• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Government says leak detected 'a distance from' oil well

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ruh roh - Whack a mole, anyone? :mrgreen:
 

The Dane

Active member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
253
Reaction score
62
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
"If the well remains fully shut in until the relief well is completed, we may never have a fully accurate determination of the flow rate from this well. If so, BP -- which has consistently underestimated the flow rate -- might evade billions of dollars of fines," Markey said in a letter to Allen released Sunday.
Wow. It never occured to me that an accurate flow rate would lower or raise fines. Apparently they are measuring the flow rate, and then using that to determine how much oil leaked out over the last two months and then fining them based on that. If this number is lowered then BP will get a much much lower bill. This is quite amazing.
 

BCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
178
Location
Heart of Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Maybe this is more serious than it looks? BP and the Obama administration are disagreeing on what should be done here, BP wants to leave the cap on but the White House wants them to take it off and outfit it so it can capture the oil in container ships and relieve pressure on the cap. Apparently there has been seepage and what looks to be the presence of Methane gases also leaking out.

BP probably doesn't want to remove the cap because it could take up to a week to refit it which means lots of additional $$$$ in fines .
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Maybe this is more serious than it looks? BP and the Obama administration are disagreeing on what should be done here, BP wants to leave the cap on but the White House wants them to take it off and outfit it so it can capture the oil in container ships and relieve pressure on the cap. Apparently there has been seepage and what looks to be the presence of Methane gases also leaking out.

BP probably doesn't want to remove the cap because it could take up to a week to refit it which means lots of additional $$$$ in fines .
Yes, lets look at it ONLY one way.

Lets not say its equally plausible that the Government doesn't want to lose out on fine money and the publicity of continuing to demonize BP and thus are pushing for a solution that keeps the oil flowing rather than stops it.

Nope, it must ONLY be BP that has utlerior motives and the government must have a pure and golden heart, that must be the only possible way this could be invisioned.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,102
Reaction score
8,146
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, lets look at it ONLY one way.

Lets not say its equally plausible that the Government doesn't want to lose out on fine money and the publicity of continuing to demonize BP and thus are pushing for a solution that keeps the oil flowing rather than stops it.

Nope, it must ONLY be BP that has utlerior motives and the government must have a pure and golden heart, that must be the only possible way this could be invisioned.

Yes because the government truely cares about a few billion dollars. When its budget is in the multitrillion dollar range, it truely cares about a few billion dollars

While BP, a profit making enterprise whose future could be at stake, is not concerned about a fine that could be $3 billion or a $12 billion depending on how much oil was released
 

Catz Part Deux

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,728
Reaction score
6,742
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yes, lets look at it ONLY one way.

Lets not say its equally plausible that the Government doesn't want to lose out on fine money and the publicity of continuing to demonize BP and thus are pushing for a solution that keeps the oil flowing rather than stops it.

Nope, it must ONLY be BP that has utlerior motives and the government must have a pure and golden heart, that must be the only possible way this could be invisioned.
Yes, because corporations always operate with the best interests of their employees and the public at large at heart. This heart-warming trust in a corporation that scrimped on necessary safety protocols and caused this debacle is sweet. Misplaced, but sweet.

However, we can't let anything deter us from the paradigm that corporate America = good, and government = bad.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, because corporations always operate with the best interests of their employees and the public at large at heart. This heart-warming trust in a corporation that scrimped on necessary safety protocols and caused this debacle is sweet. Misplaced, but sweet.

However, we can't let anything deter us from the paradigm that corporate America = good, and government = bad.
Absolutely not. I think the scenario with BP is equally likely. Note how I even noted EQUALLY LIKELY in my post, suggesting that I didn't think the BP scenario is far fetched.

But nice strawman and rant Catz. My issue is not Government = Bad and Corporation = Good...its that both have the capacity to have ulterior motives and NEITHER are pure as the wind driven snow in this so immedietely assuming and stating the worst possible outcome in the guise of Corporation = Bad while ignoring the potential government side is nothing but vindicitive partisan politics.

