Adam Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 Guess who Nancy blames for the spill? Dick Jauron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 Yeah...tell ya what, let's not talk about that magic $500k device, since it's a red herring, and a stupid one at that. Agree that the penalty should be increased, though...$75M may have been a lot when the regulation was written, now it's a rounding error. But keep in mind...every dollar that goes into that penalty is a dollar corporations don't have available for remediation. I feel the same way about that that I do about malpractice damages...punitive damages should be capped at a reasonable level, but the amount spent on actual damages should be open-ended (which I believe it already is - BP isn't liable for $75M of remediation costs, as far as I know. They're liable for the whole thing.) I am curious as to why you think that is a red herring. From what I have read, it would have made activating the BOP easier. If you are saying that the BOP wasn't ever going to activate, that hardly helps BP's case. Link For a mere half million dollars more, one could add a control that uses sound pulses transmitted through the water to control a valve. This mechanism is not required by the US government for blow out preventers in the Gulf of Mexico, but is required by other countries. A modern blow out preventer for an undersea well consists of a series or "stack" of several different valves, with different methods of actuation, and a control system. Stacks can have 4 to 10 or more valves of different types (ram or annular), with different control mechanisms. The idea is to provide redundancy: if one valve or control mechanism fails, another should be able to take over to close the well. They lost the ability to use the BOP when the rig went down. They ended up resorting to using robots to try and activate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 I am curious as to why you think that is a red herring. From what I have read, it would have made activating the BOP easier. If you are saying that the BOP wasn't ever going to activate, that hardly helps BP's case. They lost the ability to use the BOP when the rig went down. They ended up resorting to using robots to try and activate it. It was reported several weeks ago that the blowout preventer was damaged by the methane eruption and was non-functional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 It was reported several weeks ago that the blowout preventer was damaged by the methane eruption and was non-functional. Can you point me to a link, I am sure you are right, but not picking anything up on a google search. Reading tons on methane explosions though and ****, mass extinction 55 million years ago? WTF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 Can you point me to a link, I am sure you are right, but not picking anything up on a google search. Reading tons on methane explosions though and ****, mass extinction 55 million years ago? WTF Not readily. I read it two weeks ago, and it's not like I bookmarked it. It was in some longish story on the initial accident...it's probably linked somewhere in the other oil spill thread here, come to think of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 Not readily. I read it two weeks ago, and it's not like I bookmarked it. It was in some longish story on the initial accident...it's probably linked somewhere in the other oil spill thread here, come to think of it. Well, no offense, but I ain't buying it. Experts (oh the irony) are saying it could have helped. I will buy that it was broken and it wouldn't help to use the actuator, but I want proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Well, no offense, but I ain't buying it. Experts (oh the irony) are saying it could have helped. I will buy that it was broken and it wouldn't help to use the actuator, but I want proof. I was told by someone who used to work in the oil industry that the blowout preventer wouldn't have stopped this from happening. I didn't understand his explanation and it was so technical and over my head, I don't even remember what he said. BP should be accountable for the cost of stopping the leak, cleaning the mess and supporting everyone that is financially damaged for as long as they need it. Beyond that, I don't care about punitive damages or if they go under. We need to end our oil dependency and be punitive towards those in our country that are dependant. It won't be easy, but it has to happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 So is the CEO of BP going to be sent to Guantanamo for this Man Caused DisasterTM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 So is the CEO of BP going to be sent to Guantanamo for this Man Caused DisasterTM? No, in fact the worst that will happen to him is he will lose his job. He will retire a millionaire. Does that make you happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 I was told by someone who used to work in the oil industry that the blowout preventer wouldn't have stopped this from happening. I didn't understand his explanation and it was so technical and over my head, I don't even remember what he said. BP should be accountable for the cost of stopping the leak, cleaning the mess and supporting everyone that is financially damaged for as long as they need it. Beyond that, I don't care about punitive damages or if they go under. We need to end our oil dependency and be punitive towards those in our country that are dependant. It won't be easy, but it has to happen ! Who would that NOT be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 ! Who would that NOT be? exactly my point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 I have a lot of friends in the region. The stuff they are telling me just makes me sick. Personally, I would like BP out of our country, but that probably isn't feasible in the real world. Just want to say, as a resident of the region, I could certainly tell you things that would make you sick...... Its terrible, I want to keep up with the news and know whats going on.... but the degree of false information, or at the very least vague information on both