Obama to Ban Yacht Races

[Pirschjaeger]

As oil spews in Gulf, BP chief at UK yacht race (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100619/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

[GoToAway]

I enjoyed this line.

"BP, Britain's largest company before the oil rig exploded, has lost about 45 percent of its value since then — a drop has alarmed millions of British retirees whose pension funds hold BP stock. Just this week, BP announced that it was canceling its quarterly dividend."

I was shocked because Fox News and the Daily Mail have been telling me that BP has nothing to do with Britain and that Obama suffers from Anglophobia.


As for the CEO, I'd like to see him given a mental aptitude test, because he's clearly deficient.

It'd be nice if the American government had the sack to do what needs to be done. If BP's domestic assets were seized, I'd wager we'd see a permanent solution inside of a week... and nobody would be yachting.

[Airmail109]

Could you also seize Haliburtons and Transoceans assets in that case, because in this instance they are just as responsible.

[GoToAway]

Sure.

And while we're at it, the board of Haliburton should be prosecuted for war profiteering. But that's another thread.

[Airmail109]

Originally posted by GoToAway:
Sure.

And while we're at it, the board of Haliburton should be prosecuted for war profiteering. But that's another thread.

They won't be though, will they?

Which makes all of the American governments hissy fits seem like cynical political maneuvering as opposed to genuine outrage.

[GoToAway]

Like I said, the American government is spineless. I'm not exactly sure when that happened, but I'd wager somewhere between the Depression and McCarthyism. It's beholden to the wealthy and to corporate interests, not the citizens it governs. So no, the "outrage" certainly isn't genuine. It's nothing more than an attempt to pander to various constituencies.

[Dance]

Remember Bhopal and the Union Carbide disaster?

[foxyboy1964]

Originally posted by Aimail101:
They won't be though, will they?

Which makes all of the American governments hissy fits seem like cynical political maneuvering as opposed to genuine outrage.


Originally posted by Dance:
Remember Bhopal and the Union Carbide disaster?

Careful, lads. Make posts like those and you're likely to be branded as card carrying Tory members of the Rule Britannia crowd http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[ARCHIE_CALVERT]

Originally posted by Dance:
Remember Bhopal and the Union Carbide disaster?

Between 2200 and 15000 deaths after the 1984 Union Carbide gas leak, mind you thats depending on whether you take the U.S or Indian government estimates - And the victems families are still fighting for compensation... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Or that the U.S took 20 years to settle the claims from the Exxon Valdez oil spill - many of the original compensation deals were slashed by the courts... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[hop2002]

It'd be nice if the American government had the sack to do what needs to be done. If BP's domestic assets were seized, I'd wager we'd see a permanent solution inside of a week...

And that solution would be?

With all the press attention, all the talking heads, and the billions of dollars at stake, surely someone would have come up with the solution if one were possible?

What you would see, though, is companies desert the US. What company can afford to drill for oil in the US if a single incident can wipe out tens or hundreds of billions of dollars of investment? If politicians simply make up fines, and ignore previously announced liability limits, then capitalism can't function. No one will invest if they know the investment can be taken away at the whim of politicians.

So the pension funds will put their money in to something less risky, jobs will be lost in the US, the oil price will go up, and lots of despotic third world governments will reap the rewards.

[Pirschjaeger]

Has anyone been reading the investigation transcripts?

This is what you are missing:

4 actual seal assembly test, we did a 4,000 PSI

5 test and held that for 30 seconds. Then, when

6 that was looking good and it was holding, we

7 proceeded to go to 10,000 PSI. Held that for

8 10 seconds and then from that point we bled it

9 back down to 6700 because that was the test

10 pressure that the customer had indicated he

11 wanted to do the actual test to it.

12 Q. And who was that customer?

13 A. BP.

14 Q. And did they provide you with the

15 procedure or was this a Dril--Quip procedure?

16 A. Well, they only -- they -- the actual

17 procedure is following Dril--Quip's procedure.

18 The test pressure is chosen by the customer.

18 The test pressure is chosen by the customer.

19 Q. The first time that you picked up the

20 weight and attempt to shear out the seal

21 assembly was that a success?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. The second time was that a success?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Why did you pressure up to 10,000


68


1 pounds? Maybe I heard you wrong, but did you

2 pressure up to 10,000 twice for ten seconds?

3 A. That is correct.

4 Q. And why did you do that?

5 A. That is part of our standard procedure

6 on all our seal assemblies. That's what we

7 recommend to ensure that it is set.

This is pretty common. I'm not picking on BP here but just wanted to point out that the person speaking is the service tech for Dril Quip, the producer of the equipment they are referring to. They manufactured equipment and make recommendation but BP wanted them to test at much lower than the recommended pressure.

But this is only one small part of something much bigger. Deciding who made which mistake that lead to the accident will be no easy task. I've seen failure from all sides, from training to equipment to procedure.