But wonderful argument, it's just too bad it was made against a figment of your imagination.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,102
Reaction score
8,146
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Absolutely not. I think the scenario with BP is equally likely. Note how I even noted EQUALLY LIKELY in my post, suggesting that I didn't think the BP scenario is far fetched.

But nice strawman and rant Catz. My issue is not Government = Bad and Corporation = Good...its that both have the capacity to have ulterior motives and NEITHER are pure as the wind driven snow in this so immedietely assuming and stating the worst possible outcome in the guise of Corporation = Bad while ignoring the potential government side is nothing but vindicitive partisan politics.

But wonderful argument, it's just too bad it was made against a figment of your imagination.
Equally plausable it is not though

BP has a far higher incentive to keep the well capped, both to stop any new oil from escaping from the well (which may cause problems by the looks of it) and to prevent an accurate count of how much oil has been released so far then does the government. A big enough fine could cost BP a few years profits, while $30 billion dollars to the US government is peanuts.
 

Catz Part Deux

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,728
Reaction score
6,742
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Absolutely not. I think the scenario with BP is equally likely. Note how I even noted EQUALLY LIKELY in my post, suggesting that I didn't think the BP scenario is far fetched.
But it isn't equally likely. That's the point. The only reason you even consider it equally likely is your pre-existing paradigm that corporate america=good, government=bad.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
But it isn't equally likely. That's the point. The only reason you even consider it equally likely is your pre-existing paradigm that corporate america=good, government=bad.
That's so illogical it hurts my head

So I think "corporate america" = good" and "government = bad", and therefore I think its equally likely that Corporate America AND the Government are taking stances on actions in part based on what's best for them and not necessarily what's best for the situation in general?

So what you're saying is I think something that's "bad" is just as likely to act in a certain way as something I view as "Good".

"I think Pizza = Good and Lima Beans = Bad. Its just as likely that I'll enjoy eating Lima Beans as I enjoy eating Pizza".

:confused:

That doesn't make sense.

The government and politicians often work for their own interest. Its why they lie (see the "no taxes" statement about the individual mandate), its why they manipulate (See how the Bush administration justified Iraq without ever actually connecting it directly to 9/11), its why they speak empty rhetoric (Change from politics as usual!), and its why they love to find a villian and someone to paste as "the bad guy" (take Wall Street or Illegal Immigrants for your side of choice).

Business also often work for their own interest. That's why you have instances where ethics are ignored, items are made on the cheap regardless of quality, CEO's get bonus's while bemoaning how many employees they had to lay off, and other such things.

Does the government always do this or all politicians do it? No. Are all corporations constantly trying to screw everyone else and do all businessmen only look out for themselves? No. But its ridiculous in this situation just to rail against one.

For almost every questionable act by BP in this there's been a questionable act by the Government. For almost every act BP that has done which has been boneheadedly stupid there's been an act by the administration and others to exploit this situation to their benefit. Is BP taking actions that may be driven more in regards to saving them profits rather than what's the best for cleaning up the oil? Absolutely its likely. Is the government taking actions that cover their ass and allow further time to demonize BP while shifting blame elsewhere in a hopes to remove this from being viewed as his "Katrina"? Also absolutely likely.

Seriously, I don't know how in the **** me saying that both of them are capable of bad, both of them could be suggesting what to do partially based on ulterior reasons, and that both of them are not pure as the wind driven snow somehow equals me saying "Corporations are good and the Government is Bad". I don't know what kind of logic you use where saying two things are capable of Bad equals saying one of those things is good and one of those things is bad, and quite frankly its probably wrong of me to even term it as "logic".
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Equally plausable it is not though

BP has a far higher incentive to keep the well capped, both to stop any new oil from escaping from the well (which may cause problems by the looks of it) and to prevent an accurate count of how much oil has been released so far then does the government. A big enough fine could cost BP a few years profits, while $30 billion dollars to the US government is peanuts.
Which you're looking only at the financial incentives.

Publicity that BP is somehow "evading" the fines could be bad publicity for Obama as the public wants blood, in part due to being stirred up by the Media and the administration, and if its viewed as them "evading" the fines there could be backlash towards the administrat for not "properly" punishing them.