sides is killer for someone so close to it. One day you here "success! its contained/stopped/plugged!" Sadly it seems like 2-3 days later you hear "never mind, that didnt work, and btw, its kind of spilling somewhere between 3 and 73 times as much as we originally thought.... our bad guys" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 Just want to say, as a resident of the region, I could certainly tell you things that would make you sick...... Its terrible, I want to keep up with the news and know whats going on.... but the degree of false information, or at the very least vague information on both sides is killer for someone so close to it. One day you here "success! its contained/stopped/plugged!" Sadly it seems like 2-3 days later you hear "never mind, that didnt work, and btw, its kind of spilling somewhere between 3 and 73 times as much as we originally thought.... our bad guys" Personally I would have used Neodymium magnets to reduce the inter circumference of the pipe and the oil flow until clay and cement filling was viable - but you have to wonder if they really want to plug the pipe, there have been reports that the pipe is ruptured much further down and any plugging would simple result in the oil working it's way through the permeable layers of earth to come out in multiple places - that would be even worse plus BP would have no chance of siphoning of 10,000+ barrels a day at $70+ a barrel . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 Unfortunately, the best solution would have been using the proper mud, instead of going cheap and using seawater in the first place. BP shouldn't get to call the solution to this. As many solutions as possible should be implemented immediately. The economy and ecology of a big part of our country is at stake. Personally, I don't care what punitive actions are taken- now or afterwards. The leak must be sealed at any cost. I don't care if BP remains solvent or goes under- doesn't affect me either way. Personally, I think they will go under. Also- I laugh at the people who feel bad for the shareholders who did nothing wrong.........people invest in tons of companies that screw up and fail, I don't shed tears for them either. If BP falls, another shall rise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 Unfortunately, the best solution would have been using the proper mud, instead of going cheap and using seawater in the first place. BP shouldn't get to call the solution to this. As many solutions as possible should be implemented immediately. The economy and ecology of a big part of our country is at stake. Personally, I don't care what punitive actions are taken- now or afterwards. The leak must be sealed at any cost. I don't care if BP remains solvent or goes under- doesn't affect me either way. Personally, I think they will go under. Also- I laugh at the people who feel bad for the shareholders who did nothing wrong.........people invest in tons of companies that screw up and fail, I don't shed tears for them either. If BP falls, another shall rise. That is called capitalism, shame on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 I was told by someone who used to work in the oil industry that the blowout preventer wouldn't have stopped this from happening. I didn't understand his explanation and it was so technical and over my head, I don't even remember what he said. BP should be accountable for the cost of stopping the leak, cleaning the mess and supporting everyone that is financially damaged for as long as they need it. Beyond that, I don't care about punitive damages or if they go under. We need to end our oil dependency and be punitive towards those in our country that are dependant. It won't be easy, but it has to happen Which is exactly why this administration is AWOL on mitigating this environmental disaster. They want to extend it as long as possible so the effects are cataclysmic. The "environmentalists" want oil to cost $5,000,000,000 a pint. It's in THEIR interests that this drags out for months - even years. The BOP and Drilling Outside the Envelope As with most other aspects of the Thunder Horse development, drilling the field's wells has also pushed far beyond existing industry experience. 'The combination of deep water, salt overhang layers and very deep reservoirs requiring long wells is just one part of the challenge,' says Charlie Holt, wells delivery manager. 'Add to that the high reservoir pressure, the high flowrates - some of the wells can individually flow at 50,000bpd or more - and the fact that hydrogen sulphide can be present in the wellfluids once water injection begins, and you have a drilling and completions challenge that no-one had faced before.' Sounds like just the kind of place we should be drilling for oil. Video Game Training worthy of James Cameron, or is it Camoron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 [/b] That is called capitalism, shame on you. Darn it, I thought I was onto something big........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 Good news everyone, only a 73 billion nick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 Good news everyone, only a 73 billion nick. "Even for an economy as large as the United States' — $14.6 trillion — a $73 billion cut is barely a nick." Terrible sentence, should be either: Even for an economy as large as the United States' — $14.6 trillion — a $73 billion cut is hardly a nick. or For an economy as large as the United States' — $14.6 trillion — a $73 billion cut is barely a nick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 "Even for an economy as large as the United States' — $14.6 trillion — a $73 billion cut is barely a nick." Terrible sentence, should be either: Even for an economy as large as the United States' — $14.6 trillion — a $73 billion cut is hardly a nick. or For an economy as large as the United States' — $14.6 trillion — a $73 billion cut is barely a nick. I don't know about the one in red. Using it that way implies you are going with this definition: 3. Probably or almost surely not. That, IMO, is not what they want to convey. No? Yes? Your thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts