Gulf Oil Leaking from well head

103 posts / 0 new

Fri, 2010-04-30 15:36

Noah_Scape

Isn't there a thread on this yet?

"Gulf Oil Leaking from well head"

The promises made by oilmen about offshore drilling safety, and probably what Pres. Obama heard as he approved offshore drilling in the USA, is that they have "so many backup safety mechanisms in place that virtually no big leaks are even possible". The oilmen use words such as "state of the art", and "best practises" like they are gaurantees of no big spills, but as we now see, it wasn't and isn't so good after all.

Regulations are tougher in a lot of places in the world, so offshore drilling in the USA is NOT "state of the art".

And oil engineers are basically cowboys with a big brain and a good education. The so-called "blow out preventer that can never fail" turned out to have a fatal flaw that showed up in this spill in the Gulf.

What happened is that the pipe coming from the well head to the surface came loose [when the rig exploded] and that causes the weight of that pipe to seriously harm the blow out preventer. 1000s of tons of pipe above it, writhing around as the rig burns and shifts around, is a totally FORSEEABLE problem for blow out preventer.

My point is that they really do not have adequate safety mechanisms that will prevent big oil spills and leaks. They should have, and could have, done better.

For one thing, they could have had the big cowl they plan to drop over the well head now to contain the oil flow so it can be collected in place before they ever drilled into the oil.

Fri, 2010-04-30 16:19

HeywoodFloyd

Then it would have gotten destroyed with the rest of the rig

Fri, 2010-04-30 17:23

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Noah_Scape wrote:

My point is that they really do not have adequate safety mechanisms that will prevent big oil spills and leaks.

I think they do. It is called a backup blowout preventer. But that costs to much money for corporations that can make in excess of a billion dollars profit every couple of weeks.

Sat, 2010-05-01 02:06

Doug

In the 52-page exploration plan and environmental impact analysis, BP repeatedly suggested it was unlikely, or virtually impossible, for an accident to occur that would lead to a giant crude oil spill and serious damage to beaches, fish, mammals and fisheries.

Oops!

Sat, 2010-05-01 13:56

Noah_Scape

Thank you Doug.

And here is another bit from Truthout about how BP has not been keeping up on safety documentation and related equpment inspections.

Link> http://tinyurl.com/29tefl6 "Whistleblower: BP Risks More Massive Catastrophes in Gulf"

As for my silly idea about the cowl, thanks to FM for correcting me. Perhaps there is no safe way to get oil from under 5000 feet of ocean!!

Sat, 2010-05-01 15:29

Fidel

From Noah's linked-to article above:

Quote:
A former contractor who worked for British Petroleum (BP) claims the oil conglomerate broke federal laws and violated its own internal procedures by failing to maintain crucial safety and engineering documents related to one of the firms other deepwater production projects in the Gulf of Mexico, according to internal emails and other documents obtained by Truthout.

The whistleblower, whose name has been withheld at the person's request because the whistleblower still works in the oil industry and fears retaliation, first raised concerns about safety issues related to BP Atlantis, the world's largest and...

Very few public or private sector whistleblowers have fared well in English speaking countries. And I really do believe it's due to our obsolete and uncompetitive electoral system and democracy gap that has become a canyon in general. The vicious Anglo-American empire is supposed to be above corruption and culture of entitlement, but it clearly isn't so.

Sun, 2010-05-02 12:17

Kaspar Hauser

The oil may be leaking at a rate of 25,000 barrels a day instead of 5,000:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/05/02-0

Sun, 2010-05-02 12:32

Boom Boom

Someone on CBC said yesterday it's just a matter of time before a serious accident happens with an oil well off Canada's coasts, and especially so in the Arctic where colder water prevents quick breakdown of oil - and that Canada is woefully unprepared for a spill like the Exxon Valdez or like that in the Gulf.

Sun, 2010-05-02 13:01

NDPP

Obama's Katrina?

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/05/01/obamas-katrina/

"If 100,000 gallons is considered a 'major spill', what are we to make of the discovery that the BP platform has been dumping 210,000 gallons per day since April 20?

Either the human race gets rid of capitalism, including its wasteful and destructive dependence on greenhouse emission fossil fuels, or the system will get rid of us.."

Warning Shots

http://www.countercurrents.org/mcpherson300410.htm

"How many do you need...?"

