[QUOTE=MichaelWSmith;37705]I’m just saying that the idea that BP is out to deliberately have catastrophic, fatal accidents like this defies common sense.[/QUOTE]
Did you see their yield percentage on their stock price versus their competitors? Since this disaster & the aftermath, do you think they did that by being smarter than their competitors? They did it by breaking all the rules. Paying fines on premeditated acts of negligence was figured into their balance sheet. You have only heard someone from BP apologize for the size of the catastrophe. You have never heard anyone from BP apologize for the way it came about or the cause of the catastrophe. Why is that? It is because they have no remorse as a company about the fact that they premeditatedly disregard possible failures which can cause these catastrophes. It is part of the cost of doing business they are prepared to pay to deliver beter share prices & bigger bonuses to themselves. They don’t want to prove they can do better. They want to survive so they can rape, pillage, & plunder the Earth’s resources even more after the aftermath of this disaster has passed, than before. How many acts like this would it take to convince you of this? I would gladly let them come to your back yard & have a try at it.
Query: is there any developed Western democracy that [I][U]doesn’t[/U][/I] take the regulatory approach?
It’s hard to put ‘BP America’, a Delaware corporation, in jail, let alone introducing ‘it’ to Bubba. What are you going to do, take the incorporation papers from the Secretary of State’s office, and put them on the other bunk in Bubba’s cell? Then all that happens is that Bubba has a single…
[QUOTE=dell;37708]Query: is there any developed Western democracy that [I][U]doesn’t[/U][/I] take the regulatory approach?
It’s hard to put ‘BP America’, a Delaware corporation, in jail, let alone introducing ‘it’ to Bubba. What are you going to do, take the incorporation papers from the Secretary of State’s office, and put them on the other bunk in Bubba’s cell? Then all that happens is that Bubba has a single…[/QUOTE]
So there are no decision makers in the company? There are no corporate officers that made the decision to hide worst case scnenarios from the government & the people of the United States? There was no chain of command in deciding to change well design & well planning to eliminate safety barriers & well control which caused this event? There is no chain of command that is rewarded with quarterly bonuses for not taking proper steps in addressing safety issues which are everpresent in pressure control in the business of handling hydrocarbon products? If this is the case, then it should be no problem to dissolve this corporation immediately. Since no one is there to take responsibility, there is no need for the comapny to exist any longer.
[QUOTE=company man 1;37709]So there are no decision makers in the company? There are no corporate officers that made the decision to hide worst case scnenarios from the government & the people of the United States? There was no chain of command in deciding to change well design & well planning to eliminate safety barriers & well control which caused this event? There is no chain of command that is rewarded with quarterly bonuses for not taking proper steps in addressing safety issues which are everpresent in pressure control in the business of handling hydrocarbon products? If this is the case, then it should be no problem to dissolve this corporation immediately. Since no one is there to take responsibility, there is no need for the comapny to exist any longer.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I bet they are fattening the sacrificial lamb (s) as we speak…
Look at it like this, Mr. Smith: Let’s say someone goes out and drives drunk and kills eleven souls. They didn’t mean to drink and drive, it just sorta happened. So it’s not premeditated murder, it’s negligent homicide. Right? But if that same drunk driver has a history of earlier fatal accidents while drinking and driving, then that’s a different story.
When does negligence become premeditation?
[QUOTE=alcor;37691]I am hopeful that BP survive this Disaster. Why? Because they employ over 60,000 people worldwide, and that’s a lot of jobs to throw away.
No-one is disputing the fact that they have caused the worst environmental disaster that I’ve heard of. No-one is disputing that the cost of the clean-up has to be met. No-one is disputing that they hold ultimate responsibility for the failures in this well which killed 11 men. No question about it.
But, is it possible that all of their 60,000 employees are responsible? No. But, they’ll all lose their jobs if BP goes under.
I don’t know which ones will be found guilty, but I’d imagine those who by-passed BP’s procedures and best practices will be held in contempt.
Who are they? That information will come out soon enough.
Right now, BP are being battered to bits by the media and by many on this site. I believe it’s in the interests of everyone to learn all the lessons from the Disaster, make the industry safer, and get back to work. That includes BP.
BP, are not all bad. They, have provided the world with the energy requirements we all need. Obviously, it is completely unacceptable to cause environmental disasters.[/QUOTE]
Alcor, please!