It's nice to point fingers at BP, Halliburton, Transocean, Dril Quip or any of the others involved in the project but I think there is something few people don't seem to understand. BP is responsible for the accident because they are the ones that submitted the application and received the permit to drill. That does not make them at fault for the accident. That is what the investigation is for. But, the permit is in BP's name which makes them legally responsible. I am sure BP wasn't fooled by fine print.

I would say Hayward is BP's biggest problem right now. The man seems to be a total idiot. He's worse than the spill when it comes to the company's reputation.

I haven't read all the transcripts yet. Everyone is hundreds of pages. But it's damned interesting. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

[K_Freddie]

Hmm! let me see (loads 12 bore).. where's my BIG toe.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[Airmail109]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Has anyone been reading the investigation transcripts?

This is what you are missing:

4 actual seal assembly test, we did a 4,000 PSI

5 test and held that for 30 seconds. Then, when

6 that was looking good and it was holding, we

7 proceeded to go to 10,000 PSI. Held that for

8 10 seconds and then from that point we bled it

9 back down to 6700 because that was the test

10 pressure that the customer had indicated he

11 wanted to do the actual test to it.

12 Q. And who was that customer?

13 A. BP.

14 Q. And did they provide you with the

15 procedure or was this a Dril--Quip procedure?

16 A. Well, they only -- they -- the actual

17 procedure is following Dril--Quip's procedure.

18 The test pressure is chosen by the customer.

18 The test pressure is chosen by the customer.

19 Q. The first time that you picked up the

20 weight and attempt to shear out the seal

21 assembly was that a success?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. The second time was that a success?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Why did you pressure up to 10,000


68


1 pounds? Maybe I heard you wrong, but did you

2 pressure up to 10,000 twice for ten seconds?

3 A. That is correct.

4 Q. And why did you do that?

5 A. That is part of our standard procedure

6 on all our seal assemblies. That's what we

7 recommend to ensure that it is set.

This is pretty common. I'm not picking on BP here but just wanted to point out that the person speaking is the service tech for Dril Quip, the producer of the equipment they are referring to. They manufactured equipment and make recommendation but BP wanted them to test at much lower than the recommended pressure.

But this is only one small part of something much bigger. Deciding who made which mistake that lead to the accident will be no easy task. I've seen failure from all sides, from training to equipment to procedure.

It's nice to point fingers at BP, Halliburton, Transocean, Dril Quip or any of the others involved in the project but I think there is something few people don't seem to understand. BP is responsible for the accident because they are the ones that submitted the application and received the permit to drill. That does not make them at fault for the accident. That is what the investigation is for. But, the permit is in BP's name which makes them legally responsible. I am sure BP wasn't fooled by fine print.

I would say Hayward is BP's biggest problem right now. The man seems to be a total idiot. He's worse than the spill when it comes to the company's reputation.

I haven't read all the transcripts yet. Everyone is hundreds of pages. But it's damned interesting. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

This is from a mate who manages oil rigs in the North Sea "Depending on what went wrong it goes like this, you rent a car out and your driving down the motorway. The wheel falls off and you crash killing another driver. Who's responsible? The rental company."

There was a Royal Society Chemist on TV who works with oil companies who stated on the BBC the exact opposite to what you said about BP being responsible because they received the permit. They subcontract others to give them professional advice, these are Haliburton etc. These companies actually tell THEM the best course of action. So depending on what went wrong the buck could quite easily be passed to Haliburton if the US government play fair.

[Pirschjaeger]

Nope, the insurance you bought. If you didn't buy the insurance before you took the car, then you are responsible, even though you are not at fault.

But then, it is your responsibility to go after whomever is at fault.

Can't you see the difference between fault and responsibility? Have a kids wipe out on his bike on your portion of the sidewalk, crack his head open, then see what happens when the police notice a small patch of ice.

[Airmail109]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Nope, the insurance you bought. If you didn't buy the insurance before you took the car, then you are responsible, even though you are not at fault.

But then, it is your responsibility to go after whomever is at fault.

If you kill someone it that scenario, it's not you who's going to end up in court. If there was negligence involved and the company was contracted to provide a safe car then whoever's fault it was, will stand in court.

Anyhow the point is, is that BP is being blamed when we don't know what caused the explosion. If it was faulty cement work by Haliburton as some have suggested then I do not see how BP can be held entirely responsible for the accident.

[Pirschjaeger]

if, if, if, blah, blah, blah

If Santa breaks your chimney, can't you sue the church?

C'mon Aimail, it's common sense, the difference between liability and fault. BP signed it. They are liable, just as a contractor is responsible for a building project. If Exxon applied for a permit to drill in UK sea, they too are just as responsible and liable, even if Hayward runs into the rig with his sail boat.

If you are truly interested in the reality of the legalities study a little Common Law.

