Has there been any real news or an authoritative analysis of the cut-off section of riser?
I know there was a lot of speculation earlier about the pipe(s) within the cut(s). Surely recovering this and advising what is in it would be relatively simple and very informative (after all it was already slung and supported for the cutting operations). Or has it been anounced that it must stay on seabed until ???
Thanks
I like it when the ladies protect me from big bad CM1. He is so nasty to me!
[QUOTE=alcor;36609] … One week ago I would say BP were 100 % responsible for the environmental disaster. Now, I feel they are 75 % responsible and MMS and Obama covering the remaining 25 %. As the days go by, I may hear more that confirms the Government allowed all Operators to perform as they wished, a form of freedom no one else experiences in our society. The Gov’t allowed the Operators the freedom to play God. Maybe, they are 50% to blame. * * *[/QUOTE]
The Waxman - Stupak letter was written by the Committee’s Counsel, and is, in essence, the prosecutor’s opening statement–and as good a summation of the prosecution’s case as we will see for some time. For present purposes, let’s assume that every allegation made there is true and correct. Now, on each of those points, on each of those deficiencies, who was the actor? Who was consistently making the call to forge ahead, heedless? It wasn’t MMS.
MMS had, in effect, its own BOP; they could have never issued the categorical exemption, or they could have denied BP’s various interim requests for variances. Instead, MMS had turned from a regulator into an enabler. There is culpability in that respect (as there is for those who did not reform MMS sufficiently), and the Waxman - Stupak shows, as I recollect, two such instances of MMS acting as nothing more than a rubber stamp, a place where paperwork had to be passed through. But in both of those cases, as in all the others, it was the operator–not the regulator–who was the actual [U]actor[/U].
If this goes to trial in a jurisdiction with a comparative negligence standard, cm1 would be who the plaintiff would want to get through voir dire (jury selection), while alcor would be who the defendant (BP) would want in the jury room.
[QUOTE=dell;36624]The Waxman - Stupak letter was written by the Committee’s Counsel, and is, in essence, the prosecutor’s opening statement–and as good a summation of the prosecution’s case as we will see for some time. For present purposes, let’s assume that every allegation made there is true and correct. Now, on each of those points, on each of those deficiencies, who was the actor? Who was consistently making the call to forge ahead, heedless? It wasn’t MMS.
MMS had, in effect, its own BOP; they could have never issued the categorical exemption, or they could have denied BP’s various interim requests for variances. Instead, MMS had turned from a regulator into an enabler. There is culpability in that respect (as there is for those who did not reform MMS sufficiently), and the Waxman - Stupak shows, as I recollect, two such instances of MMS acting as nothing more than a rubber stamp, a place where paperwork had to be passed through. But in both of those cases, as in all the others, it was the operator–not the regulator–who was the actual [U]actor[/U].
If this goes to trial in a jurisdiction with a comparative negligence standard, cm1 would be who the plaintiff would want to get through voir dire (jury selection), while alcor would be who the defendant (BP) would want in the jury room.[/QUOTE]
No way. CM1, would be the prosecuting judge. I\d be the impartial reporter looking for all facts and all people to prosecute. Before I could get any interviews they\d all be hanging from the tree in his back yard.
Dell, there might even be a position for you here, hangman!
And I vote for a hanging in public, by their private parts
I would like to know ,how come those gentelmanly “Brits.” Can not acknowledge the victums, and their families…I find myself hating the Brits,and I know that is wrong…dmn ,this could lead to a war with them
I came to this forum with no knowledge, an open mind, and ready to believe anything supported credibly. 80 or so pages later, and buttressed by that Waxman - Stupak letter, you can see that my mind has gotten made up as to which corporation/institution is to blame. Individual, personal culpability still seems an open issue.
One thing I’m wondering: the various Drilling Engineers etc. cited are not very high-level employees, right? Managerial, with supervisory responsibility, but by no means senior management, right? If so, the inquiry should go up the food chain (I would guess 6 or 7 layers) to find out who set a tone where a Drilling Engineer emails " “But who cares, it’s done, end of story, will probably be fine and we’ll get a good cement job.” [U]That’s[/U] where the [I]real[/I] culpability, to my way of thinking, lies.