If the oil is not flooding out, and is capped, the story is likely to reduce itself in regards to the day to day events, day to day events that continually allows the administration to point at BP and go "see, see, this bad is because of them". When the day to day horrors of it isn't around you begin to move into the realm and time where finger pointing and examination of the situation and how it was handled begins.

Talk is already showing up now of Congress potentially moving to begin climate change and environmental talks again, and a spewing oil rig adds a far better back drop to push the emotional buttons for their efforts than something that's capped and not generating continual news.

Overall, its in the best interests of both sides to get this thing stopped, and I think its ridiculous to assume either aren't trying for it. But I also think its ridiculous to assume that BP's decisions are influenced by profit margins but the Governments decisiosn are absolutely positevely pure as the wind driven snow and can't possibly be tainted by any political ambitions or beliefs but is only about the security of the gulf and the stoppage of the oil....the same government that manipulated and misused expert testimony to push a political agenda of shutting down oil rigs.

Sorry, I don't buy the notion that we must think the worst of BP immedietely but think the best and greatest of the Obama Administration that's handling this.
 

Catz Part Deux

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,728
Reaction score
6,742
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Sorry, I don't buy the notion that we must think the worst of BP immedietely but think the best and greatest of the Obama Administration that's handling this.
Nice combination of strawman/false dichotomy. I have yet to note ANYONE applauding the administration's handling of this issue. In fact, I think that both the response from BP AND the federal response suck. HARD.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nice combination of strawman/false dichotomy. I have yet to note ANYONE applauding the administration's handling of this issue. In fact, I think that both the response from BP AND the federal response suck. HARD.
Here's the thing, from my very first post in this thread I was placing negative notions to both sides. Stating that both sides are equally possible to be suggesting what they're suggesting for alterior reasons.

Meanwhile, the person I was actually responding to did no such thing. They speculated negatively only about BP while suggesting the Obama administrations goals were wholey to "relieve the pressure". My issue is not with making suggestions that BP is handling this wrong, or suggesting they have ulterior motives...my issue is with making that suggestion and implication without also acknowledging the administrations potential ulterior motives in THEIR suggested fix as well either through praising their suggested fix as being benevolent in hopes of simply "releasing the pressure" or outright ignoring the federal government entirely to focus solely and singularly on BP
 

Catz Part Deux

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,728
Reaction score
6,742
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Here's the thing, from my very first post in this thread I was placing negative notions to both sides. Stating that both sides are equally possible to be suggesting what they're suggesting for alterior reasons.
The fact that you believe that they are equally likely to be culpable is just absurd. We already know that BP took shortcuts that lead to the death of 11 people in connection to this incident. Their actions have been outrageously irresponsible, and frankly, unconscionable.

NEW ORLEANS BP made a series of money-saving shortcuts and blunders that sharply increased the danger of an oil spill in a well that an engineer described as a "nightmare" just six days before the blowout, according to documents released Monday.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee released dozens of internal documents outlining problems on the deep-sea rig in the days and weeks before the April 20 explosion that triggered the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history. The committee has been investigating the explosion and its aftermath.

"Time after time, it appears that BP made decisions that increased the risk of a blowout to save the company time or expense. 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," said Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak.

Congressional investigators have identified several mistakes by BP in the weeks leading up to the disaster as it fell way behind on drilling the well.

BP started drilling in October, only to have the rig damaged by Hurricane Ida a month later. The company switched to the Deepwater Horizon rig and resumed drilling on Feb. 6. The rig was 43 days late for its next drilling location by the time it exploded April 20, costing BP at least $500,000 each day it was overdue, congressional documents show.

As BP found itself in a frantic race against time to get the job done, engineers cut corners in the well design, cementing and drilling mud efforts and the installation of safety devices known as "lockdown sleeves" and "centralizers," according to congressional investigators.

In the design of the well, 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, documents and internal e-mails show. The decision saved BP $7 million to $10 million; the original cost estimate for the well was about $96 million.

In an e-mail, BP engineer Brian Morel told a fellow employee that 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 a nightmare well which has everyone all over the place," Morel wrote.