Sun, 2010-05-02 14:21

#10

clandestiny

having no cable tv, and rarely watching the snake oil salesmen (cbc/ctv/global/etc) available with rabbit ears, i must wonder what is the msm (the pig) media saying about the mess? The stock market finally is 'loosing stream' i see, and, now that george 'who' bush aka the Youngster and the rightwing tapeworm he fronted for is almost gone/forgotten thanks to the Houseboy getting in front of them; is the reactionary message still getting put out when a collective socialist type response might serve the pig better (as they own the shorelines that are in danger)?

Sun, 2010-05-02 20:44

#11

Doug

It could well get much worse than it is now -

A confidential government report on the unfolding spill disaster in the Gulf makes clear the Coast Guard now fears the well could become an unchecked gusher shooting millions of gallons of oil per day into the Gulf.

"The following is not public," reads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Emergency Response document dated April 28. "Two additional release points were found today in the tangled riser. If the riser pipe deteriorates further, the flow could become unchecked resulting in a release volume an order of magnitude higher than previously thought."

Sun, 2010-05-02 21:04

#12

Kaspar Hauser

In other words:

Sun, 2010-05-02 21:17

#13

NDPP

capitalism goes or we do

Sun, 2010-05-02 22:07

#14

NorthReport

Haliburton is one of the contractors involved in this. The oil slick could even wash up on the beaches of the Atlantic Coast. What happened to emergency response, and what is emergency response for something like this?

Sun, 2010-05-02 22:11

#15

NorthReport

Hint: Capitalism isn't going away any time soon. Better get used to it.

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

capitalism goes or we do

Sun, 2010-05-02 22:40

#16

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

I guess that means we go. So the trend lines suggest, anyway.

Mon, 2010-05-03 00:22

#17

ElizaQ

NorthReport wrote:

Haliburton is one of the contractors involved in this. The oil slick could even wash up on the beaches of the Atlantic Coast. What happened to emergency response, and what is emergency response for something like this?

There is an emergency response. From what I'm reading though what's happening is the one of the worst of the worst case scenarios that anyone could think of and what response that existed pales relative to what is needed. It started off bad because the extent of the leak wasn't noticed for a couple of days. Most of the initial response was dealing with trying to rescue the workers and deal with the results of the initial explosion. There was a slick from the explosion which I guess is typical but the stuff from the well head didn't make itself really known at the beginning because it's something like 5000 ft down. It popped up to the surface and everyone went woah, crap and then set about shutting it off. Problem is the shut off mechinisms that did exist were destroyed as well and any other supposed failsafes were useless with the type of damage that occured or were just generally useless relative to what happened. They thought they could get something down there to cap it but that hasn't worked. There's other solutions like drilling some sort pressure release hole but that will take several months. There's a couple of other things in the works like some sort of dome cap thingy but they actually have to build the darn thing first because I guess it doesn't actually exist. Right now the talk is that it may take at the earliest a month before they can hopefully shut off the flow.

Meanwhile the initial estimates of the amount of oil pouring out were wrong. Part of the problem in getting a handle on the amount is that since it's emerging so far down it's dispersing in tentacle like lines on the way up to the surface. They either did and or still are trying to burn some of it off but that can only be done in small contolled areas at a time. They're using some sort of dispersement chemical thing or some sort of chemical that makes the oil collect into globby balls that can be scooped up but some of the latest things I'm reading the world supply of that stuff isn't enough for what they need. There are fears that it will run out before more can be produced. There are also reports of boom containment shortages. Equipment that can suck up the oil is being shipped in from all over the place. They do have that sort of stuff there but it is no where near enough to deal with the amount of oil.

What it looks like is that what's happened is so big and so crazy that it is overwhelming any response plan that is in existence and there seems to be an element 'making things up as we go' in relation to shutting it down. The main issue which is unlike, say the Valdez spill is that there isn't a set amount of oil that has to be dealt with. Until they figure out how to shut it off or in the absolute horrifying scenario the deposit runs itself out (no one is talking seriously about that but it's still a possibility) , then any 'clean up' will be just like using bandaids and paper towels on a gaping wound over an artery.

Mon, 2010-05-03 02:41

#18

NDPP

Want to Prevent Oil Spill Disasters? Stop Driving:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/146694/want_to_prevent_oil_spill_dis...

"An ecological disaster of enormous magnitude is unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico...

A submerged oil well is spewing a river of oil toward Louisiana and the Gulf Coast. Birds and fish will die, wetlands and beaches will be ruined--all because we drive cars..."

The Gulf Oil Spill: An American Chernobyl

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/may2010/pers-m03.shtml

"The disaster is already the worst spill on record in the continental US. If efforts to cap what one observer described as 'an undersea oil volcano,' the flow could continue until the entire pool of oil hit by the drill rig is exhausted, making the spill the largest in history.."

