Thread: I guess BP stands for "Broken Promises"

Originally Posted by zib

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tired of this mess in the gulf. As a Floridian, this hits home for me. I can't believe Oil companies like BP have no contingency plans for situations like this. You mean to tell me no ever brought up, "Well, What if"? I really feel sorry for the people of Louisiana. They've really been through enough, now this?

All the technology we have today, and we can't stop an oil leak. I realize it's a mile below the sea, but something must be done. The cap is obviously not working. I've heard that this has happened in Russia and they successfully sealed the well with explosives. Why isn't this an option?
Someone tell me?

It was brought up. If memory serves, BP had to sign a contract that stated that they had the capacity and resources to clean up a spill 10X worse then this. Obviously they lied, and there was lots of wink-wink nudge-nudge going on. I personally am pretty irritated about it myself, my family and I own property in the area that will be affected, and I live on the gulf coast.

But the reactions I've seen here are moronic. Theres been a decline and de-emphasis on environmental regulation for quite some time now, all in the name of "good for business" and many people in the area when I live are indeed blaming Obama. Its enough to make you a firm believer in requiring an IQ test to vote. Their ham-handed logic trying to justify their stance is interesting, though.

I'm willing to bet that BP will be getting out of it pretty much scot free. Either they'll declare bankruptcy, or they'll be able to invoke the regulation that was signed after the Valdez crash, which limits the liability of companys in situations like this. Even if BP was liquidated, which it should be, I doubt that it'd be able to offset the economic impact they've had in the area, and clean up the environmental mess they've made. Plus, after the leak is finally plugged, people in the rest of the country will forget about it pretty quickly and move on to the next kidnapped blond girl on the news. BP is aware of this, and I'm sure it'll stall everyway it can.

I find it interesting that in all this there have been no suggestions of a boycott of BP that I've heard of. Not even a boycott till they fix the leak. I actually just did a google search on "boycott BP" and saw about what I expected--little to nothing.

Originally Posted by zib

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tired of this mess in the gulf.

I'm not tired of it yet - I haven't really done anything to help. I'm not even sure how to help or honestly what the problem is. I have heard there are many people who depend on catching stuff from the sea to sell that they can't sell now, but I haven't really researched it or heard anyone talking about any specific problems or effects. But I don't watch the news very closely either. I feel like the conclusion is always the same in big stories: everybody wants the best for their own self and when there's a giant accident, everyone moves into high gear trying to save their own skins by hook or by crook. It's on a large scale and I have no realistic hope of really understanding why things happen the way they do.

So I'm not really tired of this mess in the gulf, but I am tired of the same let's see who we can blame mentality, although all I feel I would be willing to offer if I knew more details is another perspective on who to blame and why

Originally Posted by zib

As a Floridian, this hits home for me. I can't believe Oil companies like BP have no contingency plans for situations like this. You mean to tell me no ever brought up, "Well, What if"? I really feel sorry for the people of Louisiana. They've really been through enough, now this?

I thought what happened was an accident. So even though I agree with your sympathy for the people of Louisiana, I don't see how any past tragedies give them any natural exemption from accidental catastrophes, manmade or natural.

Originally Posted by zib

All the technology we have today, and we can't stop an oil leak.

Well then I guess a contingency plan wouldn't have done any good anyway. And if we can't stop the leak, why are we still trying? seems like a waste of resources

Originally Posted by zib

I realize it's a mile below the sea, but something must be done.

Didn't they do a cap and some other stuff?

Originally Posted by zib

The cap is obviously not working.

Ok so they did do some stuff, but it didn't work. Because we can't stop an oil leak.

Originally Posted by zib

I've heard that this has happened in Russia and they successfully sealed the well with explosives. Why isn't this an option?
Someone tell me?

I have no idea

I'll admit this thread's title really disappointed me though. I clicked on this thinking I'd read about a promise BP made and then broke. But nothing in the first post or the rest of the thread (including this post) refer to any promises BP made and then broke. Except for the post right before mine:

Originally Posted by Pete_S

It was brought up. If memory serves, BP had to sign a contract that stated that they had the capacity and resources to clean up a spill 10X worse then this. Obviously they lied, and there was lots of wink-wink nudge-nudge going on.

