BP says the well is capped and no oil is leaking in the Gulf.

[Magiver]

@PrettyVacant

That’s government’s job. Industry doesn’t pre-plan unless it has to, it’s job is to make profits for it’s shareholders.

Government oversight through the mechanisms of regulation and criminal corporate liability is what failed here, and that was because government allows industry to buy the level of regulation it desires, as well as the exposure of senior exec’s to criminal charges.

Deflecting this onto the company is like blaming the banks for being casino capitalists - it kind of goes with the territory. If gov was less easy to buy, this shit would happen less.

If it was the government’s job BP wouldn’t be writing checks. They are liable for the damage they cause.

[PrettyVacant]

Your point was about “pre-planned” devices and how it was BP’s job to build devices just in case, that’s what the passage you quote addresses.

I have no idea what you’re talking about now.

[jjimm]

@Magiver

If it was the government’s job BP wouldn’t be writing checks. They are liable for the damage they cause.

Look at it this way:

Risk: ten million fucking shitloads of oil pissing out into the Gulf every day, and fucking everything up.
Mitigation: something to cap the well, FAST and EFFECTIVELY in case it goes wrong.

BP’s job was to show the government that they have the mitigation in place provided the government enforced them to provide it, then have it in place, and enact it if things went wrong.

BP is, like all other greedy, soulless corporations, going to duck every chance to do something costly like mitigation, unless it is forced to do it.

The government’s job was to create and enforce a regulatory framework to make damn sure BP had disaster prevention, and mitigation, equipment and procedures ready, in line with the risk. It appears to have failed; either through negligent enforcement, or not having the framework in place to start with.

[PrettyVacant]

As a point of fact, do we know what the absolute worst breach of Government regulation was in this case, because I haven’t heard a whole lot about civil or criminal corporate liability?

If there is no great breach of regulation, wouldn’t it suggest the industry bought just about he right level of exposure from the US political class?

[Lemur866]

@PrettyVacant

As a point of fact, do we know what the absolute worst breach of Government regulation was in this case, because I haven’t heard a whole lot about civil or criminal corporate liability?

If there is no great breach of regulation, wouldn’t it suggest the industry bought just about he right level of exposure from the US political class?

No it doesn’t, because they’re still facing tens of billions of dollars in damages.

No government regulation requires me to carry a fire extinguisher at all times. However, if I start throwing cigarette butts out my window, and catch someone’s house on fire, I’d wish I had a fire extinguisher to put out that fire. Because then I could turn a gigantic liability–I burned down a $250,000 house–into a small liability–I caused a few scorch marks.

BP should have had better disaster mitigation plans, not because the government required them to have better disaster mitigation plans, but because if there was a disaster BP would be screwed without those plans.

The right-wing talking point that if you comply with government regulations you’ve done everything neccesary, is just nonsense. You really think that government regulation should cover every action? And everything not forbidden by the government is fine? If there’s no law against it, go ahead, because if it was wrong there’d be a law against it? Seriously?

[PrettyVacant]

@Lemur866

No it doesn’t, because they’re still facing tens of billions of dollars in damages.

No government regulation requires me to carry a fire extinguisher at all times. However, if I start throwing cigarette butts out my window, and catch someone’s house on fire, I’d wish I had a fire extinguisher to put out that fire. Because then I could turn a gigantic liability–I burned down a $250,000 house–into a small liability–I caused a few scorch marks.

BP should have had better disaster mitigation plans, not because the government required them to have better disaster mitigation plans, but because if there was a disaster BP would be screwed without those plans.

The right-wing talking point that if you comply with government regulations you’ve done everything neccesary, is just nonsense. You really think that government regulation should cover every action? And everything not forbidden by the government is fine? If there’s no law against it, go ahead, because if it was wrong there’d be a law against it? Seriously?

I think Government should protect society and the environment from this kind of thing happening and it it still happens that the industry is collectively prepared to deal immediately with all consequences.

After the fact is clearly too late, damages - it doesn’t matter that BP pays $20 billion - is too late, prevention is what failed here, and it failed because industry bought what it thought it could live with from the corrupt political class - I make no party distinctions.

[Magiver]

The concept of liability does not equate to specific codified procedures. It is impossible for any regulatory agency to codify against stupid. There is no regulation that would stop a truck driver from plowing through the nearest gas station yet the instrument not to do so still exists in the form of liability.

As a company, BP created an environment where bad financial decisions were made in the form of risk. They risked much to gain little. Their safety record is many factors worse than their competitors.

[Lemur866]

@PrettyVacant

I think Government should protect society and the environment from this kind of thing happening and it it still happens that the industry is collectively prepared to deal immediately with all consequences.