Enough with the endless BP apologetics! Right now, they are the al Quayda of the industry, so when you come to their defense, it just makes Company Man 1’s blood pressure rise, and
it takes away from anything positive you have to say.
Please see the current live feed from enterprise Rov 2. [I don’t have Alvis’ image capture ability]. At long last little is escaping (by comparison to what must be going up the cap). It is getting more bad, less quickly now !
[QUOTE=OldHondoHand;37711]Alcor, please!
Enough with the endless BP apologetics! Right now, they are the al Quayda of the industry, so when you come to their defense, it just makes Company Man 1’s blood pressure rise, and
it takes away from anything positive you have to say.[/QUOTE]
I know you all feel the effects of this right in front of your eyes, and I have great sympathy for all of you. The truth is that BP has procedures and best practices in place to avoid this type of disaster. Some of BP’s employees are being investigated by the company, and their findings will become public knowledge. Also, the official investigation will resolve the issue of who is responsible. If it is found to be in higher management, then so be it.
We are all speculators, offering our differing views on how to move forward. This can only be achieved by recognising that we are all human. We all make mistakes on a daily basis.
In our efforts to produce oil worldwide, to feed our energy needs, we are bound to make mistakes when left to our own devices. We need more in the way of accountability for the actions and decisions we make and have taken regards every well we drill. This has become patently obvious.
There are many reasons for the failure of the Macondo well. Most will be asscociated with BP. They will answer for any criminal action. But, the whole company is not a criminal. We cannot hold 60,000 workers responsible for this tragedy. BP must survive for all of us. If it doesn’t, the economies of the US and UK will suffer tremendously. To withdraw this company from the market place would be a very unwise thing to do.
The perpetrators will be found and justice will be served.
[QUOTE=OldHondoHand;37710]Oh, I bet they are fattening the sacrificial lamb (s) as we speak…
Look at it like this, Mr. Smith: Let’s say someone goes out and drives drunk and kills eleven souls. They didn’t mean to drink and drive, it just sorta happened. So it’s not premeditated murder, it’s negligent homicide. Right? But if that same drunk driver has a history of earlier fatal accidents while drinking and driving, then that’s a different story.
When does negligence become premeditation?[/QUOTE]
There has been negligence, and it appears as if there has been a form of premeditation. The guilty will be found, but it isn’t 60,000 employees working for BP. Nor is it the 100,000 subcontractors worldwide working for BP. There are people who made decisions on this well who must answer for the failings, and who must be prosecuted.
I would love to specify what those failings were, but I don’t have the big picture yet due to lack of published data. What I can say is that I believe BP has more failings than I previously thought. As documents relating to the case are revealed I’m questioning how they managed to get away with the type of single string completion they used. This is the essence of the failing. We need to know who the decision makers were and prosecute them accordingly. If other information is revealed to support this completion string choice, then I’ll eat my words.
Why were they allowed to run this completion? Who sanctioned it? These people also have accountability.
Vidrine!!! This name is uppermost in my mind.
I have read this page (now previous page) with interest, and pondered the positions presented here. Upon reflection, I am as concerned about our career politicians who’s public mantra is “What good is a crisis, if we can’t use it…” as I am of BP’s corporate culture of slash, burn, violate and destroy and reap the profits…
I long for the return of common sense, fairness and sensibility to our political leadership. I am tired of cultural agenda’s being manipulated by those in power for their own gain. I was in the beltway 28 times (trips) the last year I worked full time, IMHO “they” think they are above us. “They” think they are above everyone. “They” will retain thy carriages and thy aircraft… Take it from you and me, legislate what light bulbs we must buy, legislate our health care, legislate well everything… to hades with the Constitution… << That scares me more than BP…
Folks… life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness… [I]were[/I] unalienable rights or sovereign rights of man… are you “getting it” yet?
This needs to go “viral” >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkYJDI8pK9Y see particularly at 2:30, 3:50 timestamp
PS: I hope someone will comment on my previous post on the appearance of preferential sanding up the drill pipe string flow as compared to the annular flow… I think that tells us something about the well’s condition… but I am not sure what…
[QUOTE=alcor;37691] But, is it possible that all of their 60,000 employees are responsible? No. But, they’ll all lose their jobs if BP goes under. [/QUOTE] No, they won’t. If BP America or even BP Global is driven into liquidation by this then their assets will be sold off. Many of those assets are operating businesses that other energy companies would buy. Most of the current employees would have the same jobs–just the logo on the front door would change. It’s inconceivable that all of the employees would lose their jobs.
