REVOMAZE User Group

just wanted to start up a conversation about british petroleum.
not picking a fight with my friends across the pond but:

why would such a collosal multi BILLION dollar company build a device off of American coasts without having a contingency plan for such a catastrophy?......i guess its inline with why we would create nuclear waste without knowing how to properly dispose of it.
but now that the gulf of mexico is on the fast track to being completely dead i think its time to discuss it.
secondly...why didnt they drill off of the shores of the UK?...or did they?
is this the part of revelations about contaminating 1/3 of the earths water?....
how is it that they had the technology to drill so far below the ocean surface but can not stop the leak?
will the oil pocket empty and collapse?...if so..will there be a tsunami?
i listen to the BBC almost exclusively for my news so i know whats being said about it ...just wanted to hear from some of you on the issue.
all comments welcome as America is no stranger to destroying things internationaly.

i am very ignorant about this,as far as i know its an american branch of BP but the head guys definately speak like the UK people.

cornettracing80 wrote: how is it that they had the technology to drill so far below the ocean surface but can not stop the leak?

I guess it's easier to punch a hole than to plug one up! It all stems from our need to break things.

mattangel1 wrote:

cornettracing80 wrote: how is it that they had the technology to drill so far below the ocean surface but can not stop the leak?

I guess it's easier to punch a hole than to plug one up! It all stems from our need to break things.

Amen to that!....like the rainforest issue.

First exxon now bp. It makes no difference what country does it or off which shore. The big problem is that big oil takes too many risks and aren't being held accountable. They should be made to spend every dollar they have to clean up their mess. All of this happened because the proper precautions weren't taken and they were in too much of a rush to save a little time. What's the rush when you make billions of dollars a year? BILlIONS!!!

They've apparently vowed to cover 100% of the clean-up, but we'll see. What's terrible is that we don't really hear about oil spills in/around foreign countries.

mattangel1 wrote:They've apparently vowed to cover 100% of the clean-up, but we'll see. What's terrible is that we don't really hear about oil spills in/around foreign countries.

No, BP's executives have vowed to cover 100% of the portion of the clean-up for which BP is responsible. The oil platform was not owned or managed by BP, but merely leased to BP. It was owned and managed by Transocean, who has declared that it will not pay more than the statutory maximum in damages ($270mil). From there, BP is responsible for only the damages that can be proven to be its fault, which it will not contest once proven and for which it will pay in its entirety.

This goes in line with BP's claims that it will cost it between $2-3 billion to clean up the entire mess. A mess that is more likely to cost in the hundreds of billions, if not trillions, to fix.

However, good PR for it to say it'll cover 100% of the clean-up and we will see if it agrees to pay Transocean's share. I am going to bet it will not, as that would bankrupt BP.

---

cornettracing80 wrote:why would such a collosal multi BILLION dollar company build a device off of American coasts without having a contingency plan for such a catastrophy?

BP did not build it off of the coast of the United States. Transocean, a company from Switzerland, did. Transocean did it because we have created numerous initiatives to promote off-shore oil drilling during the last 10 years in order to reduce our dependency upon foreign oil. Furthermore, Transocean was approved to build this by our corrupt regulatory organizations (caught hiring prostitutes on big-oils dime in 2006/2007, caught falsifying safety reports in 2009). What it all comes down to is profit and energy. U.S. consumers have an insatiable thirst for cheap energy, which leads to massive profits for those that produce the energy.

cornettracing80 wrote:why didnt they drill off of the shores of the UK?...or did they?

Check out North Sea oil - there are a lot of oil platforms in that area, just off the shores of the UK.

cornettracing80 wrote:how is it that they had the technology to drill so far below the ocean surface but can not stop the leak?

They thought they had the technology: emergency shutoff valves. However, in testing since this loss, it turns out they don't work so well at such deep depths and high exit pressures. Manufacturers are now frantically redesigning them. Good thing they are limited to only $70mil in penalties! (ugh).

What you are asking is why they didn't have a plan for "OMG, we have a gusher and it's a mile under the ocean's surface, what do we do now?!?" And you are correct. They never expected that to happen. The emergency shutoff should have taken care of it in theory. How they can fix this? If you have never encountered a problem like this before, it is possible you would never think of a "how to fix it". The odd thing here is that BP keeps focusing on how to siphon the oil up, rather than cap it off. :\

cornettracing80 wrote:will the oil pocket empty and collapse?...if so..will there be a tsunami?

Unlikely. Oil is pumped from deep down by increasing the pressure at its base - usually by pumping water or gas down into it. This pushes the oil out. Eventually the pressure will equalize and it will slow down or stop leaking. It will slow down long before being likely to collapse, which will be enough to get a lid on it. However, these types of things do collapse sometimes. But, even then, the odds of a tsunamai are fairly low.

The big problems right now are the oil plumes that BP continues to ignore, which are floating around the Gulf ... killing anything they run into, and unseen under water.


And, this all gets back to the question I have asked for years:
What is oil doing in the ground?

Your answer is incorrect if you tell me any of the following: (1) how it got there, or (2) what we are doing with it. The more we find out, the more we are realizing that there is more to oil than we know. It turns out that it may be an environment for some nifty bacteria (which may actually create oil). It also turns out that most oil is from plankton and other unicellular creatures, not dinosaurs and plants. Plus, oil when deep under ground appears to act as both a thermoregulator and as support for the surface. However, none of that fully answers "What is it doing in the ground?" Those are just pieces of speculation as to that answer.

.. I'm opinionated and will be here all night :p

- M

It is awful whats happening. Something which you seem to be following pretty closely Maztec. It pains me to think that the big wigs are just trying to think of ways to siphon it up rather than cap it off. Why not just find the quickest way to STOP oil pissing into the ocean? Whatever happens needs to happen a bit quicker than what it is though. How they do it is beyond me. And for knowing so little about a subject to have enough of an opinion on it I will stop there. However this is kind of interesting - Hair and Nylon tights!?

Check it out...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8672124.stm

Saw the idea on a science programme years ago but it looks like they are actually putting it into practice now. Doesn't help plug anything underwater though.

I'm not going to debate on this. Both sides have good arguments. But I think we should remember the people that lost their life on the rig. I feel angry at the news for not remembering them. There are families out there having to grieve in silence at their lost brother/son/father. Yes what was bad of BP actions after, the damaged wildlife. But lets think of those families. RIP guys - for giving your life so we can run our cars, fry our bacon, and fly over the world - something you can never enjoy any more.

ReVoMate

ReVoMate wrote:I'm not going to debate on this. Both sides have good arguments. But I think we should remember the people that lost their life on the rig. I feel angry at the news for not remembering them. There are families out there having to grieve in silence at their lost brother/son/father. Yes what was bad of BP actions after, the damaged wildlife. But lets think of those families. RIP guys - for giving your life so we can run our cars, fry our bacon, and fly over the world - something you can never enjoy any more.

ReVoMate

Good point. Several people did lose their lives in the initial explosion. An explosion that wouldn't have occurred it proper safety measured had been taken.

The tragedy also extends beyond them. To the millions of animals that will and have died because of this. To the hundreds of thousands of families who will not be able to make a living next year.

just wanted to start up a conversation about British petroleum

The company is not called "British Petroleum" anymore they changed their name over nine years ago! Only Obama calls them that now...!

over 40% of BP shares are owned in the USA now anyway...

Whatever they are called it is not going to help.