Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by Master of Ossus »

Bluewolf wrote:On top of that they are also scaremongering the prospect of other companies taking over BP.

It's only the front page and parts of the main article. but it gives you an idea of the panic there is among some and why some really are saying it is too bit to fall. Of course I don't think BP should fall but it should not just away with this lightly either. We don't need more economic trouble and job losses on top of the ones caused by Deepwater.
Shareholders aren't entitled to dividends if the company they've invested in (apparently without diversifying for... some reason) isn't making a profit. BP's not going bankrupt or anything as a result of this, but they could certainly use the cash-on-hand.
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Markets are rarely rational.
Evidence?
We've seen larger drops in their worth over less interesting news. Then it goes up when something that would spook them more arises in the news. It's the same with the banking firms and the financial crises. What makes sense today, may not be so tomorrow. They're going to talk about these dividends issues on Monday. If you look at the trend though, BP are getting whipped lately, and gave just managed to stabilise with this news now. If the leak gets worse and Obama rattles the sabre again, you can easily see more fall off, even if right now the market is erring on the side of hope given BP's well capitalised status.
Out of curiosity, I did the market cap calculations on BP a couple days ago. The market seems to be estimating that BP will lose ~$60bb in total market cap. The Exxon Valdez cost Exxon something on the order of $5bb (of which only $2bb were direct clean-up costs), so the market's saying that this is roughly 12 times the Valdez. That doesn't strike me as being completely unreasonable, all things considered.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37389
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by Sea Skimmer »

I've seen 75 billion throw around a few times as the likely total extent of BPs losses and liability in this. However they won't be paying anything like that much money quickly, the lawsuits will easily take 10 years to work out even with the more recently revised laws, so no reason why they should go bankrupt. BUt no way can they be paying 10 billion dollar dividends either, and its better for everyone if they pay this off quickly.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Master of Ossus wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Markets are rarely rational.
Evidence?
Jesus, really?
User avatar
J
Kaye Elle Emenopey
Posts: 5833
Joined: 2002-12-14 02:23pm

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by J »

Yes, really. An 80% market rally into worsening unemployment, higher debt, record bankruptcies & budget deficits, record levels of mortgage & credit card defaults, threats of sovereign and a billion other bad things is completely rational.*

*this message was endorsed by the Goldman Sachs prop desk. What can HFT do for you today?


Oh, by the way, it gets better.
Times online link

BP offers Barack Obama clean-up billions
Danny Fortson


BP is considering putting several billion dollars into a ring-fenced clean-up fund to appease American concerns over the soaring cost of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.


The fund is one of several options to be put to the company’s board tomorrow ahead of a meeting on Wednesday between Barack Obama and Carl-Henric Svanberg, BP’s chairman. Yesterday Obama told David Cameron, the prime minister, he had “no interest in undermining” the company’s value.

BP’s directors are discussing a reduction in dividend payments as part of a peace offering to Obama, who has made stinging attacks on the group and its management. Company sources said directors were not likely to axe the payout completely and were trying to find a middle way. “They know it can’t be business as usual.”

One adviser said the fund would help tackle the “Valdez factor”, a reference to the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil tanker disaster, claims for which are still tied up in court. “We need to show we are willing to pay upfront and won’t wait for litigation.”

Svanberg will be given a more prominent role. He has been criticised for remaining largely out of sight during the crisis.

BP has, meanwhile, drafted in a phalanx of extra advisers to counsel it on its options. The team includes John Studzinski at Blackstone, the American investment firm, and Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street giant and long-standing BP adviser.

The company is vulnerable to takeover. Its shares have shed 40% of their value in the past two months. The company was worth £73 billion on Friday. The most likely bidders would be Exxon Mobil, the world’s largest oil company, and Chevron, its rival. Sector sources said nobody is likely to make a run at BP until the political temperature cools and the oil leak is stopped. Industry sources warned that if Obama’s administration removes a cap on potential liabilities, as several politicians have proposed, BP could be forced into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Last week an American government panel increased its estimates of the size of the leak, saying the well was spewing as much as 40,000 barrels a day, equivalent to the Exxon Valdez spill every five days.

The revelation heaped further pressure on BP in America, where it has been vilified in the press and by Obama. The president has suggested that Tony Hayward, BP’s chief executive, should be sacked and that the company should halt its dividend until the clean-up is completed.

Hayward faces a grilling by the House oversight and investigations sub-committee on Thursday. To prepare he will face a “murder board” — a dress rehearsal by his lawyers.

The appearance may be made more difficult by the next phase in BP’s effort to control the spill. It is capturing 16,000 barrels a day from the well and this weekend will hook up another system to take an extra 5,000-10,000 barrels. The oil will not be captured but burnt off, creating an enormous plume of black smoke. Politicians and environmentalists have expressed concerns about the resulting pollution.

BP said this weekend that two tankers capable of handling 50,000 barrels a day would not be available for another month.