[Airmail109]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
if, if, if, blah, blah, blah

If Santa breaks your chimney, can't you sue the church?

C'mon Aimail, it's common sense, the difference between liability and fault. BP signed it. They are liable, just as a contractor is responsible for a building project. If Exxon applied for a permit to drill in UK sea, they too are just as responsible and liable, even if Hayward runs into the rig with his sail boat.

If you are truly interested in the reality of the legalities study a little Common Law.

Touche, try studying some contract law.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2...bout-other-companies (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0609/BP-takes-Gulf-oil-spill-heat-but-what-about-other-companies)

"The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990, which the Exxon Valdez task force helped shape, essentially focuses the responsibility on one party for the sake of simplicity, says Mr. Plater. In this case BP is that party. However BP can and almost certainly will sue for contributions from other companies that may have been at all responsible for the spill.

However, Henning pointed out in a recent New York Times column that Transocean has an indemnification provision that may leave BP responsible for paying the cost of cleanup and recovery no matter what. Halliburton said in a recent call to investors that like Transocean they are legally indemnified from responsibility through their contract with BP.

“It will be the contract law fight of all contract law fights,” Henning said."

[Dance]

Union Carbide showed the way to handle a hazardous business. If someone within BP is responsible I am sure they will be jailed in the same way.

[R_Target]

http://i48.tinypic.com/2v3ixeh.jpg

[Dance]

http://www.rankia.com/blog/seguros/uploaded_images/bhopal3-761119.jpg

So would I.

[Pirschjaeger]

Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
if, if, if, blah, blah, blah

If Santa breaks your chimney, can't you sue the church?

C'mon Aimail, it's common sense, the difference between liability and fault. BP signed it. They are liable, just as a contractor is responsible for a building project. If Exxon applied for a permit to drill in UK sea, they too are just as responsible and liable, even if Hayward runs into the rig with his sail boat.

If you are truly interested in the reality of the legalities study a little Common Law.

Touche, try studying some contract law.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2...bout-other-companies (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0609/BP-takes-Gulf-oil-spill-heat-but-what-about-other-companies)

"The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990, which the Exxon Valdez task force helped shape, essentially focuses the responsibility on one party for the sake of simplicity,... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't that what I said? Or would you prefer the governments foot the clean up bill until they can figure out who is responsible? I suppose this OPA was kept secret from BP and now they are the unfortunate victims of bullying. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

As for the other contracts, if BP doesn't have a competent legal department, the too friggin bad. I suppose Transocean and Halliburton forced BP to sign? Those big meanies.

lol, Aimail, I'm not interested,...seriously.

[K_Freddie]

Once the product leaves our premises, we have no control over how it is used

Blaiming the product supplier won't stick...

[GoToAway]

I really don't understand how anybody can back these corporate shills, particularly when the people they defend are numerous tax brackets above them.

It's incredibly sad.

[R_Target]

Originally posted by Dance:
So would I.

Be sure. Although it would be a purely symbolic gesture, I'd be happy if they gave Warren Anderson to the Indians.

UCC's technique of shifting blame onto Indian-operated and 49.1% Indian-owned UCIL does bear a striking resemblance to BP's (and their cheerleaders') attempts to saddle Transocean and Halliburton with the responsibility for the Gulf spill though.

[ploughman]

I watched Heyward's testimony. I wasn't really sure what he was supposed to have said there. The panel seemd focused on point scoring (I rapidly came to the conclusion that some of the posters on this forum couldn've done a much better job) or asking him to testify about a series of decisions he was not involved in and then mistaking responsibility with omniscience. I wasn't impressed with him, the process or the panel.

[hop2002]

I suppose this OPA was kept secret from BP and now they are the unfortunate victims of bullying.

No, I think BP knew all about the OPA.

They knew about the $75 million cap on compensation payments under the OPA. The US government is now moving to raise that to $10 billion, retroactively.

BP have said, repeatedly, that they will meet all the costs of cleanup. Independent experts put those costs at about $5 billion. The US government is demanding $20 billion as a first payment. Where is the legal basis for that?


However, Henning pointed out in a recent New York Times column that Transocean has an indemnification provision that may leave BP responsible for paying the cost of cleanup and recovery no matter what. Halliburton said in a recent call to investors that like Transocean they are legally indemnified from responsibility through their contract with BP.

It's pretty common with all such contracts to have an exclusion for negligence. Transocean are in trouble because they had at least 3 fail safe systems completely fail. First the gas sensors didn't provide a warning that gas was escaping on to the rig. Second the automatic governers didn't shut down the engines, and third the BOP didn't function, either automatically or manually.

One failure on a crucial piece of safety equipment might be explainable, a cascade of such errors is not.


UCC's technique of shifting blame onto Indian-operated and 49.1% Indian-owned UCIL does bear a striking resemblance to BP's (and their cheerleaders') attempts to saddle Transocean and Halliburton with the responsibility for the Gulf spill though.