It is reflection,of a philosophy, of wall street,greedey bastards,there’s a whole generation of them,waltzing around…
I bet you’re one of the ‘small people’! (And before I start, with that, another flame war, let me put this in: [B][U][I][I];-))[/I][/I][/U][/B] Usually, condescension on that scale, industrial strength, is a British specialty, but Carl-Henric Svanberg is, of all things, Swedish! OTOH, he’s been a CEO of three different companies, two very large, over the last decade, and so I guess his ego has now expanded to GOM size.
yes, but he’s half jewish,and I don t think, he has the same moral, or lack of moral standards…I ve know a few brits,and they are so tight with their,money,“tighter than a frogs A–s”
Well, if you haven’t watched this, it’s worth watching. Nothing completely damning, but worth watching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwQM00clxgM
[QUOTE=dell;36632]I came to this forum with no knowledge, an open mind, and ready to believe anything supported credibly. 80 or so pages later, and buttressed by that Waxman - Stupak letter, you can see that my mind has gotten made up as to which corporation/institution is to blame. Individual, personal culpability still seems an open issue.
One thing I’m wondering: the various Drilling Engineers etc. cited are not very high-level employees, right? Managerial, with supervisory responsibility, but by no means senior management, right? If so, the inquiry should go up the food chain (I would guess 6 or 7 layers) to find out who set a tone where a Drilling Engineer emails " “But who cares, it’s done, end of story, will probably be fine and we’ll get a good cement job.” [U]That’s[/U] where the [I]real[/I] culpability, to my way of thinking, lies.[/QUOTE]
I think tony left his heart in venezuela
I read New Orleans Lady post 2803 and thought things might get so soft I would have to find a new board… then her post 2811 put us back on the same page.
For just a spot of levity, while we are talking about the Brits, Remember that we dumped their tea in Boston Harbor in 1773, 238 years later they dumped our oil in our Gulf… next move America, wonder what it will be?
About the riser, I too await the formal declaration of it’s analysis. If BP found a 9 inch casing in there, I guess I would understand why the results are not being broadcast. Even a couple of drill pipes would take the heat of Cameron.
Finally New Orleans Lady, I’ve got to put tile in my kitchen the next two afternoons, do you know anywhere where the investigation is being broadcast live over the internet?
Separately from the $20 billion fund, BP agreed to set aside $100 million to compensate oil field workers who have been idled by the moratorium on deepwater drilling, which the administration imposed after the explosion and fire April 20 that destroyed a BP drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico and led to the spill. The company initially resisted compensating those workers because the moratorium was not its decision.
I’m fortunetly off tommorrow, and if it does not show up on C span during the day,they will run it in the middle of the nite,
I watched the " Hari Kary" segment, 3am and fell asleep to them discussing,fin fish,vs shell fish…being contaminated,what a crazy dream that floated in my head…thanks to C span
Mr Big,I m thinking about that tea party…and I’m getting angry
I have something I have been wondering about and would like to ask you what you think because you know would know and I have no knowledge concerning it at all.
It’s my understanding that there was a well that was drilled previously to this one that also had problems and they capped it then started drilling where they were on April 20.
When either the well initially blew, or when they were trying the top kill, would it be possible that the original capped well could have blown also or is that not even in the realm of possibilities?
[QUOTE=MikeDB;36652]I have something I have been wondering about and would like to ask you what you think because you know would know and I have no knowledge concerning it at all.
It’s my understanding that there was a well that was drilled previously to this one that also had problems and they capped it then started drilling where they were on April 20.
When either the well initially blew, or when they were trying the top kill, would it be possible that the original capped well could have blown also or is that not even in the realm of possibilities?[/QUOTE]
Hopefully they set a cement plug in it before abandoning it, but who knows.
It look’s like I will have plenty of time to think about the DWH due to the 6 month moratorium and the fact that I probably wont have a job.