Mon, 2010-05-03 09:20

#19

newshound

Saw a report on CBC about Extreme Spill Technology and how noone was interested in NA and Europe.

http://www.spilltechnology.com/about.html

Mon, 2010-05-03 09:33

#20

Boom Boom

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:
"The disaster is already the worst spill on record in the continental US. If efforts to cap what one observer described as 'an undersea oil volcano,' the flow could continue until the entire pool of oil hit by the drill rig is exhausted, making the spill the largest in history.."

Will any lessons be learned as a consequence of this disaster?

Mon, 2010-05-03 09:34

#21

Caissa

Has Palin commented on this situation yet?

Mon, 2010-05-03 09:49

#22

Boom Boom

I saw a link yesterday that said Palin has yet to comment.

Mon, 2010-05-03 09:55

#23

Croghan27

I do not know if you would class this as a response or comment - it is more a quip, an immediate thought than a considered response.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/30/palin-weighs-in-on-louis...

Mon, 2010-05-03 10:07

#24

Bubbles

It would be nice if this would open some eyes as to who are the real terrorists.

All kinds of resources to built nuclear submarines, but an undersea vacuum cleaner to vacuum up a spills at source is not available it seems.

The defence department needs better risk assesment people.

Mon, 2010-05-03 10:55

#25

Jingles

The right wing believes that eco-terrorist sabotage is behind this. Because if there's nothing ecoterrorists love more than releasing thousands of cubic meters of crude oil into a threatened ecosystem. Besides, it's a much more plausible explanation than corporate malfeasance or incompetence. That's just silly talk.

Mon, 2010-05-03 13:43

#26

clandestiny

the media is rightwing and will run point guard for whoever is stuck with the blame- suggesting terrorism did it would be a good idea, so they'll probably hint at the possibility the corporate culture at BP was infiltrated by 'liberal/ lefties' or martian alciaduhs, or wtf. The big issue on planet earth right now is the death grip the reactionary right has on mass media. They're thus torn between a) hiding from consequences of creating the eco-disaster-friendly atmosphere that exist worldwide at present by downplaying the gravity of the disaster, or b) the opposite 'all hands on deck' approach in effort to deal with mess (which is 100 times worse then anything in history, a Chernoble-on-the-mississippi) and enlist everthing/body in battle to save the situation.

love to watch the greasy rightwing pigs squirm. no matter how it ends up, they can go to hell.

Mon, 2010-05-03 14:23

#27

Jingles

I'm waiting for Hillary to say "No one could have forseen such an occurance".

Mon, 2010-05-03 14:55

#28

Snert

Quote:
Because if there's nothing ecoterrorists love more than releasing thousands of cubic meters of crude oil into a threatened ecosystem.

Do you remember that halfwit in the United States a few years back, who felt that SUVs were destroying the environment? So to fight back, he and some ELF chums destroyed about 130 SUVs and set about a dozen or so of them on fire, thereby creating demand for 12 new SUVs, and also releasing about a tonne of toxic gases and other pollutants into the air?

I mean, you'd think it would be pretty obvious, but evidently not.

Mon, 2010-05-03 15:05

#29

Jingles

So you do think it was ecoterrorists in a secret luxury submarine provided by Kim Jong Il, funded by the New York Times?

Any other explanation defies logic.

Mon, 2010-05-03 15:13

#30

Snert

No, I definitely think that a trip to the sea floor would be a sizeable barrier to even the angriest eco-terrorist. But the idea that eco-terrorists wouldn't do something that could harm the environment doesn't wash is all.

Mon, 2010-05-03 15:19

#31

Greytabbies

Jingles wrote:

So you do think it was ecoterrorists in a secret luxury submarine provided by Kim Jong Il, funded by the New York Times?

Any other explanation defies logic.

Probably just those Taliban Teapsrtiers that planted the car bomb in New York.

Mon, 2010-05-03 15:33

#32

Polunatic2

Sarah Palin - "I kills more birds every year than this oil slick. Oil occurs naturally in the oceans. It's just like water. Anyway, what's the big deal? A few dirty beaches? Wear sandals. This is just the price we pay to live in a free country. Stop whining. Drill, baby, drill!"

Mon, 2010-05-03 18:24

#33

Catchfire

clandestiny wrote:
the rightwing tapeworm he fronted for is almost gone/forgotten thanks to the Houseboy getting in front of them

clandestiny, "Houseboy" is a racial slur and contrary to babble policy. I have already warned you in another thread about using oppressive language: it's got to stop. Be more judicious when chosing your words. Consider this a warning.

