ADK_Forever
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2008
- Messages
- 3,706
- Reaction score
- 1,001
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
FOXNews.com - BP Engineer Called Doomed Rig a 'Nightmare Well'
BP should just start signing blank checks.
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."
FOXNews.com - BP Engineer Called Doomed Rig a 'Nightmare Well'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."
FOXNews.com - BP Engineer Called Doomed Rig a 'Nightmare Well'
BP should just start signing blank checks.
Waxman and Stupak said.
And, more interpertation of reality. Accuracy doesn't matter, only the mythology.
Incredible that a couple innocuous emails define what exactly went wrong on the rig.
At least this OP proves that Halliburton may not have been at fault...:rofl
Well, hell, I'm sold, if Waxman and Stupack said it...:rofl
And, more interpertation of reality. Accuracy doesn't matter, only the mythology.
Incredible that a couple innocuous emails define what exactly went wrong on the rig.
At least this OP proves that Halliburton may not have been at fault...:rofl
Well, hell, I'm sold, if Waxman and Stupack said it...:rofl
Internal BP documents, including an e-mail message calling the well drilled by the Deepwater Horizon a “nightmare,” show a pattern of risky choices made to save time and money in the weeks before the disastrous April 20 blowout, according to a letter sent to the oil company by the leaders of a House committee on Monday.
The leaders of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce cited five areas in which the company had made decisions that “increased the danger of a catastrophic well,” including the choice for the design of the well, preparations for and tests of the cement job and assurances that the well was properly sealed on the top.
Taken together, the documents offer the strongest case yet that BP bears much of the responsibility for the catastrophic explosion that killed 11 workers and the still-unchecked leaking of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
To those who continue to defend BP's reckless actions, you no longer have a leg to stand on. The evidence is in, in black and white, from BP's own internal documents. So yes, BP has a lot to account for, and bears responsibility for this catastrophe. But the responsibility does not end with BP. In a highly publicized press conference, Obama had given the green light to offshore drilling. I have no problem with that. My problem is that Obama bears responsibility for giving the green light without restoring some of the regulation that had been previously gutted. Obama bears responsibility for the oil company shills that ran MMS. And, finally, Obama bears responsibility for not taking charge, but by putting those who created the mess in charge of dealing with the aftermath of the spill, just like the fox in the henhouse.
Yea, I know, I know. Some of you are going to say that it was Bush who gutted the regulations, and installed oil company shills in MMS. For those who do, I've got news for you. Bush has not been in office in almost a year and a half. For the last year and a half, Obama has had every opportunity to set things right. Instead of doing that, he staged a photo-op, in which he gave the green light to offshore drilling, while not giving a damn about the consequences of not regulating it. This will be Obama's legacy - A big fat middle finger, jabbed in the face of the American people, while attempting to score political points for his own image.
Meanwhile, the oil still gushes into the Gulf. Thank you, BP.
Article is here.
Yeah, its not like an engineer has any technical expertise or insight into what might have gone wrong! :lol:
Seriously adpst, this is your argument?
Yes but, Bush's evil ghost still haunts us. This has his and Cheeney's fingerprints all over it.
However I do, and have, agree that Obama should have done much more to restructure MMS. To that end, I can't understand why the hell a Bush oil man, Salazar, is in there. It's like having Barracuda Barbie charged with teaching public speaking to our children. :doh
To those who continue to defend BP's reckless actions, you no longer have a leg to stand on. The evidence is in, in black and white, from BP's own internal documents. So yes, BP has a lot to account for, and bears responsibility for this catastrophe. But the responsibility does not end with BP. In a highly publicized press conference, Obama had given the green light to offshore drilling. I have no problem with that. My problem is that Obama bears responsibility for giving the green light without restoring some of the regulation that had been previously gutted. Obama bears responsibility for the oil company shills that ran MMS. And, finally, Obama bears responsibility for not taking charge, but by putting those who created the mess in charge of dealing with the aftermath of the spill, just like the fox in the henhouse.
Yea, I know, I know. Some of you are going to say that it was Bush who gutted the regulations, and installed oil company shills in MMS. For those who do, I've got news for you. Bush has not been in office in almost a year and a half. For the last year and a half, Obama has had every opportunity to set things right. Instead of doing that, he staged a photo-op, in which he gave the green light to offshore drilling, while not giving a damn about the consequences of not regulating it. This will be Obama's legacy - A big fat middle finger, jabbed in the face of the American people, while attempting to score political points for his own image.
Meanwhile, the oil still gushes into the Gulf. Thank you, BP.
Article is here.