After the fact is clearly too late, damages - it doesn’t matter that BP pays $20 billion - is too late, prevention is what failed here, and it failed because industry bought what it thought it could live with from the corrupt political class - I make no party distinctions.

I bought a hammer from the hardware store the other day. It didn’t have label on it tell me not to deliberately smash my thumb with the hammer. But the government didn’t require the hardware store to have such a label. That must mean if I deliberately smash my thumb with the hammer, it’s the government’s fault.

[gonzomax]

@Magiver

The concept of liability does not equate to specific codified procedures. It is impossible for any regulatory agency to codify against stupid. There is no regulation that would stop a truck driver from plowing through the nearest gas station yet the instrument not to do so still exists in the form of liability.

As a company, BP created an environment where bad financial decisions were made in the form of risk. They risked much to gain little. Their safety record is many factors worse than their competitors.

BP was not stupid. They were reckless. They cut corners, forced the drilling operators to go faster than they felt comfortable with, they cut costs at every place they could. It is believed they bribed the regulators to not do their jobs. They lobbied congress and the senate to trust them with the drilling and to cut regulators and staff. If making money is all corporations are about, they acted like you would expect them to. They have no responsibility to keep the gulf clean or even to keep workers safe. They are just the cost of doing business.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

Now it appears there is a seep from the sea floor. Presumably oil (or gas?), though strangely the article doesn’t say for certain:

A seep near the oil well that had been spewing into the Gulf of Mexico is adding a new twist to a disagreement between BP and the government over what to do next now that the oil has been capped.

The government’s point man for the spill, retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, said late Sunday the seep had been detected a distance from the busted oil well and demanded in a sharply worded letter that BP step up monitoring of the seabed. Allen didn’t say what was coming from the seep.

The concern all along — since pressure readings on the cap weren’t as high as expected — was a leak elsewhere in the wellbore, meaning the cap may have to be reopened to prevent the environmental disaster from becoming even worse and harder to fix.

After nearly three months of harsh criticism as it tried repeatedly to stop the leak, BP PLC capped the nearly mile-deep well Thursday and wants to keep it that way. The government’s plan, however, is to eventually pipe oil to the surface, which would ease pressure on the fragile well but require up to three more days of oil spilling into the Gulf.

[BrainGlutton]

And now a dissenting view:

Matt Simmons Houston-based company has been the leading investment bank to the US oil industry for a long time, financing exploration and drilling in places like the Gulf of Mexico. Simmons, 68, recently retired from day-to-day management of the company. For much of the decade he has been what may be described as a peak oil activist. His 2005 book, Twilight in the Desert, warned the public that Saudi Arabia’s oil production had reached its limits and, more generally, that an oil-dependent world was entering a zone of serious trouble over its primary resource. He took this aggressive stance despite risking the ire of the people he did business with.

    Matt Simmons is a sober individual and a very nice man (I've met him twice over the years), a button-downed corporate executive who's been around the oil business for forty years. His knowledge is deep and comprehensive.  From the beginning of the BP Macondo blowout incident in April, he's taken the far out position that the well-bore is fatally compromised and that BP has been consistently lying about their operations to stop the flow of oil. Perhaps most radically, Simmons claims that an oil "gusher" is pouring into the Gulf some distance from the drilling site itself.

   Last week, Simmons came on Dylan Ratigan's MSNBC financial show, but he did a longer interview over at the King World News website. (click here for Eric King's interview with Simmons). Simmons's current warning about the situation focuses on the gigantic "lake" of crude oil that is pooling under great pressure 4000 to 5000 feet down in the "basement" of the Gulf's waters.  More particularly, he is concerned that a tropical storm will bring this oil up - as tropical storms and hurricanes usually do with deeper cold water - and with it clouds of methane gas that will move toward the Gulf shore and kill a lot of people. (I really don't know the science on this and welcome any reader to correct me, but I suppose that the oil "lake" deep under the Gulf waters contains a lot of methane gas dissolved at pressure, and that as the oil rises toward the ocean's surface, and lower pressures, the gas will bubble out of solution.)

   Simmons makes two additional points that are pretty radical: he says that several states along the Gulf ought to begin systematic evacuations in counties along the shore now. From his experience in Houston with Hurricane Rita (2005), he says a last-minute evacuation is bound to be a disaster -- the highways jammed hopelessly, drivers ran out of gas, and then the gas stations ran out of gas. Based on where the nation's collective state-of-mind is these days, I can't imagine that any Gulf state governor or mayor will heed this warning and begin preparing an evacuation now. (The practical problems are obvious for householders but what if it really is a matter of life and death?)

