Just that it’s completely unremarkable that a company would try and show its actions in the best possible light.
The two posts referencing the BP adverts sounded as if BP were trying to do something uniquely underhand and were solely responsible for the development of spin.
Well, for my post I just find it insulting everybody’s intelligence. There’s news about Obama forcing BP to make a fund for out of work fishermen and what not, then later on you have a commercial from BP making it look like they did it out of the kindness of their hearts. We all KNOW that they had to have their arm twisted to do it. Who do they think they’re kidding?
You still haven’t addressed the fact that you (and other posters) are becoming terribly exercised by this piece of spin and yet it’s something that companies, governments, and politicians have been doing for decades - probably since each entity came into existence.
Do you get so wound up when a politician makes the bast of a bad situation?
Do you find yourself annoyed when a car manufacturer crows about the low emissions of its latest vehicle when you know that they only research and develop low emission technologies because there are laws that effectively force them to?
In short, what is so special about the current case that’s aggravating you so?
LOL, nice try at censorship but no cigar. 
The subject of the thread is ‘BP spreads blame around’, not ‘BP uses promotional technique that has been used by the world and its dog for hundreds of years.’
The advert was most recently brought up in response to an on topic explanation I gave and I see no reason whatsoever why the question: “Why are you getting so antsy about an extremely common publicity technique” should not be asked.
“But everyone else does it!” stopped being a valid excuse in my household when I was 8 years old.
It isn’t an excuse. :rolleyes:
I’m just asking why a couple of people are getting so annoyed about a perfectly normal example of an extraordinarily common practice - and one which, for the most part, passes without comment.
People will be complaining next that they’ve been known to make a profit.
I’m not becoming “terribly exercised” or “wound up”. I just find it annoying. That’s all.
As for other examples, I do find commercials where companies try to act all warm and fuzzy kind of annoying because I know that what they do isn’t out of the kindness of their own hearts; it’s to make money.
For anyone that’s interested, the report is here. It’s 193 pages long and is tough going if you don’t know what you’re looking at. I’m pretty sure most journalists never got beyond the summary.
I spent yesterday reading it. I know what I’m looking at, and I’d give it a very different interpretation compared to the mainstream media.
First of all, it’s an accident report. It’s a record of what happened and how it happened,so that it won’t happen again. Every large oil company (and probably every other engineering comapny) does this after any kind of accident. As contractors, Halliburton and Transocean are are going to a part of this.
The underlying problem was in the reservoir. There was a very narrow window between pore pressure and fracture gradient. This means that the forces required to stop the well blowing out were very close to the forces required to break down nearby rocks. When BP drilled the well there were problems, but they managed to walk along this tightrope pretty well.
Then the casing was run. This is where the 6 vs 21 centraliser issue turns up. This was entirely BP’s decision. It might not have mattered, but there should be something called a “Management of Change document” detailing the changes that were about to be made. It’s not in the report. It is BP policy to internally issue one of these prior to changing anything.
Then came the cement. This probably where everything went wrong. At the beginning of the thread, I mentioned to tightrope that was being walked between pore pressure and fracture gradient. Now you have to do that walk wearing concrete shoes.
The cement is made according to a recipe, and that recipe is jointly designed by BP and Halliburton (BP makes a list of the properties they want, Halliburton work out how to do it. Halliburton then test that recipe and give the results to BP. If BP approve the test results, then the cement can be pumped.
There are several things that are very odd about what actually happened. The report says
and
If that’s true, it’s astonishing dereliction of duty by both parties. Neither the BP cement guys or the Halliburton engineers appear to have taken their jobs seriously.
Next up is a very strange decision. That decision is to not run cement integrity log. There’s five or six (off the top of my head) reasons you run it. Macondo checked three or four of these boxes. It’s a complete no brainer that it should have been run. In fact it’s not even a no brainer, it’s written BP policy. And BP ignored it.
When the well started to flow, everyone (except Halliburton who weren’t involved) everyone completely screwed the pooch. There’s a phrase in the oil industry and that’s “always listen to the well”. That well was talking for hours. There is a long list of all the warning signs in the report and equally long list of people ignoring those signs, trying to bullshit them away, deviating from written procedures etc.
By the time the BOPs were activated (and failed to work properly) it was probably too late. There were certainly problems there, even if there weren’t, I don’t think it would have made a big difference to the final outcome.