To those who continue to defend BP's reckless actions, you no longer have a leg to stand on. The evidence is in, in black and white, from BP's own internal documents. So yes, BP has a lot to account for, and bears responsibility for this catastrophe. But the responsibility does not end with BP. In a highly publicized press conference, Obama had given the green light to offshore drilling. I have no problem with that. My problem is that Obama bears responsibility for giving the green light without restoring some of the regulation that had been previously gutted. Obama bears responsibility for the oil company shills that ran MMS. And, finally, Obama bears responsibility for not taking charge, but by putting those who created the mess in charge of dealing with the aftermath of the spill, just like the fox in the henhouse.
Yea, I know, I know. Some of you are going to say that it was Bush who gutted the regulations, and installed oil company shills in MMS. For those who do, I've got news for you. Bush has not been in office in almost a year and a half. For the last year and a half, Obama has had every opportunity to set things right. Instead of doing that, he staged a photo-op, in which he gave the green light to offshore drilling, while not giving a damn about the consequences of not regulating it. This will be Obama's legacy - A big fat middle finger, jabbed in the face of the American people, while attempting to score political points for his own image.
Meanwhile, the oil still gushes into the Gulf. Thank you, BP.
Article is here.
I'm only interested in the facts.
So far, the "facts" haven't matched up to what happened. Nevermind that I'm one of only about three people on this forum that even know what a centralizer is.
"It's Bush's fault!"...I'm gonna be sick.
To those who continue to defend BP's reckless actions, you no longer have a leg to stand on. The evidence is in, in black and white, from BP's own internal documents. So yes, BP has a lot to account for, and bears responsibility for this catastrophe. But the responsibility does not end with BP. In a highly publicized press conference, Obama had given the green light to offshore drilling. I have no problem with that. My problem is that Obama bears responsibility for giving the green light without restoring some of the regulation that had been previously gutted. Obama bears responsibility for the oil company shills that ran MMS. And, finally, Obama bears responsibility for not taking charge, but by putting those who created the mess in charge of dealing with the aftermath of the spill, just like the fox in the henhouse.
Yea, I know, I know. Some of you are going to say that it was Bush who gutted the regulations, and installed oil company shills in MMS. For those who do, I've got news for you. Bush has not been in office in almost a year and a half. For the last year and a half, Obama has had every opportunity to set things right. Instead of doing that, he staged a photo-op, in which he gave the green light to offshore drilling, while not giving a damn about the consequences of not regulating it. This will be Obama's legacy - A big fat middle finger, jabbed in the face of the American people, while attempting to score political points for his own image.
Meanwhile, the oil still gushes into the Gulf. Thank you, BP.
Article is here.
Yes but, Bush's evil ghost still haunts us. This has his and Cheeney's fingerprints all over it.
However I do, and have, agree that Obama should have done much more to restructure MMS. To that end, I can't understand why the hell a Bush oil man, Salazar, is in there. It's like having Barracuda Barbie charged with teaching public speaking to our children. :doh
And yet, you still don't have a clue what they did. Tell us again how they cemented "the entire well". :lol:
I'll get the puke bucket fer ya. You're gonna need it. :mrgreen:
Has anyone mentioned that they might not be doing this deep-water drilling at all, if they were allowed to drill closer to shore in most places? Or in ANWR? oopps...... :mrgreen:
Well first of all, I don't think you are going to be able to get much gulf oil in anwr :2razz:
Also, it might have been better, and probably would have, but it was what it was and the oil companies should have known the risks of drilling where they did and acted accordingly, including a choice to not drill if there were too many potential problems.
There have been 40,000 wells drilled in the GOM. What potential problems? **** will happen, no matter what.
A potential massive spill that covers much of the gulf perhaps.
It covers some of the GOM. Not, "much", not even, "most".
The GOM is 615,000 square miles. How many square miles does Obama's slick cover?
But hey, the good news is, the Coast Gaurd just approved ten more vac barges. That brings the total to a whopping, 13! Nearly two months after the blowout. Just imagine how insignificant this slick would have been, had Obama removed his thumb from his ass and did his job. That wouldn't have helped his agenda, though. huh?
True dat. I believe there's a rule that governs staying on topic, too. .
It covers some of the GOM. Not, "much", not even, "most".
The GOM is 615,000 square miles. How many square miles does Obama's slick cover?
But hey, the good news is, the Coast Gaurd just approved ten more vac barges. That brings the total to a whopping, 13! Nearly two months after the blowout. Just imagine how insignificant this slick would have been, had Obama removed his thumb from his ass and did his job. That wouldn't have helped his agenda, though. huh?
It is coming ashore in multiple states. The term much is fine.
Enough to be a disaster.
This has nothing to do with the role of regulation or any mistakes BP may have made and is pretty much a paranoid rant.
Aren't you complaining about people not staying on subject in another thread tonight?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?