[QUOTE=OneEyedMan;37718]No, they won’t. If BP America or even BP Global is driven into liquidation by this then their assets will be sold off. Many of those assets are operating businesses that other energy companies would buy. Most of the current employees would have the same jobs–just the logo on the front door would change. It’s inconceivable that all of the employees would lose their jobs.[/QUOTE]
I don’t agree with this perspective. If all of these employees can work elsewhere then they’re not guilty today.
When we go to war, our leaders make decisions of engagement knowing that losses will occur. Meaning that “Some of you are going to die today”. Yet, we all accept this for whatever reason! The oil industry is a tremendously challenging environment where we are all trained to combat pressure. That pressure has the same capability of killing our men if management is unsound. I have never heard an oil industry Operator speak of ‘acceptable losses’ because zero loss is the goal. Somewhere in the midst of ‘operations’ we all have to accept that costs must be managed, some refer to it as minimizing.
I hope everyone on this thread believes BP never intentionally killed the DWH 11. That suggestion is unacceptable to sane thought.
[QUOTE=company man 1;37694]When you posed the question of who’s gas to buy there is a fundamental issue of who’s gas is actually going into your automobile. You can see a given gas truck pull into a corner where there are 4 competing convenience stores & the same truck will fill all four stations with gas. As for the rating post that you refered to, it stated that BP was number one in safety before the GOM disaster. This clearly was not a reputable ratings firm when you consider that BP has 2 of some 55 refineries in the United States & has 97% of all agregious violations concerning safety & environmental impact since 2007 in its refinery facilities.[/QUOTE]
Were these voluntary reports? Did BP report them themselves? Who is overseeing the reporting system?
My experience in the offshore industry shows that every Operator I’ve worked for has a different system of reporting ‘violations’. Definitions of ‘violations’ vary from company to company. One may categorize a failure as Red Zone where another reports it as Green. There is no common system in place except for a running tally of events. One company may be trying to be open while another wants to hide hard evidence.
“I screwed up”.
“Did anybody see”?
“No”.
“Don’t let it happen again”!!!
It’s impossible to compare Operators when they don’t use the same systems.
But, I agree that BP has had serious failings.
[QUOTE=alcor;37719] I hope everyone on this thread believes BP never intentionally killed the DWH 11. That suggestion is unacceptable to sane thought.[/QUOTE]
BP has a proven track record of recidivist behavior when it comes to safety. However there is no indication at this point in time that points to intent. However rest assured BP is culpable, there ain’t no two ways about this. What then would you call a recidivist drunk driver who has killed and maimed several pedestrians but walks out of court and says - Who cares-and runs over and kills another person shortly after ? Would you view such actions as intentional ? irresponsible ? insane ? or all of the above ? I’d like to see you answer this question. Yes we do do not have all of the facts yet but just going on what we have now BP has proven itself to be an irresponsible corporate citizen and no amount of media blackouts, censorship, intimidation or propaganda can change this. It is locked into history.
[QUOTE=BLISTERS;37721]BP has a proven track record of recidivist behavior when it comes to safety. However there is no indication at this point in time that points to intent. However rest assured BP is culpable, there ain’t no two ways about this. What then would you call a recidivist drunk driver who has killed and maimed several pedestrians but walks out of court and says - Who cares-and runs over and kills another person shortly after ? Would you view such actions as intentional ? irresponsible ? insane ? or all of the above ? I’d like to see you answer this question. Yes we do do not have all of the facts yet but just going on what we have now BP has proven itself to be an irresponsible corporate citizen and no amount of media blackouts, censorship, intimidation or propaganda can change this. It is locked into history.[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure the analogy is in any form correct. There aren’t two comparable wells. They have had failures in other areas of company operations.
To simplify this tragic accident as recidivist behaviour is not correct.
[QUOTE=alcor;37719]I don’t agree with this perspective. If all of these employees can work elsewhere then they’re not guilty today.
When we go to war, our leaders make decisions of engagement knowing that losses will occur. Meaning that “Some of you are going to die today”. Yet, we all accept this for whatever reason! The oil industry is a tremendously challenging environment where we are all trained to combat pressure. That pressure has the same capability of killing our men if management is unsound. I have never heard an oil industry Operator speak of ‘acceptable losses’ because zero loss is the goal. Somewhere in the midst of ‘operations’ we all have to accept that costs must be managed, some refer to it as minimizing.