What does all this mean?
I see a complete systemic failure on at least two fronts. Firstly, there was the Drilling Program. That’s the document that lays out the way the well was supposed to be drilled. It’s obvious in hindsight that the plan was inadequate. The trouble is, it’s basically the same plan that every oil company uses in the same conditions BP, Shell, Exxon, Texaco etc all drill their wells the same way. They’ve always worked before.
There was another problem with the Drilling Program. The way it was written. I read these on a regular basis ans have occasionally helped to write small bits of them. I have pretty good written English skills, and writing a technical document is hard. It’s very easy to write an ambiguous sentence. It’s very easy to write “if there are concerns about the quality of a cement job, running an evaluation log should be considered”. That’s pretty close to what is written in every well plan of every oil company in the world.
The final problem is implementation of procedures. There seems to have been an awful lot of glossing over of instructions. Honestly, I don’t know what can be done about this. We all do it every day. 99% of the time those tiny details don’t matter, every once in a while we all forget to do something that’s pretty important.
All of the above treats BP’s report at face value, purely as an engineering and safety study, not as a weapon that someone will use in a courtroom battle.
Trifecta!
We have all seen the ads BP runs pretending they are responsible and will make things right. That is what they are pumping now. But on the other hand they are trying to shift the blame, which would likely shift some of the financial liability.
I see a long delay in court among the contractors before the people would get their crack. They would suffer like the people of Valdez who took decades before the courts screwed them over.
There were only two people complaining about that advert. What did you want me to do, lie and say it was more? :rolleyes:
It isn’t a diversion. I wasn’t using that as an excuse - merely asking why a couple of people were getting particularly exercised about something that is absolutely standard practice in corporate communications.
I’ve already explained this to you but you ignore the difference and just repeat the same contention which is:
Technically known as a ‘straw man argument’ of which you have now provided a perfect example. Twice.
Pretending? Are you saying they are not responsible? I thought it was accepted by everyone that they are.
And the people of Bhopal. Don’t forget the people of Bhopal.
Tapioca
I agree 100% they should have run a cement bond log, however the report very definitely points the finger at a casing float shoe failure and the flow comming up the casing not the annulus.
This implies a double float failure and a wet shoe / uncement shoe and nothing in the shoe track.
So if that were the case a CBL “could” have shown good cement around the casing - but there would have been no way to know if the flow path up the casing was sealed. A casing integrity test seams to have been dropped out of the program, ie close the bag and pump down and pressure up the casing to seeif you bleed off. Basically a good or bad CBL would not have shown the problem BP is claiming is the problem.
That said , I do agree that poorly written proceedures are clearly an issue, but mostly with respect to the inflow tests - no one seamed to have a clue as to how to interpret them, and it appears the pressure was on to get off location , so no one really took the time to question some pretty funky stand pipe pressures measurments when the pumps were off.
BP is very clearly saying (correctly or not I do not know) that the flow was not up the annulus. As to why they are bringing up the poorly foaming cement, what I can gather so far BP is suggesting that it did not hold its volume and they over displaced the cement hence nothing in the shoe track or above the floats. (that doesn’t explain both floats failing)
Plenty of reading to go, although I do hope plety of service companies read it and would adopt the fault tree methodolgy.
That’s a pretty early onset for puberty.
I think Gonzomax is using the “will do the right thing” definition of responsible, not the “caused the problem” one.
So, are you saying that they are only pretending to clear up the mess and pay people compensation? 
BP are just like any other commercial enterprise. They will do what needs to be done to continue to trade profitably. Just like any other company, their responsibility is to their shareholders.
If any company does something that is not directly profitable it does it for one of three reasons:
BP is not acting differently to any other company in a capitalist economy.
Except that BP has used the USIT not the CBL for many, many years. That’s the perfect tool for looking at deofoamed / channeled cement.
CBL = generic term for cement evaluation tool, if we had to keep up with all the proctoSCANNERS, SBLs and Fastcasts it would be tedious.
Just to clarify
(A) CBL “could” have shown good cement around the casing - but there would have been no way to know if the flow path up the casing was sealed
“Up casing” was supposed to refer to up the ID of the casings as opposed to up the annulus of the casing.
A USIT etc could have shown that the annulus was sealed but would have given no indictaion of shoe and float failure, which is where BP was saying the flow was comming from.
cheers
PCM