The positions are hardly similar. UCIL was a subsidiary of UC. Transocean is an independent company.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Nope, the insurance you bought. If you didn't buy the insurance before you took the car, then you are responsible, even though you are not at fault.

But then, it is your responsibility to go after whomever is at fault.

If you kill someone it that scenario, it's not you who's going to end up in court. If there was negligence involved and the company was contracted to provide a safe car then whoever's fault it was, will stand in court.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Assuming we are talking common law countries like England and the US then the Insurance claims are under contract law, civil negligence claims are under tort law (onus of proof in both cases is "balance of probabilities"). Neither effects the potential criminal change of killing someone. (onus of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt")

In the BP case another aspect might come in, specific legislation related to environmental damage or the safe governing of the operations. When politicians and legislation get involved all bets are off.

[Jagdgeschwader2]

Ah let the man have his yacht race. This is only a minor annoyance for him and BP. Let him get back to making profit again. It's only an environmental disaster in the states anyway. Who cares about the states? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37689703/from/RSS/


BP is a money-making machine that reported profits of $16.8 billion last year on revenue of nearly $250 billion. The company pumps some 4 million barrels of crude oil from the earth daily, and generates billions in profits from its refining operations.

BP also holds $6.8 billion in cash and short-term investments, which it could tap to pay for Gulf spill expenses. But that number is dwarfed by the rest of the company’s financial resources.

Even if all of BP’s future profits went to pay for the Gulf spill, the company still owns vast resources of oil reserves that could be converted into cash by selling them to another oil company.

According to estimates from bond rating agency Moody’s, BP has total proven reserves of roughly 18 billion barrels of oil in the ground, worth some $1.35 trillion at the current price of $75 a barrel. It also has a string of new fields due to move into production over the next few years, including other wells in the Gulf, along with finds in Azerbaijan, Angola, Egypt and Indonesia.

All those wells will provide a steady stream of cash that can help defray the cost of the spill. Even oil recovered from the runaway well could help fund the cleanup. On Monday, Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen told reporters BP should be able to recover 28,000 barrels of spilled oil per day by the end of this week. At $75 a barrel, that works out to more than $2 million a day.

Given the scope of the damage, the complexity of the cleanup and the likelihood of extended legal wrangling over claims, BP will likely be paying over many years, which would ease the financial burden on the company.

The legal battle over claims from the Exxon Valdez spill, previously the nation's worst, dragged on for two decades. In the end the Supreme Court overturned a $5 billion jury award for punitive damages, reducing the ultimate payout to about $500 million.


And BP may not have to shoulder the entire cost of the disaster. Lawyers filing claims on behalf of victims say liability may also fall to Transocean, which operated the rig; Halliburton, which oversaw the cementing of the well; and Cameron International, which manufactured the failed “blowout preventor.” Shared liability issues likely be the subject of legal battles over contracts BP signed with partners and subcontractors.



http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x277/Jagdgeschwader2/JG2Mobile.jpg

[Pirschjaeger]

Since the accident BP has more or less done all they are supposed to. What makes a bigger deal of this is Hayward's attitude toward the whole issue. It's a shame for BP that Hayward is the face of BP.

I wonder which has done more to lower BP stock value, Hayward or the accident.

BP will come out of this just fine, just as Exxon did. What I am hoping for is change in regulations across the board. Like Hop2002 says, it is a series of mistakes, just like almost all airliner crashes. It'll be no easy task to figure out who set what specifications and who was actually at fault.

If you read the transcripts you soon see there are many things wrong with everything from procedure to experience to design. For example, the explosion (second) damaged the electrical system to the point that the emergency generator failed to start, even manually. That's a design flaw that prevented fire fighting. But that's only one of many things that happened.

Focus on blame and flag waving by both media and individuals will do no good for anyone. Comparing the size this incident to past incidents will do no good in finding preventative measures and flaws in the system.

Industry and safety evolve.

[Jagdgeschwader2]

I could care less who is at fault as well. It's just that the attitudes of some people shocks me. The damage to such a vast area of the environment is mind boggling to me and should be a cause of concern for everyone. While people may carry on after this mess things will never be the same for the environment. As usual it takes a disaster to bring to light that tighter safety regulation is needed in this industry. Anyway it's done and that's that. Another strike against man kind.


http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x277/Jagdgeschwader2/JG2Mobile.jpg

[Pirschjaeger]

Environment? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Off topic.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[Airmail109]

I don't see the problem with him going boating. The guy looked positively depressed when I saw him in front of the senate.

He's got engineers and other managers who responsibility it is to clean the mess up. The guy probably needs to clear his mind and think about how he's going to deal with the situation his company is in.

[Pirschjaeger]

Hi Aimail,

I just happen to run across the following and felt it was a much better explanation than what I had provided:

Early in the disaster BP CEO Tony Hayward hinted at the company's legal strategy when he said the blowout was "not our accident."