I hope everyone on this thread believes BP never intentionally killed the DWH 11. That suggestion is unacceptable to sane thought.[/QUOTE]
Wow. I don’t even know how to respond to you on this.
Sure, The Deciders didn’t get together and say, “Let’s blowout the Macondo well and burn down the DWH and see how many rigworkers we can take out.” But I can guarantee you that they said something to the effect of “Hurry up, goddammit! You are overdue and overbudget and my department is so in the red that none of us will bonus this year if you don’t get your ass out there and stop the hemmorahge every which way you can. This goes for you guys in engineering, as well as you guys in operations. I want plans on my desk by close of business tomorrow on how you can get this well back on budget. If you can’t or won’t do it, I will find somebody who can. You guys come up with the specifics, and I will make sure we get it stamped by the regulators.” And they did just that. And what concerns me is that that kind of thought process doesn’t just start with one overbudget well. They made decisions that they were comfortable with. In other words, they thought they could employ the same technology and practices that they have gotten away with in other wells. And that scares the crap out of me. Are there ticking time bombs out there waiting for workover rigs? Only time will tell. But I bet that whoever contracts out THAT work will command a pretty penny for the priviledge. BP couldn’t pay me enough to work on their stuff.
Going off to war is totally a different risk choice that entrusting that your employer fully understands and respects the risks and ramifications of their operations. In fact, it is the nature of the trust relationship that we have confidence in our superiors, since not only are they “higher up the food chain” than those of us who are the frontline troops in the field, but because they usually have more experience, knowledge, skillsets, and greater information than what is allowed to flow down to the lower levels. In this case, I think that the well engineers were switching stuff up so fast, trying to deal with this particular reservoir and its challenges, that each contractor was only given just enough info, “just in time,” to make their plans and procedures match the well plan for the day. Not to mention that even when Hallliburton told BP that there was a high risk of failure in the cement job unless they used all, what, 16 or 21 centralizers, they were overruled anyhow. In BP’s case, if they didn’t like the answer they were given, or didn’t like the test results, or the approver who denied them the change, then they just forced their way on the MMS staff, the Contractors, the TOI crew, and anybody who didn’t give them carte’ blanche to their inferior choices. Everybody capitulated to BP. Everybody but one, the Macondo Beast. Now BP is dancing to the music that the well is playing, and it’s a dance macabre.
“I don’t agree with this perspective. If all of these employees can work elsewhere then they’re not guilty today.”
You are going to have to elaborate on this, because at face value, I can make absolutely no sense of what you are saying.
[QUOTE=alcor;37722]I’m not sure the analogy is in any form correct. There aren’t two comparable wells. They have had failures in other areas of company operations.
To simplify this tragic accident as recidivist behaviour is not correct.[/QUOTE]
The analogy is correct indeed because it refers to safety, not another well, pertaining to BP’s record with the Alaskan pipeline, Texas refinery and now DWH. We do not need another well for comparison to bring such bad behavior into context and you missed the point completely or have avoided it by twisting things. BP has proven recidivist behavior previously with these catastrophic events and has developed a compulsive disorder of it with the way have handled public relations in the aftermath. Are you still in denial and unable to answer my original question ?
[QUOTE=OldHondoHand;37723]Wow. I don’t even know how to respond to you on this.
Sure, The Deciders didn’t get together and say, “Let’s blowout the Macondo well and burn down the DWH and see how many rigworkers we can take out.” But I can guarantee you that they said something to the effect of “Hurry up, goddammit! You are overdue and overbudget and my department is so in the red that none of us will bonus this year if you don’t get your ass out there and stop the hemmorahge every which way you can. This goes for you guys in engineering, as well as you guys in operations. I want plans on my desk by close of business tomorrow on how you can get this well back on budget. If you can’t or won’t do it, I will find somebody who can. You guys come up with the specifics, and I will make sure we get it stamped by the regulators.” And they did just that. And what concerns me is that that kind of thought process doesn’t just start with one overbudget well. They made decisions that they were comfortable with. In other words, they thought they could employ the same technology and practices that they have gotten away with in other wells. And that scares the crap out of me. Are there ticking time bombs out there waiting for workover rigs? Only time will tell. But I bet that whoever contracts out THAT work will command a pretty penny for the priviledge. BP couldn’t pay me enough to work on their stuff.