Transocean, the drilling company whose rig blew up, causing the oil spill, is to go ahead with a bumper dividend payout. It will give shareholders $1 billion (£687m) despite pressure from American legislators.
So, looks like BP will be creating a "bad oil co." and sinking it to absolve themselves of the blame & liabilities. And they're going to deliberately burn off thousands of barrels a day and release a giant cloud of toxic black smoke. Seriously. Are these guys taking lessons from Dr. Evil or something? What are they going to do next, tear off the blowout preventer and light the floating oil slick on fire?
This post is a 100% natural organic product.
The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects


I'm not sure why people choose 'To Love is to Bury' as their wedding song...It's about a murder-suicide
- Margo Timmins


When it becomes serious, you have to lie
- Jean-Claude Juncker
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37389
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by Sea Skimmer »

J wrote: So, looks like BP will be creating a "bad oil co." and sinking it to absolve themselves of the blame & liabilities. And they're going to deliberately burn off thousands of barrels a day and release a giant cloud of toxic black smoke. Seriously. Are these guys taking lessons from Dr. Evil or something?


Do you know anything about the oil industry, at all? They are burning the oil until they can bring in a floating oil processing platform to deal with it and establish the required piping hookups. One of the two drill rigs, the Q4000, hooked up at the moment cannot process oil. You cannot dump raw crude out out the ground into a tanker. The vapor hazard is far too high and you run a very high risk that either the tanker or worse, the tanker and its unloading point will blow the hell up. So in the interim they'll burn the oil rather then letting it spill the fuck into the ocean. The amount being burned isn't even that much compared to what a single burning oil will on land could consume.

The piece of equipment being used to burn the oil BTW, is a device that is in fact normally used to test oil wells prior to production equipment being installed. So its not like this is some radical new idea. That's besides the fact that oil rigs almost always have a flare stack going anyway, even if its being kept lit by bottled propane just in case they need it to deal with a sudden gas surge.,
What are they going to do next, tear off the blowout preventer and light the floating oil slick on fire?
God your being dumb as fuck right now, the US Coast Guard already DID TRY TO BURN THE SLICK. Several times in fact. Burning it is a billion times better then letting it float around. Animals flee from fire rather then being caught in the oil, and its pollutes less which we have known for a long time. That's why precedent exists for bombing wrecked oil tankers with napalm when they fell beyond hope of salvage.

Never mind the damn fact that the only reason we ever wanted the damn oil out of the ground in the first place was so that we could burn it anyway. Or do you somehow think that burning gasoline fumes are not toxic?
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
CaptainChewbacca
Browncoat Wookiee
Posts: 15746
Joined: 2003-05-06 02:36am
Location: Deep beneath Boatmurdered.

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by CaptainChewbacca »

So, looks like BP will be creating a "bad oil co." and sinking it to absolve themselves of the blame & liabilities. And they're going to deliberately burn off thousands of barrels a day and release a giant cloud of toxic black smoke. Seriously. Are these guys taking lessons from Dr. Evil or something? What are they going to do next, tear off the blowout preventer and light the floating oil slick on fire?
Yeah... burning an oil slick is actually a GOOD thing here. Keeps the oil from mucking up the sea life and all that. I'm of the opinion they should never have put the fire OUT in the first place.
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
ImageImage
User avatar
Temujin
Jedi Master
Posts: 1300
Joined: 2010-03-28 07:08pm
Location: Occupying Wall Street (In Spirit)

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by Temujin »

Sea Skimmer wrote:
J wrote: So, looks like BP will be creating a "bad oil co." and sinking it to absolve themselves of the blame & liabilities. And they're going to deliberately burn off thousands of barrels a day and release a giant cloud of toxic black smoke. Seriously. Are these guys taking lessons from Dr. Evil or something?


Do you know anything about the oil industry, at all? They are burning the oil until they can bring in a floating oil processing platform to deal with it and establish the required piping hookups. One of the two drill rigs, the Q4000, hooked up at the moment cannot process oil. You cannot dump raw crude out out the ground into a tanker. The vapor hazard is far too high and you run a very high risk that either the tanker or worse, the tanker and its unloading point will blow the hell up. So in the interim they'll burn the oil rather then letting it spill the fuck into the ocean. The amount being burned isn't even that much compared to what a single burning oil will on land could consume.

The piece of equipment being used to burn the oil BTW, is a device that is in fact normally used to test oil wells prior to production equipment being installed. So its not like this is some radical new idea. That's besides the fact that oil rigs almost always have a flare stack going anyway, even if its being kept lit by bottled propane just in case they need it to deal with a sudden gas surge.,
What are they going to do next, tear off the blowout preventer and light the floating oil slick on fire?
God your being dumb as fuck right now, the US Coast Guard already DID TRY TO BURN THE SLICK. Several times in fact. Burning it is a billion times better then letting it float around. Animals flee from fire rather then being caught in the oil, and its pollutes less which we have known for a long time. That's why precedent exists for bombing wrecked oil tankers with napalm when they fell beyond hope of salvage.

Never mind the damn fact that the only reason we ever wanted the damn oil out of the ground in the first place was so that we could burn it anyway. Or do you somehow think that burning gasoline fumes are not toxic?
The problem is a lot of the media outlets seem to be focusing on just the burning of the oil, and not really explaining what exactly is going. Maybe BP really didn't explain what they are going to do and why (no surprise there), but it's also the media's responsibility to consult with other experts and not have a knee jerk reaction and jump and down on the I HATE BP bandwagon, especially when its not warranted (but again, no surprise there).