"This was not our equipment," he told the BBC in comments he repeated to NBC's TODAY show and many other outlets. "It was not our people, our systems or our processes. This was Transocean’s rig. Their systems. Their people. Their equipment.”

But Larry ****erson, CEO of Diamond Offshore, one of the world's biggest drilling contractors, said it would be unusual for the rig operator to accept such liability.

“Typically we negotiate with the customers that we'll be responsible for the rig,” ****erson said. “But we don’t really understand what the geology of what the customer is drilling into. So they agree they will take any damages that result from pollution coming from that hole.”

It comes from the following link:

BP faces huge tab, has deep pockets (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37689703/ns/business-world_business//)

Basically, BP does the geological survey (Oil Exploration) and creates the specs for the procedure then applies for the permits. The other companies or sub contractors, Halliburton, Transoceon and Cameron, for example, provide equipment and services. From what I've read in the investigation transcripts, and this is only my opinion, BP should be able to sue subcontractors in regards to safety and/or equipment failure.

[hop2002]

The damage to such a vast area of the environment is mind boggling to me and should be a cause of concern for everyone. While people may carry on after this mess things will never be the same for the environment.

For all the fury in the press, the environmental effects of this disaster are not that great. As of 18 June 212 oiled dead seabirds and 3 mammals had been recovered in the Gulf. That compares to 35,000 dead birds and over 1,000 dead mammals recovered after the Exxon Valdez.

[Pirschjaeger]

I think it is much too soon to evaluate, with any degree of accuracy, the extent of the damage and the long term impact on the environment. Some species will suffer more than others which will upset the normal balance. According to the experts it'll take years, even decade to understand in full.

To add, those 212 birds were no doubt fertile, able to pass along genes that took millions of years to develop.

Furthermore, the numbers of the dead from the Exxon incident are hindsight. They weren't determined by day 61.

Fury of the press, risen awareness = Zeitgeist

The world has changed since Exxon and todays reactions are related to what we saw from the Exxon incident. People in general expect more accountability. People today are more environmentally aware of the ramifications. In this sense, we can see gains from the Exxon experience.

[Gammelpreusse]

Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The damage to such a vast area of the environment is mind boggling to me and should be a cause of concern for everyone. While people may carry on after this mess things will never be the same for the environment.

For all the fury in the press, the environmental effects of this disaster are not that great. As of 18 June 212 oiled dead seabirds and 3 mammals had been recovered in the Gulf. That compares to 35,000 dead birds and over 1,000 dead mammals recovered after the Exxon Valdez. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The exxon valdez became so famous because it had a lot of terrifying pictures to present to the press. There were more serious catastrophes that never got to the news simply for a lack of sensational pictures.

But the exxon valdez was only one ship, leaking her oil while beeing on the surface.

The gulf spill, however, appeared at 1500 meter depths, with huge masses of oil floating freely on and under the ocean surface. We neither know yet what it does at depths nor where currents will carry it.

However, given the vast difference in the oil amount spilled after the exxon valdez incident and the gulf spill, it's rather safe to say damage will dwarf that of the exxon valdez by several magnitutes. In what way and in what amounds exactly will take years to examine.

[R_Target]

Originally posted by hop2002
The positions are hardly similar. UCIL was a subsidiary of UC. Transocean is an independent company.

That doesn't make the buck-passing any less analogous.

[horseback]

The gulf spill, however, appeared at 1500 meter depths, with huge masses of oil floating freely on and under the ocean surface. We neither know yet what it does at depths nor where currents will carry it.

However, given the vast difference in the oil amount spilled after the exxon valdez incident and the gulf spill, it's rather safe to say damage will dwarf that of the exxon valdez by several magnitutes. In what way and in what amounds exactly will take years to examine.
Agreed. While the Exxon Valdez spill was touted as being 'completely cleaned up', it did wipe out the fishing of certain species in Prince William Sound. Most of the surface damage was cosmetic, as long as you weren't one of the birds or otters killed outright by it.

We may not be able to fully gauge the damage to the Gulf's ecological system by the current Gulf spill for decades.

cheers

horseback

[Airmail109]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Hi Aimail,

I just happen to run across the following and felt it was a much better explanation than what I had provided:

Early in the disaster BP CEO Tony Hayward hinted at the company's legal strategy when he said the blowout was "not our accident."

"This was not our equipment," he told the BBC in comments he repeated to NBC's TODAY show and many other outlets. "It was not our people, our systems or our processes. This was Transocean’s rig. Their systems. Their people. Their equipment.”

But Larry ****erson, CEO of Diamond Offshore, one of the world's biggest drilling contractors, said it would be unusual for the rig operator to accept such liability.

“Typically we negotiate with the customers that we'll be responsible for the rig,” ****erson said. “But we don’t really understand what the geology of what the customer is drilling into. So they agree they will take any damages that result from pollution coming from that hole.”

