warped thinking you have yet displayed on this board Haggis....Blame the oil spill on the "Environmental whackos". You really need some help with your logic.

[Haggis@wk]

Jamie,


Now that's about the most warped thinking you have yet displayed on this board Haggis....Blame the oil spill on the "Environmental whackos". You really need some help with your logic.

You're the one who said you didn't want to see oil platforms off your coast yet you still drive a car. That's called "NIMBYism"; another word for hypocrite.

[Schmeelkie]

I'm in the middle here guys - I see Haggis' point that if not forced farther from shore, this would be easier to clean up. The same problem I have with the idiots who don't want windfarms as it will 'destroy the view'. If you're going to be serious about alternative energy, you can't complain that it doesn't look nice. Sheesh! (also - not enough life boats on the Titanic, because, 'it would have looked too cluttered') But then, it pisses me off that there weren't more backups/safety measures/plans for this kind of thing when you do decide you have to do it 'on the edge of technology'. You need to be EXTRA careful at this point when you know an error can cause such a disaster. BP cut corners to drill NOW, instead of taking the time to do it right the first time. I get the feeling most companies would rather open/start a venture ON TIME, than take extra time to deal with problems. Some will say, thus we need more government regulation. I just wonder why the people who approve short-cuts don't have a conscience.

[piqaboo]

I dont think folks disallow platforms for the 'sparkly lights'. We had a visible oceanographic research platform off Mission Beach for many years. Didnt look much different from an oil platform. No one minded it.

And I dont think drilling closer in will make folks stop drilling further out either. They go in circles around each well, looking for the hole that spews the fastest. That takes them out into deep water no matter where they start. In Santa Barbara, you can purt near wade to the oil wells.

I suspect a solid financial analysis of the costs to the oil and platform companies will result in technology investment, and a retraining on SOPs, since this one accident has sorta blown the budget for the year.

[Haggis@wk]

I dont think folks disallow platforms for the 'sparkly lights'. We had a visible oceanographic research platform off Mission Beach for many years. Didnt look much different from an oil platform. No one minded it.

And I dont think drilling closer in will make folks stop drilling further out either. They go in circles around each well, looking for the hole that spews the fastest. That takes them out into deep water no matter where they start. In Santa Barbara, you can purt near wade to the oil wells.

I suspect a solid financial analysis of the costs to the oil and platform companies will result in technology investment, and a retraining on SOPs, since this one accident has sorta blown the budget for the year.

Piq, 85% of our offshore oil reserves are off limits and have been for more than 30 years. Onshore almost all of proven reserves are off limits.

We've only just started to look for oil in the past 8 years. You probably forgot that when Obama came into office he put a moratorium on even LOOKING for oil reserves because the Dems were afraid someone might find so much that it would be impossible to resist drilling. So right now, you can't look for oil in the CONUS and Alaska.

Exploration rigs, like Deepwater Horizon, are contractors and the upcoming “six-month" ban will last at least 3-4 years. Those rigs will go elsewhere to find work, mostly in the lower GOM working for the Chinese and the Cubans. Remember that BP is not an American company. If the legislative environment gets too harsh, they'll just leave and go look somewhere else. Of course we'll still be buying from them since there's not one major U.S. oil company.

I've asked this question many times and never seem to get an answer. How much would a gal. of gas cost before you (the collective "you" not just ..you) before you'd be willing to increase oil production (which would overnight end this ongoing recession)? The "six month" ban is predicted cut supplies of [url=http://in.reuters.com/article/idINN0826193720100608]crude oil by 26 MIL BBLs by next Summer[url] What'll that do to our gas prices?

[Giant Communist Robot]

I don't know what to think about this BP thing. People died, so there should be some investigation for criminal negligance. It seems unlikely that BP would cut corners to reduce costs. Did they intentionally subcontract to companies unable to do the job properly just to save some bucks? Investigate!

Here's my guess: accidents happen, and this was one. This isn't a reason to end offshore drilling, but there are some lessons to be learned.