At this point, if the burning of the oil slick is the lesser of the two environmental evils, than maybe that's what they should have allowed to be done all along. They certainly aren't doing squat to clean up the existing spill, even to the point of continuing to deny the existence of much of it.
Image
Mr. Harley: Your impatience is quite understandable.
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it.
Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I'm very sorry... I wish it were otherwise.

"I do know that for the sympathy of one living being, I would make peace with all. I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe.
If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other." – Frankenstein's Creature on the glacier[/size]
User avatar
wautd
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7576
Joined: 2004-02-11 10:11am
Location: Intensive care

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by wautd »

Temujin wrote: The problem is a lot of the media outlets seem to be focusing on just the burning of the oil, and not really explaining what exactly is going.
I just read that journalists are getting barred or even treathened if they want to take a look at the worst hit beaches, and that BP is trying to cover up the true extend of the damage. Not sure how much of this is true, but it does explain why they're only focusing on the oil burning part. (apologies for the lack of english links)
User avatar
The Spartan
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4406
Joined: 2005-03-12 05:56pm
Location: Houston

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by The Spartan »

More coming out about BP's lack of a culture of safety:

AP through Yahoo News
BP engineer called doomed rig a 'nightmare well'
By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press Writer Matthew Daly, Associated Press Writer 47 mins ago

WASHINGTON – BP took measures to cut costs in the weeks before the catastrophic blowout in the Gulf of Mexico as it dealt with one problem after another, prompting a BP engineer to describe the doomed rig as a "nightmare well," according to internal documents released Monday.

The comment by BP engineer Brian Morel came in an e-mail April 14, six days before the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion that killed 11 people and has sent tens of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf in the nation's worst environmental disaster.

The e-mail was among dozens of internal documents released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is investigating the explosion and its aftermath.

In a letter to BP CEO Tony Hayward, Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., noted at least five questionable decisions BP made in the days leading up to the explosion.

"The common feature of these five decisions is that they posed a trade-off between cost and well safety," said Waxman and Stupak. Waxman chairs the energy panel while Stupak heads a subcommittee on oversight and investigations.

"Time after time, it appears that BP made decisions that increased the risk of a blowout to save the company time or expense," the lawmakers wrote in the 14-page letter to Hayward. "If this is what happened, BP's carelessness and complacency have inflicted a heavy toll on the Gulf, its inhabitants, and the workers on the rig."

The letter, supplemented by 61 footnotes and dozens of documents, outlines a series of questions Hayward can expect when he comes before Stupak's subcommittee on Thursday.

The hearing will be Hayward's first appearance before a congressional committee since the explosion and sinking of the BP-operated Deepwater Horizon rig. BP America President Lamar McKay and other officials represented the company at earlier hearings.

The letter by Waxman and Stupak focuses on details such as the design of the well, saying that the company apparently chose a riskier option among two possibilities to provide a barrier to the flow of gas in space surrounding steel tubes in the well.

Despite warnings from its own engineers, "BP chose the more risky casing option, apparently because the liner option would have cost $7 to $10 million more and taken longer," Waxman and Stupak said.

In the brief e-mail, Morel said the company is likely to make last-minute changes in the well.

"We could be running it in 2-3 days, so need a relative quick response. Sorry for the late notice, this has been nightmare well which has everyone all over the place," Morel wrote.

BP apparently rejected advice of a subcontractor, Halliburton Inc., in preparing for a cementing job to close up the well. BP rejected Halliburton's recommendation to use 21 "centralizers" to make sure the casing ran down the center of the well bore. Instead, BP used six centralizers.

In an e-mail on April 16, a BP official involved in the decision explained: "It will take 10 hours to install them. I do not like this." Later that day, another official recognized the risks of proceeding with insufficient centralizers but commented: "who cares, it's done, end of story, will probably be fine."

A spokesman for BP could not immediately reached for comment.
Now, on the one hand, there's always a balancing act of sorts going on between cost effective and safe. On the other, engineers are supposed to err on the side of caution, not convenience.
The Gentleman from Texas abstains. Discourteously.
Image
PRFYNAFBTFC-Vice Admiral: MFS Masturbating Walrus :: Omine subtilite Odobenus rosmarus masturbari
Soy un perdedor.
"WHO POOPED IN A NORMAL ROOM?!"-Commander William T. Riker
User avatar
FSTargetDrone
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7878
Joined: 2004-04-10 06:10pm
Location: Drone HQ, Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by FSTargetDrone »

Sea Skimmer wrote:God your being dumb as fuck right now, the US Coast Guard already DID TRY TO BURN THE SLICK. Several times in fact. Burning it is a billion times better then letting it float around. Animals flee from fire rather then being caught in the oil, and its pollutes less which we have known for a long time. That's why precedent exists for bombing wrecked oil tankers with napalm when they fell beyond hope of salvage.
I even started the thread with the "Coast Guard To Burn Oil Spill" or whatever I called it at the time, back on 28 April (has it been that long??). I only asked for the change of subject when it became clear the story was about much more than setting some slicks on fire.
Image
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Simmons has his two cents aired on Bloomberg TV. One-hundred twenty kbpd leak? Hmm...