It comes from the following link:

BP faces huge tab, has deep pockets (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37689703/ns/business-world_business//)

Basically, BP does the geological survey (Oil Exploration) and creates the specs for the procedure then applies for the permits. The other companies or sub contractors, Halliburton, Transoceon and Cameron, for example, provide equipment and services. From what I've read in the investigation transcripts, and this is only my opinion, BP should be able to sue subcontractors in regards to safety and/or equipment failure.

Precisely as that link I posted and a rig manager I know said, this will turn into the mother of all contract fights.

It all depends on what exactly went wrong I guess.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Hi Aimail,

I just happen to run across the following and felt it was a much better explanation than what I had provided:

Early in the disaster BP CEO Tony Hayward hinted at the company's legal strategy when he said the blowout was "not our accident."

"This was not our equipment," he told the BBC in comments he repeated to NBC's TODAY show and many other outlets. "It was not our people, our systems or our processes. This was Transocean’s rig. Their systems. Their people. Their equipment.”

But Larry ****erson, CEO of Diamond Offshore, one of the world's biggest drilling contractors, said it would be unusual for the rig operator to accept such liability.

“Typically we negotiate with the customers that we'll be responsible for the rig,” ****erson said. “But we don’t really understand what the geology of what the customer is drilling into. So they agree they will take any damages that result from pollution coming from that hole.”

It comes from the following link:

BP faces huge tab, has deep pockets (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37689703/ns/business-world_business//)

Basically, BP does the geological survey (Oil Exploration) and creates the specs for the procedure then applies for the permits. The other companies or sub contractors, Halliburton, Transoceon and Cameron, for example, provide equipment and services. From what I've read in the investigation transcripts, and this is only my opinion, BP should be able to sue subcontractors in regards to safety and/or equipment failure.

Precisely as that link I posted and a rig manager I know said, this will turn into the mother of all contract fights.

It all depends on what exactly went wrong I guess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Australian solution to huge liabilities like this is to siphon off all your funds into a sister company offshore then declare the original company bankrupt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Voila .. no liabilities !!

If criticized comment that "It's all legal so OF COURSE its ethical and moral." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[hop2002]

There are many differences between the current spill and the Exxon Valdez.

The Valdez dumped a lot of crude in to a small area right on the coast. It happened in much colder conditions that hampered evaporation and the natural break up of the oil.

The current spill is further out to sea, less concentrated as a result, and the weather conditions mean it is evaporating, and being degraded, much more quickly.

Most importantly, though, is the fact the oil is not concentrated. That enables wildlife to avoid it.

The number of dead, oiled birds recovered has now risen to 265, which means an average of just under 14 per day since the last figures I posted. The number of dead oiled mammals remains at 3.

[AndyJWest]

The number of dead, oiled birds recovered has now risen to 265, which means an average of just under 14 per day since the last figures I posted. The number of dead oiled mammals remains at 3.

I'd have thought that oil being dispersed rather than concentrated made it more difficult to avoid.

And how many dead, oiled birds and mammals aren't recovered?

[GoToAway]

Originally posted by AndyJWest:
And how many dead, oiled birds and mammals aren't recovered? Fox News hasn't published that particular figure yet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[WTE_Galway]

Originally posted by GoToAway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
And how many dead, oiled birds and mammals aren't recovered? Fox News hasn't published that particular figure yet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wikileaks are onto it

[Bremspropeller]

Most importantly, though, is the fact the oil is not concentrated. That enables wildlife to avoid it.

It's hard to AVOID stuff you don't know it's gonna kill you.

BTW: The ocean is a vast place - there are lots of dead animals that have just sunk to the bottom without anybody ever noticing it.
Those might collaterally kill speciaes not directly related to the spill that will scavenge those cadavres.

What we're seeing here is dying on an astronomic scale, we'll only be able to get grasp of in a couple of decades - when SOME populations might have recovered.


Some people obviously have not the slightest clue how wildlife is tightly knot together and how the slightest incident can lead to tip over an entire sub-region.
Dying-out of speies a will have direct influence of species b's chances of suvival.

Just because we don't find lots of dead cadavres doesn't mean there aren't many around.
We just haven't looked for them hard enough.

[hop2002]

I'd have thought that oil being dispersed rather than concentrated made it more difficult to avoid.


If you have patches of oil on a beach, it's easy to avoid. If you have all the beaches in an area inches deep in oil, then wildlife has no way of avoiding it.


And how many dead, oiled birds and mammals aren't recovered?

Most of them. The estimate for the Exxon Valdez was about 250,000 birds killed but not recovered.


It's hard to AVOID stuff you don't know it's gonna kill you.

Animals are usually pretty good at avoiding toxic stuff like oil.