This isn't obvious to me at all. The leak hasn't even been stopped yet so how can we know it is obvious they don't have the capacity or resources to clean it up afterward? If they stop the leak (which zib says can't be done) and they then demonstrate neither capacity nor resources to clean up the mess, then they have broken that particular promise. I was also led to believe I could hope for a change in federal responses to environmental disasters, but it seems like whatever the fed does only makes things worse. At least that's how it seems to me

So anyway, I was promised a thread focused on broken promises, and all I got was more whining and political babble. Which I couldn't help but add to

By the way I think I agree with kevint's perspective on this on a grand scale. I wouldn't say my demand for oil caused the accident, but it would be unreasonable for me to expect that I should be able to get it without unforeseen cost or risk. I don't get to choose the scale of possible accidents and even if I purchase the efforts of someone else to make it all go away, there's no guarantee they will succeed

Originally Posted by JMS

Anyone who blames Obama for the spill is an idiot. That said President Barack Obama sure has shown the world his inability or unwillingness to be a leader on this.

Well, what should he have done differently?
BP would give anything for Obama to yell at them to step aside and let someone else fix it. It would absolve them of all responsibility for every day the spill continues. Furthermore, BPs engineers and scientists are the most qualified to solve the problem. They warned BP management often enough.

I heard it happened like this...

Seriously though, I dont think they're letting it run on this long on purpose. Its going to be a difficult exercise to fix the leak, and whatever happens BP knows they're going to get hammered for all of this.

Their share price has already tanked a fair amount. They've rallied slightly so far today, but if you look at the one month charts, they've slumped a load. So even if they get this thing fixed asap, their shareholders arent going to be happy..!

The Russians used a tactical nuke. It turns the surface area into glass and seals it off. The problem is, a nuke runs the chance of ruining the oil pool. I was trained on Polaris missiles, and was told that that was the reason we would never use nukes in the Middle East.

Originally Posted by HarleyFXST

The Russians used a tactical nuke. It turns the surface area into glass and seals it off. The problem is, a nuke runs the chance of ruining the oil pool. I was trained on Polaris missiles, and was told that that was the reason we would never use nukes in the Middle East.

You have to be dead certain about the Geology of the area. A blast like that could wind up causing far more problems than we have now.

On another forum I actually had this conversation with someone who knows what he is talking about on the topic of nukes. This situation is not comparable at all to the Russian well closures, also the extreme depth is beyond crush depth even for nukes, and even if you get it in place, it would require drilling another well alongside the first to have a good chance of success.

And even then, if the calculations or geological model are wrong, you end up with a big gaping hole and no chance in hell to ever close it again. No doubt scientists are working on this scenario 'just in case' but make no mistake under these circumstances it would really be a 'hail Mary' pass and the consequences of failure are a truly global disaster.

To quote the New Scientist Magazine "all technology fails eventually"
It always seems to suprise us when it does.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that drilling for oil at that depth brings huge risks, not all of which can be avoided.
Everbody is happy to consume the oil, in the US, it's sold very cheaply compared to the UK and Europe.
Politicians are quick to find people to blame, but most politicians don't have enough practical ability to change the oil in their car, let alone get the stuff from wells in deep water.
Hindsight is a very exact science.

The key speaker at the graduation ceremony of my girlfriends nephew
said something interesting. He was talking about truth and journalism and remarked
to the graduating class that they should be very cautious about people
that get paid to make you mad.

That made me rethink the news coverage of the oil well blow out on the gulf.
I have come to the conclusion that too many news outlets are in the
business of making the listeners mad and not in the communication
and news business. I think this next week will be spent sending letters
to sponsors telling them that I want news not just a reason for eating Prilosec.

The more I see the more I appreciate the sequence of engineering
choices being made to get the well under control. I am increasingly
underwhelmed by the political choices and rhetoric.