Given the official figure is now around 30-60 kbpd, it doesn't surprise me. BP's hilarious 5 kbpd value blown out of the water even more, which they clung too even after several weeks, despite obvious erosion issues causing the leak to increase in volume of output.
User avatar
Phantasee
Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker.
Posts: 5777
Joined: 2004-02-26 09:44pm

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by Phantasee »

The Independent
Rival oil companies get a taste of BP's medicine on Capitol Hill

By David Usborne, US Editor

Members of Congress tore into the big energy corporations last night for filing almost identical Gulf of Mexico oil spill response plans – which included contact details for a deceased scientist and steps to protect a marine mammal not found in the region's waters.

It was an astonishing and sustained verbal battering which undermined attempts by Shell, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil to suggest that their working practices differ from those of BP; and that the catastrophe would not have happened if the leaking well had been theirs.

No one at yesterday's House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing suffered more, however, than Lamar McKay, chairman of BP America. He recoiled when he was repeatedly asked to apologise for the failure early on in the spill to accurately report the amount of crude gushing into the ocean. An early BP document put the spill rate at between 1,000 and 14,000 barrels a day. The flow is now thought to be up to 40,000 barrels.1

In a setback, BP said it had to interrupt collection of oil from the leak yesterday after a tanker on the surface was struck by a bolt of lightning2 igniting a fire. Officials expected to resume siphoning oil later last night.

Barack Obama, meanwhile, returned to the White House after his two-day tour of coastal communities affected by the crisis in time to deliver his first Oval Office address since coming to power. While in Florida he has been confronted by protesters chanting: "Save our beach! Save our beach!"

The high-octane atmosphere at yesterday's hearing will doubtless give pause to Tony Hayward, the BP chairman, who moves directly into the line of fire in Washington, first with a meeting with President Obama at the White House today, and with an appearance at another Capitol Hill hearing tomorrow.

Mr Obama was set last night to insist that BP create an independently managed, multi-billion-dollar fund partly to improve the flow of cash to companies hurt by the spill. Referring to business owners, he promised yesterday to be "their fierce advocate in making sure that they are getting the compensation they need to get through."

Leading the questioning of energy executives, Ed Markey, a Democrat, focused on their spill response plans. "They cite identical response capabilities and tout identical ineffective equipment. In some cases, they use the exact same words," he said and then added: "Like BP, three other companies include references to protecting walruses, which have not called the Gulf of Mexico home for three million years."3

BP's underestimate of the spill-rate in the early days of the disaster was either "deliberate deception or gross incompetence," Mr Markey suggested to Mr McKay. He went on: "You got it completely wrong either to limit your liability or out of incompetence."

Simultaneously, Mr McKay's peers tried to deflect fire from themselves with claims that BP had made mistakes they would have avoided, for example in ignoring warning signs at the well before it blew and in allegedly cutting corners in its design.

"A number of design norms that I would consider industry standards were not followed," testified Rex Tillerson of ExxonMobil. "We would not have drilled the well the way they did."

Transocean, the Swiss-based company which owned the doomed Deepwater Horizon rig, was put on the defensive last night following claims that it had registered the rig as belonging to the Marshall Islands, a tiny Pacific atoll, which had little capacity to make its own checks on safety and manning levels.

BP shares dived again on Tuesday after international ratings agency Fitch slashed the troubled energy giant's rating close to junk, owing to soaring costs from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The share price sank 3.78 percent to close at 342 pence after Fitch cut BP's rating by six notches from AA to BBB, which is the agency's lowest investment grade. The wider London market finished 0.30 percent higher.

The company's stock had already plunged by as much as ten percent in intra-day trade on Monday, as investors fretted over spiralling costs and the future of the group's shareholder dividend.

"BP continues to remain under pressure after Fitch downgraded its debt six notches from AA to BBB, two notches above junk status," said CMC Markets analyst Michael Hewson.

"With President Obama scheduled to address the nation this evening about the oil spill, the fear is, that in an attempt to boost his ratings he will indulge in further BP bashing, to show that he is control of the situation, and thus increase the pressure on the share price ahead of his meeting with the BP chairman tomorrow."

The Fitch downgrade will increase the cost of BP's borrowing as investors demand higher returns for taking greater risk.
Bolding and italics mine.

1: He recoiled? What the fuck? Also: 40 000 bpd?
2: God seems pretty pissed off lately; first Jesus and now BP.
3: Did they all copy and paste the exact same spill response plan?
XXXI
User avatar
Questor
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1601
Joined: 2002-07-17 06:27pm
Location: Landover

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by Questor »

Phantasee wrote: 3: Did they all copy and paste the exact same spill response plan?
Perhaps they hired the same consultants, and the consultants handed them a cookie-cutter report while overcharging for it.
User avatar
CaptainChewbacca
Browncoat Wookiee
Posts: 15746
Joined: 2003-05-06 02:36am
Location: Deep beneath Boatmurdered.