    Secondly, Simmons maintains - as he has from near the beginning of the blowout - that the US military should take over operations from BP and ought to set off a "small" nuclear device down in the well-bore to fuse the rock into glass and seal the site permanently. Simmons says, based on his experience growing up in Utah near the government's underground nuclear testing sites in neighboring Nevada, where scores of very large atomic bombs were set off for years with no measurable consequences above ground, that a small nuclear explosion down in the Macondo well is unlikely to have any effect above the undersea rock surface. I have no idea, personally if this is true.

[Squink]

As far as I can tell, there are two problems. First, one of the ROV’s located what appears to be oil rising as a plume from the sea floor at an unknown distances from the well. The few still photos I’ve seen on the net are inconclusive as to how real that is, but now some bigwigs are starting to talk about it. The second problem shows up as bubbles, rising from around the base of the well casing itself. Those’ve been known about for a couple days now, but are not necessarily an indication that the casing is leaking. BP’s been trying to sample the gas to see if it contains methane from the well, and it seems that they may have succeeded and actually found the gas to be methane.

Now BP really really wants their cap to stay closed, but if the resulting pressure build up is making a preexisting leak worse, keeping the well shut could compromise even the bottom kill operation. Now given the depth of the intersection between the two wells, that’s not likely, but it is a possibility. I wonder how lucky everyone at BP is feeling this morning?

[johnpost]

i heard in the media that one motivation that BP has in keeping the well capped and not doing the government plan to retrieve oil (which also may prevent large uncontrolled seeps from opening up) is because retrieval now will provide a more accurate flow rate. this flow rate could be used in determining damages due to the oil previously released into the water.

[gonzomax]

There is suspicion that somewhere in the system a leak is happening. The pressure at the cap is too low. There is bubbling from the sea bed. If it blows from there it can not be stopped. BP is still thinking about money first. They want to sell that oil. They want to spend as little as they can.
BP and the government are at odds on how to proceed.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@johnpost

i heard in the media that one motivation that BP has in keeping the well capped and not doing the government plan to retrieve oil (which also may prevent large uncontrolled seeps from opening up) is because retrieval now will provide a more accurate flow rate. this flow rate could be used in determining damages due to the oil previously released into the water.

This. Total volume of oil over time deposited in a dimensioned tank will give an indisputable flow rate for when the fine is adjudicated.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@gonzomax

There is suspicion that somewhere in the system a leak is happening. The pressure at the cap is too low. There is bubbling from the sea bed. If it blows from there it can not be stopped. BP is still thinking about money first. They want to sell that oil. They want to spend as little as they can.
BP and the government are at odds on how to proceed.

But they don’t want to recover the oil and thus sell it. they have a much bigger concern with indisputable evidence of flow rate.

[gonzomax]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

But they don’t want to recover the oil and thus sell it. they have a much bigger concern with indisputable evidence of flow rate.

I don’y accept that. This is a huge oil deposit. They do make the claim but BP has no credibility at all.
It is true the eventual fine will be bases on how much oil they squirted into the gulf. That is why they resisted measurements that would give honest figures. They have had a pecuniary motive for understating the flow rate.
There is discussion about uncapping the well and collecting the oil. It would lower the pressure . It would also allow BP to offset some of the costs. But that is still on the table. Having a system sit for a long time under great pressure is not a good plan. Eventually it would break. The pressure has to be released at some point.

[Squink]

BP reports that the seepage about two miles away from the broken Macondo well isn’t related to the troubled well.
Nothing definite on the bubbles yet.

[LonghornDave]

@Squink

BP reports that the seepage about two miles away from the broken Macondo well isn’t related to the troubled well.
Nothing definite on the bubbles yet.

It’s not solely BP saying the seeps are unrelated, it is the government as well.

There is seepage three nautical miles from the wellhead, but the government does not believe that the seepage is related to the Macondo well or the well integrity test.

[LonghornDave]

@gonzomax

There is bubbling from the sea bed. If it blows from there it can not be stopped.

That is false. There is a chance it would make the wells more difficult to permanently plug, but the relief wells that are nearing completion should still work fine. There is nothing to support your statement that it would not be able to be stopped.

@gonzomax

BP is still thinking about money first. They want to sell that oil.

It doesn’t matter how many times or in how many different threads you state this, it doesn’t make it any more true. BP is permanently plugging this well. There is no chance (absolutely 0.00% chance that BP will attempt to turn this Macondo well into a producing well). They or someone else might drill another well into this same reservoir at a later date, but this well will be permanently plugged.