Mon, 2010-05-03 21:01

#34

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Quote:

The Journal's report doesn't come out and say this, but the environmental lawyer, Mike Papantonio, said on the Schultz show in an interview you can watch here that it was Cheney's energy task force - the secretive one that he wouldn't say much about publicly - that decided that the switches, which cost $500,000, were too much a burden on the industry.

America still getting screwed by the big Dick

Mon, 2010-05-03 21:49

#35

Kaspar Hauser

Because things were sucky enough already, hurricane season officially starts on June 1:

"If you want a real disaster scenario, imagine this: a big hurricane--say Category 4 or 5, enters the Gulf and heads straight for New Orleans again, and blows out the levees again. Last time, there was a fairly toxic stew of water covering much of the city. This time it would be water mixed with millions of gallons of crude oil."

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff05032010.html

Tue, 2010-05-04 01:06

#36

Doug

Caissa wrote:

Has Palin commented on this situation yet?

What could be keeping her? She saw an oil spill from her house once, so she should know all about it.

Tue, 2010-05-04 01:12

#37

Doug

BP leaks more than oil - insider reveals critical safety and engineering documentation was not maintained

the whistleblower, who was hired to oversee the company's databases that housed documents related to its Atlantis project, discovered that the drilling platform had been operating without a majority of the engineer-approved documents it needed to run safely, leaving the platform vulnerable to a catastrophic disaster that would far surpass the massive oil spill that began last week following a deadly explosion on a BP-operated drilling rig.

BP's own internal communications show that company officials were made aware of the issue and feared that the document shortfalls related to Atlantis "could lead to catastrophic operator error" and must be addressed.

Tue, 2010-05-04 02:31

#38

Noah_Scape

Future drilling in the waters of Canada's Arctic is being considered. PM Harper sounded very sure there would not be a problem like in the Gulf right now. He is merely taking the oilmen's word for it, as they did in the Gulf.

It should NOT go ahead, but it probably will. If so, drilling rigs in the Arctic should have to have a standby platform or floating dock with equipment capable of stopping leaks at the well head. This equpment is being invented right now for the Gulf leak.

Of course, if there is 10 feet of sea ice, they won't be able to get down to it. So they should have a underwater facility capable of capping a blow out.

A spill in the winter in the Arctic could leak for several months, and there is no gaurantee that it won't be a real gusher - the Gulf spill is mysteriously slow for a well with an open hole at the top of it - if it had much pressure behind it there would be a lot more oil in the water [maybe it is the depth of water on top of it?].

Spills will happen, be it 10 or 20 years between spills they will happen. When one happens in the Arctic we can only do our best to minimise it... but BOY is it going to be a mess up there - picture crude on snow. Can we stop them??

Tue, 2010-05-04 09:12

#39

Polunatic2

Here's part of BP record in Canada.

Canada’s Chemical Valley exposed to enforcement

Quote:
Good news from the Chemical Valley, with British Petroleum (BP) pleading guilty to charges laid by the Ontario’s Ministry of Environment (MOE) for a sulphurous cloud released over Sarnia on March 27th (2009), resulting in a $1 million fine.

Tue, 2010-05-04 09:59

#40

Boom Boom

I suspect a reason for the Cons' enthusiasm for drilling the Beaufort is the insane profits to be made and that is why oversight was shifted to the NEB instead of the environmental watchdogs. A NEB representative was interviewed on CBC last night and he gave the usual 'checks and balances' speech blah blah blah about safety of the environment being their number one priority. After watching that segment, I think the Beaufort is f*cked. Get ready for bad news from the Arctic in the future.

Tue, 2010-05-04 14:36

#41

clandestiny

Doug wrote:

Caissa wrote:

Has Palin commented on this situation yet?

What could be keeping her? She saw an oil spill from her house once, so she should know all about it.

ms palin will be the subject on The (rightwing) Agenda, with steve pakin, tonight, TVO at 8 pm....might be interesting

Tue, 2010-05-04 15:41

#42

Boom Boom

Just watched CBC Newsworld cover a pastor down south asking for divine intervention to drive the oilslick south of Louisiana. Then the CBC anchor came n said 'well, they may as well ask for divine intervention, nothing else seems to be working'.

Question: if "divine intervention" actually does move the slick south, doesn't it just become someone else's problem???