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by CaptainChewbacca »

Jason L. Miles wrote:
Phantasee wrote: 3: Did they all copy and paste the exact same spill response plan?
Perhaps they hired the same consultants, and the consultants handed them a cookie-cutter report while overcharging for it.
Generally it is hard to get procedures approved by government offices. When the 'gulf oil' set was approved for one company, they probably shopped it around and other companies were able to submit it with 'no ammendments' for a very fast approval process. In and of itself it isn't a bad thing, and is actually common in the industry (When I worked in the oil industry I would submit reports where whole sections were literally copy-pasted from previous reports), but that assumes your procedures are rock-solid to begin with.
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
ImageImage
User avatar
FSTargetDrone
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7878
Joined: 2004-04-10 06:10pm
Location: Drone HQ, Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by FSTargetDrone »

BP CEO Tony Hayward channels Sgt. Schultz during testimony before Congress:
BP chief says he wasn't in loop, enraging Congress

By CALVIN WOODWARD and FREDERIC J. FROMMER (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — Channeling the nation's anger, lawmakers pilloried BP's boss in a withering day of judgment Thursday for the oil company at the center of the Gulf calamity. Unflinching, BP chief executive Tony Hayward said he was out of the loop on decisions at the well and coolly asserted, "I'm not stonewalling."

That infuriated members of Congress even more, Democrats and Republicans alike.

Testifying as oil still surged into the Gulf of Mexico and coated ever more coastal land and marshes, Hayward declared "I am so devastated with this accident," "deeply sorry" and "so distraught."

Yet the oil man disclaimed knowledge of any of the myriad problems on and under the Deepwater Horizon rig before the deadly explosion, telling a congressional hearing he had only heard about the well earlier in April, the month of the accident, when the BP drilling team told him it had found oil.

"With respect, sir, we drill hundreds of wells a year around the world," Hayward told Republican Rep. Michael Burgess of Texas.

"Yes, I know," Burgess shot back. "That's what scaring me right now."

Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., told the CEO: "I think you're copping out. You're the captain of the ship." Democrats were similarly, if more predictably, livid.

"BP blew it," said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., chairman of the House investigations panel that held the hearing. "You cut corners to save money and time."

The verbal onslaught had been anticipated for days and unfolded at a nearly relentless pace. Hayward had one seemingly sympathetic listener, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who apologized for the pressure President Barack Obama had put on BP to create a compensation fund. Hours later, after criticism from Republicans and Democrats as well as the White House, Barton backed off and apologized for his apology.

With multiple investigations continuing and primary efforts in the Gulf focused on stopping the leak, there was little chance the nation would learn much from Hayward's appearance about what caused the disaster. Yet even modest expectations were not met as the CEO told lawmakers at every turn that he was not tuned in to operations at the well.

He said his underlings made the decisions and federal regulators were responsible for vetting them.

Hayward spoke slowly and calmly in his clipped British accent as he sought to deflect accusations — based on internal BP documents obtained by congressional investigators — that BP chose a particular well design that was riskier but cheaper by at least $7 million.

"I wasn't involved in any of that decision-making," he said.

Were bad decisions made about the cement?

"I wasn't part of the decision-making process," he said. "I'm not a cement engineer, I'm afraid."

Also, "I am not a drilling engineer" and "I'm not an oceanographic scientist."

What about those reports that BP had been experiencing a variety of problems and delays at the well?

"I had no prior knowledge."

At one point a frustrated Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, interrupted the CEO. "You're kicking the can down the road and acting as if you had nothing to do with this company and nothing to do with the decisions. I find that irresponsible."

Hayward quietly insisted: "I'm not stonewalling. I simply was not involved in the decision-making process."

Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., voiced the committee's frustrations as the afternoon wore on. "You're really insulting our intelligence," he said. "I am thoroughly disgusted."

Waxman told the BP executive that in his committee's review of 30,000 items, there was "not a single e-mail or document that you paid even the slightest attention to the dangers at this well."

Burgess slammed both the CEO and the government regulators for a risky drilling plan that he said never should have been brought forward.

"Shame on you, Mr. Hayward, for submitting it," Burgess said, "but shame on us for accepting it, which is simply a rubber stamp."

In a jarring departure that caught fellow Republicans by surprise, Barton, the top GOP member of the panel, used his opening statement to apologize — twice — for the pressure put on the company by President Barack Obama to contribute to a compensation fund for people in the afflicted Gulf of Mexico states.

Barton said the U.S. has "a due process system" to assess such damages, and he decried the $20 billion fund that BP agreed to Wednesday at the White House as a "shakedown" and "slush fund." He told Hayward, "I'm not speaking for anybody else. But I apologize."

He later retracted his apologies to BP, then apologized anew — this time for calling the fund a "shakedown." "BP should bear the full financial responsibility for the accident," he said, and "fully compensate those families and businesses that have been hurt by this accident."

Barton's earlier remarks were clearly an embarrassment for the party. House Republican leaders John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mike Pence issued a statement asserting: "Congressman Barton's statements this morning were wrong. BP itself has acknowledged that responsibility for the economic damages lies with them and has offered an initial pledge of $20 billion dollars for that purpose."