[Shapley]

Here's my guess: accidents happen, and this was one. This isn't a reason to end offshore drilling, but there are some lessons to be learned.

The early indications are that corners were cut, largely to keep things on schedule. But, as you note, the investigation is not yet complete, and all we have is hearsay at this point.

However, there are watchdogs in place to ensure that those corners are not cut and that, if they are, they do not endanger us. Ultimately, the responsibility for the drilling lies with the driller - Transocean - and not with BP. BP was writing the checques, but they were not the ones doing the drilling. They can squak and swear all they want, but it is the responsibility of Transocean to ensure that the drilling they are doing is done safely and properly. The government watchdogs, at the same time, are responsible to ensure that they same is true, and to shut things down if they are not.

The efforts to tar BP is just more of the 'blame big oil' mentality that permeates our newsrooms and our society at large. BP is big, BP is profitable, lets all dump on BP. They are just one of the players in this game.

[Giant Communist Robot]

The early indications are that corners were cut, largely to keep things on schedule.

If the investigation shows that the accident was a consequence, then those who made the decisions should be prosecuted for manslaughter. There can't be much of a reason to cut costs if it puts peoples' lives in danger.

[Giant Communist Robot]

The efforts to tar BP

Another Shapleyesque pun

[jamiebk]

The efforts to tar BP is just more of the 'blame big oil' mentality that permeates our newsrooms and our society at large. BP is big, BP is profitable, lets all dump on BP. They are just one of the players in this game.

General contractors are responsible for the actions of their Subcontractors....so is BP. They may have some recourse against Transocean, but this is quite clearly BP's mess and responsibility.

[lliam]

The efforts to tar BP is just more of the 'blame big oil' mentality that permeates our newsrooms and our society at large. BP is big, BP is profitable, lets all dump on BP. They are just one of the players in this game.

General contractors are responsible for the actions of their Subcontractors....so is BP. They may have some recourse against Transocean, but this is quite clearly BP's mess and responsibility.

====================================================================

BP was obliged to use American sub contractors specified by the U.S. administration. BP was not allowed to use the best people for the job - they had to employ Americans. It is their experts who have caused this catastrophe. The political blame game will bite Obama in the butt eventually. BP will have to go to an international court to establish the proportion of blame that it is liable for and the U.S will have to pay for the rest. America is still a 'might is right' country.
Will the American people get to read John Napier’s open letter to the President. I liked this paragraph.
"If you compare the damage inflicted on the economies of the western world by polluted securities from the irresponsible, unchecked greed and avarice of leading USA international banks, there has not been the same personalised response in or from countries beyond the US."
Maybe they should remind Obama about the Piper Alpha disaster in the North Sea.
I67 men killed and billions of £s of damage caused by the negligence of an American oil firm.
President Obama is all talk no do, he is fine with the rhetoric and, he should be reminded of the catastrophes that the USA has caused around the world in the past few years.
As he is personally causing the BP share price to fall dramatically I think the British Government should have a quiet word with him and tell him to shut up.
The only thing is, as I said previously BP is no longer a British owned company, and I believe several others are involved from the States especially.
The 'special' relationship is something that has dulled in the past few years and Mr O is not helping matters.

[jamiebk]

The efforts to tar BP is just more of the 'blame big oil' mentality that permeates our newsrooms and our society at large. BP is big, BP is profitable, lets all dump on BP. They are just one of the players in this game.

General contractors are responsible for the actions of their Subcontractors....so is BP. They may have some recourse against Transocean, but this is quite clearly BP's mess and responsibility.

====================================================================

BP was obliged to use American sub contractors specified by the U.S. administration. BP was not allowed to use the best people for the job - they had to employ Americans. It is their experts who have caused this catastrophe.

Personally, as an American I find this rather insulting Lliam
Obama did not cause the spill nor did his administration. It is BP's mess, regardless of their subcontractor...read a little law.