Going off to war is totally a different risk choice that entrusting that your employer fully understands and respects the risks and ramifications of their operations. In fact, it is the nature of the trust relationship that we have confidence in our superiors, since not only are they “higher up the food chain” than those of us who are the frontline troops in the field, but because they usually have more experience, knowledge, skillsets, and greater information than what is allowed to flow down to the lower levels. In this case, I think that the well engineers were switching stuff up so fast, trying to deal with this particular reservoir and its challenges, that each contractor was only given just enough info, “just in time,” to make their plans and procedures match the well plan for the day. Not to mention that even when Hallliburton told BP that there was a high risk of failure in the cement job unless they used all, what, 16 or 21 centralizers, they were overruled anyhow. In BP’s case, if they didn’t like the answer they were given, or didn’t like the test results, or the approver who denied them the change, then they just forced their way on the MMS staff, the Contractors, the TOI crew, and anybody who didn’t give them carte’ blanche to their inferior choices. Everybody capitulated to BP. Everybody but one, the Macondo Beast. Now BP is dancing to the music that the well is playing, and it’s a dance macabre.
“I don’t agree with this perspective. If all of these employees can work elsewhere then they’re not guilty today.”
You are going to have to elaborate on this, because at face value, I can make absolutely no sense of what you are saying.[/QUOTE]
I’m suggesting that a team of up to 25 individuals in BP have had a hand in the design of this well. Many of these will have been ‘junior’ engineers, some of whom questioned the viability of the well’s conversion to Production. The experience of the Team Leader may be the ultimate question here. He may well be the type of person you personified so well (have you met him?). It only takes one overbearing fool to intimidate others into accepting their standards. I don’t know how high in the company the well’s planning went, but BP have in place strict procedures and Best practices which govern the way in which a well is completed. I’m suggesting that this team got it wrong, and I have no idea how high up in the company sanctioning of the project was endorsed. These are the individuals responsible.
To me, there are two critical issues with this well. One, a single completion string was run instead of an upper and lower completion. Two, the lockdown sleeve was not installed.
But, there is the question of the securing of the well hours before the fateful decision to accept displacement. This was the signal to stop and consider all options. It was not taken. I’m still not sure if the onshore team meant to run the lockdown sleeve before displacement or if they simply screwed up with their decision making. Vidrine, was counselled by the OIM as to the dangers of displacement. Vidrine chose to ignore the fact that no proven barriers were in place. Somehow, we’re all sheep…and we followed the shepherd.
BP, lost control of this well through the inept decisions of the team allocated to oversee its construction, and the fool Vidrine, who when warned behaved like Hitler, all power and no sense.
Not all workers at BP are responsible for the Disaster. The team failed. Who selected the team? Where does the chain of command end?
One thing is for sure, the CEO can’t control 100 wells. Responsibility is delegated to others. And they are supposed to observe BP’s procedures and best practices.
[QUOTE=BLISTERS;37724]The analogy is correct indeed because it refers to safety, not another well, pertaining to BP’s record with the Alaskan pipeline, Texas refinery and now DWH. We do not need another well for comparison to bring such bad behavior into context and you missed the point completely or have avoided it by twisting things. BP has proven recidivist behavior previously with these catastrophic events and has developed a compulsive disorder of it with the way have handled public relations in the aftermath. Are you still in denial and unable to answer my original question ?[/QUOTE]
If BP were to repeat this well somewhere else worldwide knowing that it failed in the GOM then this can be described as recidivist. A refinery that blows up is operationally nothing akin to the DWH incident. The two are quite seperate. And yet, they are both safety issues. All the personnel are different. Geographically, you’re in another place. One is on land, the other 18,000 ft below sea level. The only common factor is that both have Hayward as their CEO. If this doesn’t answer your question can you make it direct.
Is there anyone who can fairly assess the impact of BP being liquidated in the US without the emotional constraints attached?
Alcor, you would have so much more moral credibility if after the spill BP had responded with honor. First, they said that the well was not leaking, then they said it was a small leak of 1000 bbls a day, then it was up to 5000 a day. They reported things they were doing in the GOM 12 to 24 hours after it happened. They have yet to report the truth about the blowout, the BOP, or anything the people on this blog have tried to hard to understand. How can you tell BP is lying? Answer: When their lips are moving.