Since 1990, oil and gas industry political action committees and employees have given more than $1.4 million to Barton's campaigns, the most of any House member during that period, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

As Hayward began to testify, a protester disrupted the hearing and was forcibly removed from the room by Capitol police. The woman was identified as Diane Wilson, 61, a shrimper from Seadrift, Texas, near the Gulf Coast. Her hands stained black, she shouted to Hayward from the back of the room: "You need to be charged with a crime."

Stupak, the subcommittee chairman and a former Michigan state trooper, noted that over the past five years, 26 people have died and 700 have been injured in BP accidents — including the Gulf spill, a pipeline spill in Alaska and a refinery explosion in Texas.

Hayward argued that safety had always been his top priority and "that is why I am so devastated with this accident." When he became CEO in 2007, Hayward said he would focus "like a laser" on safety, a phrase he repeated on Thursday.

Rep. John Sullivan, R-Okla., questioned BP's commitment to safety.

BP had 760 safety violations in the past five years and paid $373 million in fines, Sullivan said. By contrast, Sunoco and ConocoPhillips each had eight safety violations and ExxonMobil just one, Sullivan said.

"How in the heck do you explain that?" he asked Hayward. Hayward said most of those violations predated his tenure as CEO. "We have made major changes in the company over the last three to four years," he said.

An estimated 73.5 million to 126 million gallons of oil has come out of the breached wellhead, whether into the water or captured.

The reservoir that feeds the well still holds about 2 billion gallons of oil, according to the first public estimate Hayward has given of the size of the undersea oil field.

That means the reservoir is believed to still hold 94 percent to 97 percent of its oil. At the current flow rate, it would take from two years to nearly four years for all the oil to be drained from it.

Associated Press writers Tom Raum, Matthew Daly, H. Josef Hebert, Seth Borenstein, Matt Apuzzo, Eileen Sullivan and Ben Feller in Washington and Harry Weber in Houston contributed to this report.
I'm still amazed BP continues to let this clown speak for the company. It's as if he is purposely being infuriating.

By the way, Mr. Barton, seriously?

:wtf:

Video of today's nonsense can be found at C-Span's site.
Image
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29205
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by General Zod »

If you're having trouble wrapping your head around how much oil 25,000 barrels a day is, you might want to watch this video.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28777
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by Broomstick »

FSTargetDrone wrote:I'm still amazed BP continues to let this clown speak for the company. It's as if he is purposely being infuriating.
BP's Swedish chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg's "small people" comment was pretty ass-clown, too.* But at least he has the dodge that English is his second language.

Really, BP's executives make Chicago's Mayor Daley - infamous for gaffes on camera - look downright eloquent and diplomatic.

* Having seen the video on that one, I think he was trying to convey some actual concern but he really did fuck up the word choice. I'm not entirely sure how much was language/cultural issue and how much executive arrogance.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Sir Sirius
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2002-12-09 12:15pm
Location: 6 hr 45 min R.A. and -16 degrees 43 minutes declination

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by Sir Sirius »

Broomstick wrote:BP's Swedish chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg's "small people" comment was pretty ass-clown, too.* But at least he has the dodge that English is his second language.

Really, BP's executives make Chicago's Mayor Daley - infamous for gaffes on camera - look downright eloquent and diplomatic.

* Having seen the video on that one, I think he was trying to convey some actual concern but he really did fuck up the word choice. I'm not entirely sure how much was language/cultural issue and how much executive arrogance.
It's just a language gaffe. In Swedish "den lilla människan" (literaly "the little human") is used to refer to people caught up in events greater then themselves and beyond their control (ie. the residents of the Gulf of Mexico), usually in a non-condecending manner. And while "den lilla människan" can be used in a demeaming sense (implying impotence or irrelevance) that clearly wasn't the case here. He was just trying to say that BP cares about the people effected by the spill and will work to repair the damage done (and so on).

By the way, would it have been better for him to say "the little guy" instead of "the small people"? I don't feel the phrase "little guy" being condecending in the same way as "small people", but English is not my native language.
Image
User avatar
Phantasee
Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker.
Posts: 5777
Joined: 2004-02-26 09:44pm

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by Phantasee »

I think "the little guy" would have been a better translation in that case. Almost the exact same sentiment.
XXXI
User avatar
FSTargetDrone
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7878
Joined: 2004-04-10 06:10pm
Location: Drone HQ, Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by FSTargetDrone »

Broomstick wrote:[Having seen the video on that one, I think he was trying to convey some actual concern but he really did fuck up the word choice. I'm not entirely sure how much was language/cultural issue and how much executive arrogance.
I tend to agree and the comment really didn't bother me, especially given what the people here familiar with the language have contributed. That said, I can see how some people would have a negative knee-jerk reaction. It hardly matters in the end, however. BP as a whole is being prickish so they aren't going to get a lot of slack from the people most affected.
Image
User avatar
FSTargetDrone
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7878
Joined: 2004-04-10 06:10pm
Location: Drone HQ, Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by FSTargetDrone »

Huh, I reacted to this news with dull surprise!
Embattled BP CEO removed from spill oversight

By RAY HENRY, Associated Press Writers Ray Henry, Associated Press Writers 32 mins ago

NEW ORLEANS – BP removed Chief Executive Tony Hayward from day-to-day oversight of the Gulf oil spill crisis a day after he was pummeled by lawmakers in an appearance on Capitol Hill, the company's chairman said Friday.