The e-mail chain culminated with the following message by another worker: "This has been a crazy well for sure."

BP also apparently rejected advice from subcontractor Halliburton 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.

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."


BP also failed to fully circulate drilling mud, a 12-hour procedure that could have helped detect gas pockets that later shot up the well and exploded on the drilling rig.

Asked about the details disclosed from the investigation, BP spokesman Mark Proegler said the company's main focus right now is on the response and stopping the flow of oil. "It would be inappropriate for us to comment while an investigation is ongoing," Proegler said.
Panel: BP shortcuts led to big oil spill - CharlotteObserver.com

I hope that the U.S. attorney in the southern district of Louisiana eventually prosecutes the executives involved in these decisions for manslaughter.
 
Last edited:

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
… BP probably doesn't want to remove the cap because it could take up to a week to refit it which means lots of additional $$$$ in fines .
That's news to me, that they have to remove the cap. My understanding is that they can open some valves on the cap and open the flow to the ships on the surface. Further, my understanding is that they would certainly do that when the relief well is ready and they begin the bottom kill procedure.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wow. It never occured to me that an accurate flow rate would lower or raise fines. Apparently they are measuring the flow rate, and then using that to determine how much oil leaked out over the last two months and then fining them based on that. If this number is lowered then BP will get a much much lower bill. This is quite amazing.
Obviously the total liability is going to be related to the amount of oil that actually leaked.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,285
Reaction score
32,397
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Obviously the total liability is going to be related to the amount of oil that actually leaked.
Eh, somehow I doubt we'll ever recover the true cost of their screwup. Or the cost of their oversight's screwup.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Eh, somehow I doubt we'll ever recover the true cost of their screwup. Or the cost of their oversight's screwup.
Well that depends on what you define as the "true cost." There is a legal manner in which damages will be calculated, and that will be what is owed.
 

BCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
178
Location
Heart of Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
another 24 hours of testing will continue, The pressure readings are unexpected and baffling. I suppose they are trying to figure out what these readings mean?
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2000) — Twice an Exxon Valdez spill worth of oil seeps into the Gulf of Mexico every year, according to a new study that will be presented January 27 at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Antonio, Texas.
Scientists Find That Tons Of Oil Seep Into The Gulf Of Mexico Each Year

The oil that was detected could be natural, and the government needs to prove it isn't before they blame BP for it..... or don't we live in a country that prizes due process.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes because the government truely cares about a few billion dollars. When its budget is in the multitrillion dollar range, it truely cares about a few billion dollars

While BP, a profit making enterprise whose future could be at stake, is not concerned about a fine that could be $3 billion or a $12 billion depending on how much oil was released
The Obama administration needs it to be a continuing crisis to further the cap and trade agenda.
 

BCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
178
Location
Heart of Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I'm pretty sure it's the unexpected pressure readings that are worrying the White House, and I could care less if it might be a "natural" leak..If it's near by we need to assume the worst.
 

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
53,358
Reaction score
21,361
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yes, lets look at it ONLY one way.

Lets not say its equally plausible that the Government doesn't want to lose out on fine money and the publicity of continuing to demonize BP and thus are pushing for a solution that keeps the oil flowing rather than stops it.

Nope, it must ONLY be BP that has utlerior motives and the government must have a pure and golden heart, that must be the only possible way this could be invisioned.
Yes yes, the government is demonizing BP...











I assure everyone, that if the government hadn't come into this situation, then everything would have been fine. I'm sure everything would have gotten fixed by now and the thousands of people who lost jobs as a result would all be back to work now. Yes people, it is the government's fault that BP, a company with 200 billion dollars in assets and hundreds of safety violations - is looking really bad. Without the government continuing to demonize BP, things would be fine or at the very least so-so.
 
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
50
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Obama administration needs it to be a continuing crisis to further the cap and trade agenda.
This crisis has been crappy for the administration. It has a much stronger motivation to end it with the elections coming up.

Honestly I'm surprised they had the balls to propose uncapping it considering the potential backlash.

I don't see why it's unplausible to assume that the government would want to keep this disaster from getting monumentally worse.
 
Top Bottom