Tue, 2010-05-04 15:44

#43

al-Qa'bong

From the the "trees cause acid rain" folder...

Quote:

As the government deals with what may prove the worst oil disaster in the history of the country in the Gulf of Mexico, oceanographer and chemical engineer Rush Limbaugh has gone public with his theory that “enviornmental wackos” may be responsible and that pouring oil into the ocean is something that the ocean can handle naturally with intervention by the government. He also insisted that oil spills are natural and should not cause undo concern.

Rush to Judgment: Limbaugh Suggests Gulf Spill May Have Been Caused By “Envionmental Wackos”

Tue, 2010-05-04 15:45

#44

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

Question: if "divine intervention" actually does move the slick south, doesn't it just become someone else's problem???

Who cares? God blesses America, remember?

Tue, 2010-05-04 15:57

#45

Polunatic2

Quote:
A NEB representative was interviewed on CBC last night and he gave the usual 'checks and balances' speech blah blah blah about safety of the environment being their number one priority.

I saw that interview too and remarked to my friend - "that guy doesn't believe a word that he's saying".

Tue, 2010-05-04 16:05

#46

Boom Boom

Polunatic2 wrote:

I saw that interview too and remarked to my friend - "that guy doesn't believe a word that he's saying".

Exactly. The Beaufort is screwed.

Wed, 2010-05-05 04:55

#47

Doug

Boom Boom wrote:
Just watched CBC Newsworld cover a pastor down south asking for divine intervention to drive the oilslick south of Louisiana. Then the CBC anchor came n said 'well, they may as well ask for divine intervention, nothing else seems to be working'. Question: if "divine intervention" actually does move the slick south, doesn't it just become someone else's problem???

Yes it does - and here it comes. It looks like the oil slick will move toward currents that will take it to Florida and the east coast.

Thu, 2010-05-06 11:20

#48

clandestiny

FYi. This morning on CBC radio at 7 am, the reporter said 'BP is putting a huge devide on the leak that was caused by 'last month's explosion', and they said if it takes 2 months to cap the leak, it might be 'bigger mess then the exxon valdes' was, darn it! i immediately called 416 205 3311 ext 3 etc and left a message that they were too obviously playing down the disaster, trying to make it seem quite normal- while at same time playing up the commemorations of the liberation of Holland, with the bush thug Stevie harper front row centre! Last week, the CBC featured a Viet refugee boat person on 35 anniversary of 'the fall' of Saigon' when the Vietnamese call it the liberation of the city. The CBC calls the Afghani resistance movement the 'enemy' right out right in the open now.... likwe Orwell said, language dictates the understanding of the truth. Our tax money at work.

Fri, 2010-05-07 02:37

#49

lonewolfbunn lonewolfbunn's picture

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

Obama's Katrina?

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/05/01/obamas-katrina/

"If 100,000 gallons is considered a 'major spill', what are we to make of the discovery that the BP platform has been dumping 210,000 gallons per day since April 20?

Either the human race gets rid of capitalism, including its wasteful and destructive dependence on greenhouse emission fossil fuels, or the system will get rid of us.."

Warning Shots

http://www.countercurrents.org/mcpherson300410.htm

"How many do you need...?"

Use of dispersants is the main method currently being used to "clean up" the most recent oil spill.

"There's research out there that shows that [url=http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/06/1617164/researchers-worry-about-oi... oil is more toxic than the oil itself[/url], and then there are studies that say it's the same," she said. "The big questions are what are the long-term or delayed effects, and how will the different routes of oil exposure due to dispersant use affect exposed organisms?"

Are there effective alternatives that will not contribute further to the destruction of species upon the earth - including the human species? [url=http://www.helendagner.com/viewtopic.php?t=7558]Of course.[/url]

Fri, 2010-05-07 03:05

#50

NDPP

The Coverup: BP's Crude Politics and the Looming Environmental Disaster

http://blogsplosion.com/entry.php?w=margamit&e_10=466085

"We have been informed by sources in the US Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection that the Obama White House and British Petroleum which pumped $71,000.00 into Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign--more than John McCain, Hilary Clinton, are covering up the magnitude of the volcanic level oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and working together to limit BP's liability for damage caused by what can be called a mega-disaster.."

Sun, 2010-05-09 01:08

#51

NDPP

British Petroleum's Oil Spill is Latest Crime in a Criminal History

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2/15369342221?page=NewsArticle&id=13985&n...

"Far from being a 'good corporate citizen' BP is a corporation that has made its huge profits through a history of crimes around the globe..."

Gulf Oil Leaking from well head

Pages