75ZT Community

takestock · Posted 29 May 2010, 22:37 #1

I see it's just been announced the "top kill" operation has failed, what now??

DeuxGazoles · Posted 29 May 2010, 22:39 #2

It's absolutely crazy..............yes I know it must be hard to stop it but wouldn't you think they would have a tried & tested method to fall back on

takestock · Posted 29 May 2010, 22:41 #3

DeuxGazoles wrote:It's absolutely crazy..............yes I know it must be hard to stop it but wouldn't you think they would have a tried & tested method to fall back on

To be fair who would have thought that knotted rope, old tyres and golf balls would have failed

JohnDotCom · Posted 29 May 2010, 22:43 #4

This is a absolute environmental disaster.

Can't they blow it up and stop worrying about profits for once.
If there isn't a accident backup plan then they shouldn't undertake the drilling.
Yes I know what about fuel, but if they spent some money on preventive measures and ensured everything was working properly
this shouldn't and couldn't have happened.

The President with all the resources at hand should take over and just bill BP.

DeuxGazoles · Posted 29 May 2010, 22:47 #5

takestock wrote:To be fair who would have thought that knotted rope, old tyres and golf balls would have failed

Well exactly...........sounds the perfect cure to me :4:

takestock · Posted 29 May 2010, 22:50 #6

DeuxGazoles wrote:
takestock wrote:To be fair who would have thought that knotted rope, old tyres and golf balls would have failed

Well exactly...........sounds the perfect cure to me

with a forum name like yours, typical.

Seriously this will have ramifications for generations to come, wildlife, environment, tourism and economy, it just goes on and on....

DeuxGazoles · Posted 29 May 2010, 22:51 #7

Doesn't bear thinking about :evil:

Jürgen · Posted 29 May 2010, 23:07 #8

There has been a big spill in 1979 near Mexico's Gulf coast, with strange similarities to the one happening now.

The Ixtoc 1 well was owned by Petroleos Mexicanos, Mexico's state oil company, known as Pemex. But it was being drilled by Sedco, a predecessor to Transocean, owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/envi ... pill_N.htm

Mick · Posted 29 May 2010, 23:46 #9

A tragedy indeed for the locals, no to mention the environment. I don't think all resources of the US could do much more than BP are doing to stem the flow. They could only employ another oil company to do the job, they are the only people with the equipment necessary to work at that depth. The failsafe systems failed. The worst case scenario.

JohnDotCom · Posted 31 May 2010, 14:11 #10

I see BP quote today the new idea should if it works reduce the flow but not stop it,
we are looking to try and stop it in August.

This is getting quite worrying and is already stated as the worst oil leak of all time in the USA.
The damage to come in future years and loss of jobs and damage to the environment cannot yet be imagined.

Posted 04 Jun 2010, 20:59 #11

I wonder how bothered the Americans would be if it wasn't their coastline. Isn't it also convenient that they have a foreign company to hold responsible. Would Obama be bothered if it was an American company and our coast. He'd be in a real pickle if it was an American company and their coast, share values going down, pension losses for his own citizens (voters), that sort of thing. The fact is that their government sanctioned the drilling to satisfy their greed for oil. If it had been an American company they'd be facing a lot more searching questions about that.

The above are not really questions, just my thoughts and I'm not wanting to provoke any sort of arguments or ill-feeling towards the selfish bastards over there.

Bernard · Posted 04 Jun 2010, 22:42 #12

Fred wrote:I wonder how bothered the Americans would be if it wasn't their coastline. Isn't it also convenient that they have a foreign company to hold responsible. Would Obama be bothered if it was an American company and our coast. He'd be in a real pickle if it was an American company and their coast, share values going down, pension losses for his own citizens (voters), that sort of thing. The fact is that their government sanctioned the drilling to satisfy their greed for oil. If it had been an American company they'd be facing a lot more searching questions about that.

The above are not really questions, just my thoughts and I'm not wanting to provoke any sort of arguments or ill-feeling towards the selfish bastards over there.

Not often that I am in complete agreement with anyone on any subject, but I'm with you on this one. This is going to cost us dear.

Posted 04 Jun 2010, 22:54 #13

Bernard wrote:
Fred wrote:I wonder how bothered the Americans would be if it wasn't their coastline. Isn't it also convenient that they have a foreign company to hold responsible. Would Obama be bothered if it was an American company and our coast. He'd be in a real pickle if it was an American company and their coast, share values going down, pension losses for his own citizens (voters), that sort of thing. The fact is that their government sanctioned the drilling to satisfy their greed for oil. If it had been an American company they'd be facing a lot more searching questions about that.

The above are not really questions, just my thoughts and I'm not wanting to provoke any sort of arguments or ill-feeling towards the selfish bastards over there.

Not often that I am in complete agreement with anyone on any subject, but I'm with you on this one. This is going to cost us dear.