Carl-Henric Svanberg told Britain's Sky News television that Hayward "is now handing over the operations, the daily operations to (BP Managing Director) Bob Dudley," overshadowing news that after many setbacks BP was finally making real progress in siponing and burning off oil from the underwater gusher.

Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen announced earlier Friday that a newly expanded containment system is capturing or incinerating more than 1 million gallons of oil daily, the first time it has approached its peak capacity. And the system will soon grow. By late June, the oil giant hopes it can keep nearly 90 percent of the flow from hitting the ocean.

Allen also said the Coast Guard is ramping up efforts to capture the crude closer to shore with the help of private boats. As of Friday morning, between 65 million and 121.6 million gallons of oil have gushed into the Gulf of Mexico, based on federal daily flow rate estimates.

The optimistic news about the containment plan was tempered by Hayward's removal, which follows a June 4 announcement by BP that Dudley, and American oil executive, would lead the long-term response to the oil spill once the leak had been stopped. Svanberg's statement appeared to accelerate that timeline, as millions of gallons of crude continue to gush into the Gulf.

A BP spokesman in Houston, Tristan Vanhegan, says the "board still has confidence in Tony."

The company also continues to struggle to compensate Gulf Coast residents and business owners who have been economically devastated by the spill. On Friday, the House Judiciary Committee said data it has collected shows that BP has paid less than 12 percent of the claims submitted.

The committee said in a statement that data it collected showed only $71 million out of an estimated $600 million had been paid as of Tuesday. In addition, the panel said that BP didn't make any payments in the first two weeks following the April 20 explosion and oil spill, and that it hasn't made a single payment for bodily injury or diminished home property value.

Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers said he's concerned that BP "is stiffing too many victims and shortchanging others."

The chief of the new independent office to pay claims said a plan to handle the remaining damage claims will be in place in 30 to 45 days. Kenneth Feinberg, who's overseeing the Independent Claims Facility, said he also hopes to have a program going forward that would provide payment within 30 to 60 days of someone submitting a new claim.

"The challenge here is going to be to evaluate quickly, eligible claims, legitimate claims and get them paid," said Feinberg, who was chosen by President Barack Obama and BP for the role.

Feinberg, who was in Mississippi Friday to meet with Gov. Haley Barbour, reiterated that his office isn't a government program. The lawyer, who oversaw payouts to victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, said he will be paid by BP but didn't say how much.

Connie Bartenbach, owner of Rental Resources in Ocean Springs, Miss., said Friday that she's been unable to get her claims processed with BP. Her cancellation rates last month were six times higher than normal, and business is getting worse.

"They have somehow lost me in their system. I filed with them on May 18," she said. "I should have gotten a call back long before now."

Earlier in the day, the Coast Guard signaled a shift in strategy to fight the oil, saying it was ramping up efforts to capture the crude closer to shore.

The Coast Guard's Allen said an estimated 2,000 private boats in the so-called "vessels of opportunity" program will be more closely linked through a tighter command and control structure to direct them to locations less than 50 miles offshore to skim the oil. Allen, the point man for the federal response to the spill, previously had said surface containment efforts would be concentrated much farther offshore.

The news of Hayward's removal came a day after he told Congress members that he was "so devastated with this accident," "deeply sorry" and "so distraught."

But he also testified that he was out of the loop on decisions at the well and disclaimed knowledge of any of the myriad problems on and under the Deepwater Horizon rig before the deadly explosion. BP was leasing the rig the Deepwater Horizon that exploded April 20, killing 11 workers and triggering the environmental disaster.

"BP blew it," said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., chairman of the House investigations panel that held the hearing. "You cut corners to save money and time."
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28777
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by Broomstick »

Sir Sirius wrote:By the way, would it have been better for him to say "the little guy" instead of "the small people"? I don't feel the phrase "little guy" being condecending in the same way as "small people", but English is not my native language.
Yes, "the little guy" would have been a much better word choice there.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
The Big I
Youngling
Posts: 99
Joined: 2008-03-07 11:26pm
Location: Perth Western Australia

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by The Big I »

I'm having a discussion with someone about the spill anyway amongst other things ie spill not as bad as they are saying it is the good news this spill wasn't BP's fault and its all an anti-Britsh thing in the US :roll: and she pointed out this article as proof:
BP oil spill: leak found in rig weeks before blast
The Deepwater Horizon rig, which exploded causing the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, had suffered a leak in the weeks leading up to the blast, an employee has claimed.

Published: 7:20AM BST 21 Jun 2010


Tyrone Benton told the BBC that he identified a leak in the rig's safety equipment weeks before the explosion.

He claimed that the leak was not fixed at the time. Instead, the faulty device was shut down, forcing the rig to rely on a second one.