[lliam]

I'm sorry you feel insulted Jamie, I'm afraid I'm not Politically correct I've always said it as it is you see I believe in free speech.
I get fed up with hearing that the US is the most powerful country in the world but with the BP business they are "all talk and no do". Isn't there anything they could have helped with instead of catcall?

With Obamas rhetoric about BP causing ill feeling both sides of the Atlantic will the "special" in the relationship last ?

is our Special Relationship with America coming to an end? I do hope so!

Basically, when the US says jump we reply 'How high?’ If we ask them for a favour they tell us to get lost. That's how it works. Its sole purpose is for successive governments to hang on to the yanks' coat tails and make like we are still big players on the world stage, which has not been the case since 1945.

Ask any American what they think of the Special Relationship. It will almost certainly be the first time they have heard of it.
And what about the Bhopal disaster. Obama keeps referring to British Petroleum a name it has not used for 10 years. I believe he is having a go at BP (largely owned by American shareholders) to cover up his own shortcomings. I do not think there has been a special relationship for years if indeed it ever existed

[Shapley]

I've always heard of the 'special relationship', but I'm not entirely sure what it means. Granted, our governments have usually stood on the same side of international issues. I believe a 'special relationship' existed during the terms of President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher, because of their ideological similarities and united front against a common foe (Soviet communism). I think President Clinton and Prime Minister Blair shared a similar relationship, although President Clinton's policy shifts may have weakened it a bit.

President Bush (the younger) enjoyed the residuals of that in pressing his position in the war on terrorism. The results of that war, and Britain's willingness to follow the U.S. into it, has apparently strained that relationship, at least among the populace if not within the halls of governance.

Mr. Obama appears to harbour a resentment of Britain, possibly a result of his connection with his 'home country' of the former British territory of Kenya. There is no question that his rather public removal of the vestige of Churchill from the White House didn't do anything to foster a 'special relationshiop'. His later statements seem to indicate a deep-rooted resentment for things British, IMHO.

(P.S. - It's good to see you back on the board.)

[lliam]

Well Shap.

We might have had a special relationship at one time, but after WW2 when the USA decided that it wanted to see the end of the British Empire, i.e.: Suez Crisis, in which we were well supported by them, NOT. Since then the only time the phrase special relationship comes up is when some failed British Politician want to look good on the international front.
The only exception to this was as you say the true special relation between two people, that was Ronald Regan and Margaret Thatcher, that period is the only time that the "Special Relationship" existed in any form whatsoever, and that was purely because of the two people in question.

We don’t need the USA, who have given us the current financial crisis, aided and abetted by our own complete financial moron, Grown Brown. Also we don't need the EU/USSR, with all the daft regulations they seem to think up at the drop of a hat.

No we had a real special relationship before the Traitor Heath signed away our sovereignty to the EU, and that was with the British Commonwealth, we should have stayed with that and not been sold down the river by various liars in various Governments, since the time of the Traitor Heath.

NO we don’t have a special relationship with the USA, it is total wishful thinking by those who want us to feel we still have a place at the top table. We do, we are a permanent member of the Security Council of the UN. For what that is worth, we need to rebuild our bridges with the Commonwealth, where we are part of an organisation that is way bigger than both the USA & EU/USSR combined.

I am a British Citizen, not a EU one.

[O the irony. "Bringing oil to the shores of America" is apparently BP`s slogan.]

[Shapley]

I can't say I disagree.

Britain, for its part, at least stayed away from the Euro. That, at least, gives Britain some autonomy on the economic front. The EU, unfortunately, has tied its fortunes to its weakest link, and there seems to be a number of member states vying for that title, though Greece is still favoured in that race.

"Bringing oil to America's shores..." that's interesting. Isn't it supposed to arrive in some sort of package, though...

[lliam]

Maybe in a bottle or a can Shap
Thanks for your ps Shap.

[jamiebk]

BP plc is the largest corporation in the UK is it not? I don't really care what anyone calls it.