And since posting the above I have heard the whinging wally on a TV prog. saying BP have met all of their legal obligations but they also have moral obligations. The tosser should visit some of the places America has moral obligations to and then slink off with his moral tail between his legs.

calibrax · Posted 04 Jun 2010, 23:07 #14

This oil spill, although not a good thing by any standards, is still less than 10% of the amount of oil that Iraq released into the sea during their invasion of Kuwait. Yet the region recovered. Most people don't even remember it, because there wasn't much shouting about it back then. But of course, when something directly affects the US there's a whole lot of shouting...

I work as an accountant in the oil industry, and trust me when I say that BP is doing everything possible to close the leak in the shortest possible time, and money is NO object. They will not hold back one cent. Because the PR damage is so huge from something like this, resolving it immediately will save them TRILLIONS in the long term. So... spend billions and save trillions. It's a no brainer.

takestock · Posted 05 Jun 2010, 17:01 #15

calibrax wrote:This oil spill, although not a good thing by any standards, is still less than 10% of the amount of oil that Iraq released into the sea during their invasion of Kuwait. Yet the region recovered. Most people don't even remember it, because there wasn't much shouting about it back then. But of course, when something directly affects the US there's a whole lot of shouting...

I work as an accountant in the oil industry, and trust me when I say that BP is doing everything possible to close the leak in the shortest possible time, and money is NO object. They will not hold back one cent. Because the PR damage is so huge from something like this, resolving it immediately will save them TRILLIONS in the long term. So... spend billions and save trillions. It's a no brainer.

Interesting to hear the other side of the coin so to speak

FROGGY · Posted 06 Jun 2010, 09:13 #16

The Yanks are saying absolutely nothing about the fact that TRANSOCEAN, an AMERICAN company, owned and operated the Deepwater Horizon rig. BP were paying the bill, but in actual fact are not responsible for the disaster.
So far Transocean are hidden away better than Osama Thingy.

Mick

calibrax · Posted 06 Jun 2010, 10:56 #17

FROGGY wrote:The Yanks are saying absolutely nothing about the fact that TRANSOCEAN, an AMERICAN company, owned and operated the Deepwater Horizon rig. BP were paying the bill, but in actual fact are not responsible for the disaster.
So far Transocean are hidden away better than Osama Thingy.

Mick

Well, Transocean were operating the rig, and Halliburton were providing well construction services. It's still not fully known why the explosion occurred. It could have been failure of the blow out preventer (BOP) which was Transocean equipment, could have been a failure of the cement or the well casing work done by Halliburton, or it could have been BP managers ordering either company to go ahead with a risky procedure - there are reports of arguments between BP managers and Transocean personnel on the rig when the BP managers allegedly ordered the use of seawater instead of heavy cement in the well to speed up processes. Nobody knows at this stage.

But no matter, all the service companies (Transocean and Halliburton) were subcontracted to BP, and BP are therefore ultimately liable for whatever happens. At some later stage if one or other of the service companies is determined to be at fault, then I guess BP could sue them. That's a long way off though.

FROGGY · Posted 06 Jun 2010, 11:31 #18

calibrax wrote:
FROGGY wrote:The Yanks are saying absolutely nothing about the fact that TRANSOCEAN, an AMERICAN company, owned and operated the Deepwater Horizon rig. BP were paying the bill, but in actual fact are not responsible for the disaster.
So far Transocean are hidden away better than Osama Thingy.

Mick

Well, Transocean were operating the rig, and Halliburton were providing well construction services. It's still not fully known why the explosion occurred. It could have been failure of the blow out preventer (BOP) which was Transocean equipment, could have been a failure of the cement or the well casing work done by Halliburton, or it could have been BP managers ordering either company to go ahead with a risky procedure - there are reports of arguments between BP managers and Transocean personnel on the rig when the BP managers allegedly ordered the use of seawater instead of heavy cement in the well to speed up processes. Nobody knows at this stage.

But no matter, all the service companies (Transocean and Halliburton) were subcontracted to BP, and BP are therefore ultimately liable for whatever happens. At some later stage if one or other of the service companies is determined to be at fault, then I guess BP could sue them. That's a long way off though.

Should have worded it better Steve.
I know that under American law BP are held resonsible, but it wasn't a BP operation as such, yet the Yanks are throwing all the **** our way.
With a bit of luck they may cease to be "our best friends", or is that too much to hope for?

Mick

calibrax · Posted 06 Jun 2010, 12:13 #19

FROGGY wrote:Should have worded it better Steve.
I know that under American law BP are held resonsible, but it wasn't a BP operation as such, yet the Yanks are throwing all the **** our way.
With a bit of luck they may cease to be "our best friends", or is that too much to hope for?

Mick

Yeah, I know what you mean Mick, the Americans should be supportive - after all, BP has taken responsibilty and is doing the right thing here. They've already given out tens of millions in compensation without the people affected having to go to court for it. Not sure many US companies would do that...

What gets me is the idiots organising BP petrol station boycotts... most of which are independent, so there's very little effect, if any, on BP themselves...

JohnDotCom · Posted 06 Jun 2010, 16:56 #20

The president doesn't say BP in all reports if you listen to them.
It is nearly always refereed to as British Petroleum.
You don't hear the British title used very much normally...................

75ZT Community

75ZT Community

BP oil spill failure by takestock (Page 1 of 2)