"We saw a leak on the pod, so by seeing the leak we informed the company men," Mr Benton said. "They have a control room where they could turn off that pod and turn on the other one, so that they don't have to stop production."

The pods control the blowout preventer, the most important piece of safety equipment on the rig, and contain both electronics and hydraulics. This is where Mr Benton said the problem was found.

The blowout preventer failed when the rig exploded on April 20. The device, designed to avert disasters just like the devastating oil spill, is equipped with large shears which can seal off the well's main pipe.

Professor Tad Patzek, petroleum expert at the University of Texas, told the BBC: "That is unacceptable. If you see any evidence of the blowout preventer not functioning properly, you should fix it by whatever means possible."

Mr Benton said his supervisor emailed both BP and Transocean about the leaks when they were discovered. He did not known if the pod had been turned back on before the rig exploded.

BP said rig owners Transocean were responsible for the operation and maintenance of that piece of equipment.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/en ergy/oilandgas/7842728/BP-oil-spill-leak-found-in- rig-weeks-before-blast.html
Anyways I am not worth arguing with is she righ??
User avatar
The Spartan
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4406
Joined: 2005-03-12 05:56pm
Location: Houston

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by The Spartan »

She's full of shit.

First, what is she basing her statement that the spill isn't as bad as they say it is? (In fact she's right, but not in the way she thinks it is. The spill is worse than the were saying.)

Second, again, how is she coming to the conclusion that it's not BP's fault? It's their rig, their responsibility and their shitty track record for safety. Pawning it off on this contractor or that contractor is merely passing the buck. Their rig, their responsibility to check on their equipment, their employees and their sub-contractors.

Third, what anti-British thing? Since when, in recent times, have anyone, but a small minority of Americans been anti-British?
The Gentleman from Texas abstains. Discourteously.
Image
PRFYNAFBTFC-Vice Admiral: MFS Masturbating Walrus :: Omine subtilite Odobenus rosmarus masturbari
Soy un perdedor.
"WHO POOPED IN A NORMAL ROOM?!"-Commander William T. Riker
User avatar
The Big I
Youngling
Posts: 99
Joined: 2008-03-07 11:26pm
Location: Perth Western Australia

Re: Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

Post by The Big I »

The Spartan wrote:She's full of shit.

First, what is she basing her statement that the spill isn't as bad as they say it is? (In fact she's right, but not in the way she thinks it is. The spill is worse than the were saying.)

Second, again, how is she coming to the conclusion that it's not BP's fault? It's their rig, their responsibility and their shitty track record for safety. Pawning it off on this contractor or that contractor is merely passing the buck. Their rig, their responsibility to check on their equipment, their employees and their sub-contractors.

Third, what anti-British thing? Since when, in recent times, have anyone, but a small minority of Americans been anti-British?

Honestly she is a kook beyond that amongst other thing she thinks Alx Jones is a judus goat :shock:

I'll quote some of her gems
I have no BP Shares.

I AM NOT ANTI-ENVIRONMENT
I AM NOT ANTI-ELECTRIC CARS.

I am anti-carbon trading.

If you are anti-carbon trading, you have to prosecute that view. This means temporarily fighting all the environmentalists because whether they know it or not, they are on the side of the Globalisers.

Global.i.s.ation is a web with many strands, some refer to it as an Octopus.

Some people, like the top people, play all sides.

There is a standard MO these people use, set up lots of competing groups and let them fight the battle for you.

Because they are fighting multi-pronged and multi-directional,the anti-globalist has to do the same.

You have to become a chameleon.

They want Carbon trading, big time, so it has to be fought, in every new theatre of warfare.

Thats just how it is.

I don't know why they are going anti-British, THEY KNOW IT APPEALS TO OBAMA, because of his book about his father. He is anti-British Colonialism. But that was 2 Centuries ago!!

The Prison planet guys seem to think that all the BP EXECS are Bilderbergers and are prepared to let BP go down for the Cause.

They want to collapse markets, so ordinary BP share holders have to suffer??? Don't ask me why?

They, the Globalisers want to be the last men standing, from what I have read, so NOBODY, can oppose them.

I'm afraid these people have a collective psychosis, they have spent too many years writing and reading Nietzche, and comics, Superman, Batman, Iron Man, Spiderman etc

They are delusional.

Its time, the establishment worked out that there is a pack of powerful, wealthy, dysfunctional power seekers on the march and they are just not going to realise, until its too late, I fear.

These people really have the minds of hurt utopian, dystopian, children.

We have got to do something about it.

Before its too LATE.

rov1njez,

There is no anti-British sentiment it is all in your head......

^^^

Really, I can't be bothered replying to dills like you....

^^^^

The grilling of Tony Haywood by the Congress has been described as a "lynching"

Rahm Emmanuel stiring up the South by saying Tony Haywood should be personally cleaning up the Gulf instead of seeing his son on Fathers day!!

Its just Xenophobic hysteria, to try and shift blame for Obama.

^^^^^^^

I have read wall to wall press on this.


I could read you chapter and verse on this stuff, but "your not worth it".


^^^^^^^
Yes there are people out there that believe this stuff so how would you reply to this?
Post Reply