[Bremspropeller]

Animals are usually pretty good at avoiding toxic stuff like oil.

http://www.ibrrc.org/images/Treasure/penguins_oiled.jpg

...not

[GoToAway]

Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Some people obviously have not the slightest clue how wildlife is tightly knot together and how the slightest incident can lead to tip over an entire sub-region. Not surprisingly, these seem to be the same people that have difficulty with concepts like anthropogenic climate change and evolution.

This is about more than "oiled birds" and is incomparable to the Exxon Valdez spill. The effects of this haven't even begun to be felt. If it starts taking out reefs, it takes out the food chain for the region at the knees and will kill things that were never even touched by the oil.

Hopefully the coral "knows to avoid" the oil then, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Pirschjaeger]

I've been thinking about which is worse, a spill directly on the coast or one out at sea. I'm thinking out as sea is worse for two reasons. One reason is that a spill on the coast isn't going anywhere, relative to the mobility of a spill at sea (currents).

Secondly and more importantly, a spill at sea can affect more sub-eco-systems (there's probably a better term) as the eco-systems at sea are not only 360 in direction but in depth. I recently saw something (can't remember where) about when descending through the sea depths what animals are at what depths.

We naturally look at the sea and think 'flat'. The seas are like the atmosphere with different layers and environments going either up or down. The seas are the same. Perhaps we could call the various sea layers and environments 'hydrospheres'?

To make things even more complicated we have currents that are similar to air currents in the atmosphere. We've all seen airballons seemingly going against the wind. Just as air currents can be multi-directional depending upon the various layers, so to can sea currents. How can we know where all the material from the gusher is actually going?

Does this make sense?

[Airmail109]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I've been thinking about which is worse, a spill directly on the coast or one out at sea. I'm thinking out as sea is worse for two reasons. One reason is that a spill on the coast isn't going anywhere, relative to the mobility of a spill at sea (currents).

Secondly and more importantly, a spill at sea can affect more sub-eco-systems (there's probably a better term) as the eco-systems at sea are not only 360 in direction but in depth. I recently saw something (can't remember where) about when descending through the sea depths what animals are at what depths.

We naturally look at the sea and think 'flat'. The seas are like the atmosphere with different layers and environments going either up or down. The seas are the same. Perhaps we could call the various sea layers and environments 'hydrospheres'?

To make things even more complicated we have currents that are similar to air currents in the atmosphere. We've all seen airballons seemingly going against the wind. Just as air currents can be multi-directional depending upon the various layers, so to can sea currents. How can we know where all the material from the gusher is actually going?

Does this make sense?

Makes perfect sense and FYI a lot of the oil is pluming at various depths and not actually rising to the surface. Bacteria also eat the oil, the more oil the more bacteria which changes the PH or oxygen levels of the water or something along those lines. Potentially making whole areas of the ocean uninhabitable for long periods of time.

[Jagdgeschwader2]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I've been thinking about which is worse, a spill directly on the coast or one out at sea. I'm thinking out as sea is worse for two reasons. One reason is that a spill on the coast isn't going anywhere, relative to the mobility of a spill at sea (currents).

Secondly and more importantly, a spill at sea can affect more sub-eco-systems (there's probably a better term) as the eco-systems at sea are not only 360 in direction but in depth. I recently saw something (can't remember where) about when descending through the sea depths what animals are at what depths.

We naturally look at the sea and think 'flat'. The seas are like the atmosphere with different layers and environments going either up or down. The seas are the same. Perhaps we could call the various sea layers and environments 'hydrospheres'?

To make things even more complicated we have currents that are similar to air currents in the atmosphere. We've all seen airballons seemingly going against the wind. Just as air currents can be multi-directional depending upon the various layers, so to can sea currents. How can we know where all the material from the gusher is actually going?

Does this make sense?

Here is an interactive map showing the spill and animals endagered (Click at the top of the map). A simplified graph shows the depth of the spill. Another thing not taken into account here is the effects of the chemical dispersants used to break down the oil on mamals and sea creatures. Who knows what kind of impact this will have on fish larve. What about Hurricane season which started June 1st? Imagine what could happen here. I hope the relief well is ahead of schedule so we can get that part out of the way before the storms arrive.

http://www.nytimes.com/interac...l-spill-tracker.html (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/01/us/20100501-oil-spill-tracker.html)

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x277/Jagdgeschwader2/JG2Mobile.jpg

[GoToAway]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
We naturally look at the sea and think 'flat'. The seas are like the atmosphere with different layers and environments going either up or down. The seas are the same. Perhaps we could call the various sea layers and environments 'hydrospheres'? In a very general sense:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Pelagiczone.svg/208px-Pelagiczone.svg.png

It gets a little more complicated than that, but that's the basic stratification of the water column. You're very right in that it's not as simple as many here seem to believe.

[Jagdgeschwader2]

More bad news. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Problem With Cap Causes More Oil to Gush in Gulf
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06...s/24spillweb.html?hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/us/24spillweb.html?hp)

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x277/Jagdgeschwader2/JG2Mobile.jpg

[AndyJWest]

Yup, another setback: Gulf oil spill flow increases after accident forces BP to remove cap (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/23/bp-gulf-oil-spill-cap-gusher)

And from the above article, this little snippet on the root causes of such events:

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is to replace the Minerals Management Service (MMS), which has been accused of being in the pocket of the oil industry. Bromwich promised a new FBI-style team would conduct internal investigations of the associations between government regulators and industry. "There will be little tolerance for corruption and cosiness," he said. "There will be zero tolerance for whatever was tolerated in the past."

The former prosecutor said his team would encourage whistleblowers and act quickly to root out corruption or complacency among agency officials or the companies they were supposed to regulate.

Even before the Deepwater Horizon rig went down, the MMS was notorious for cocaine-fuelled sex romps between government officials and oil industry executives. In the Gulf, government inspectors were plied with free football tickets or offered jobs by the very same companies they were supposed to monitor.

[Jagdgeschwader2]

Hardly surprising. Big oil companies bribing corrupt officials so they can bend the rules. And now the planet has to pay for all this greed and corruption. The party is over now.



http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x277/Jagdgeschwader2/JG2Mobile.jpg

[Pirschjaeger]

Judge who overturned drilling moratorium reported owning stock in drilling companies
Tue Jun 22, 4:33 pm ET

The federal judge who overturned Barack Obama's offshore drilling moratorium reported owning stock in numerous companies involved in the offshore oil industry — including Transocean, which leased the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig to BP prior to its April 20 explosion in the Gulf of Mexico — according to 2008 financial disclosure reports.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman issued a preliminary injunction today barring the enforcement of the president's proposed six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling, arguing that the ban is too broad.

According to Feldman's 2008 financial disclosure form, posted online by Judicial Watch [pdf], the judge owned stock in Transocean, as well as five other companies that are either directly or indirectly involved in the offshore drilling business.

It's not surprising that Feldman, who is a judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, has invested in the offshore drilling business — an Associated Press investigation found earlier this month that more than half the federal judges in the districts affected by the BP spill have financial ties to the oil and gas industry.

The report discloses that in 2008, Judge Feldman held less than $15,000 worth of stock in Transocean, as well as similar amounts (federal rules only require that judges report a range of values ) in Hercules Offshore, ATP Oil and Gas, and Parker Drilling. All of those companies offer contract offshore drilling services and operate offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Judge Feldman also owned between $15,000 and $50,000 in notes offered by Ocean Energy, Inc., a company that offers "concept design and manufacturing design of submersible drilling rigs," according to its website. None of the companies were direct parties to the lawsuit seeking to overturn the ban.

Judge Feldman did not immediately return a message seeking comment.


Does this not constitute a conflict of interest in the U.S. legal system?

[Jagdgeschwader2]

Yep,and more of the same. The entire system is corrupt.

"This week, BP asked the courts to give all pre-trial issues for the 98 lawsuits already filed against the company to a single federal judge–one that happens to have significant ties to the oil industry. The Miami Herald reports:"

http://motherjones.com/blue-ma...heard-judge-oil-ties (http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/05/bp-wants-cases-heard-judge-oil-ties)


http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x277/Jagdgeschwader2/JG2Mobile.jpg

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

While I agree there is a conflict of interest there, I think the moratorium is a bad idea. The economy of the gulf is already in trouble over this disaster, gulf oil is a major part of it though, end that and the people are hurt even worse. These oil companies aren't going to sit around with their drills up their bums either, they will go drill elsewhere and likely not return, causing the economic damage from a six month break to extend much longer than that. The regulation of offshore drilling should be massively overhauled and all current and new rigs properly inspected immediately, but there is not any real reason for a moratorium on new drilling.

[Pirschjaeger]

I think that's what Obama is trying to do but of course there will be a lot of interference. I think the judge had to be nuts to go against the 6 month ban. He only sheds light on deeper areas of corruption. I read elsewhere, and wanted to post it here but couldn't (forum was down) that BP wasn't the only one in the Gulf using the cheaper less safe procedure.

On the positive side Shell and Mobile (IIRC) said they would wait before drilling.

I think we will see some sort of overhaul but not before a lot of diversion and stall tactics from the opposition.

Health care again anyone?

[Jagdgeschwader2]

Here we go. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

"All eyes on western Caribbean"

A tropical disturbance we've been tracking the last few days is now showing signs of increased organization.
http://www.weather.com/outlook...caribbean_2010-06-22 (http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/vigorous-tropical-wave-caribbean_2010-06-22)

Hurricanes Versus the Oil Spill

http://www.weather.com/outlook...e-impacts_2010-05-28 (http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/oil-versus-hurricane-impacts_2010-05-28)


http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x277/Jagdgeschwader2/JG2Mobile.jpg