The top thing on my wish list - bankruptcy

Peter Zack · 06-04-2010, 07:06 AM

Oh the whole area is screwed for a long time to come for sure. It's pathetic to see guys with rags wiping grass in the marsh. They have no clue how to clean a lot of this up.

Of course they have cut the pipe now and that way more oil can spew out. Another smart move. In addition to that, if a weather system rolls through, the "top cap" has to be removed until the storm passes.

I sent several places (including the White house) a couple of simple and solid ideas on how to cap this thing until the relief well is completed. Of course no one has emailed me back.

One is fast and simple. Take the first dome they built, weld a bunch of heavy steal plate all over the outside to make the thing heavier. Then lower it back over the BOP and use the recovery nozzle they had there for oil recovery to inject hydro cement to make the whole thing a sarcophagus over the BOP and hole. You should be easily able to put 50-100 tonnes of steel and concrete on top of it and stop the flow. It could be done in 3-4 days easily. I sent them this idea 4 weeks ago 3 times.

They are idiots.

Parallax · 06-04-2010, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by clmonk

Not that it would make any difference to BP's bottom line, but I wonder how many Americans are choosing to purchase their petroleum products from othercompanies right now. There really doesn't seem to be anything the average Joe can do to indicate our displeasure. At least no way we can actually "vote with our wallets" as is usually suggested.

The problem there is that the only ones actually hurt financially would be the owners of the individual stations. The corporation would likely not even notice unless it were a very large scale, organized boycott.
This is another example of risk v. benefit. Unless people start actually going to jail, or the parent corporations are barred from doing business in the U.S.; the potential benefit will outweigh the risk and nothing will change.

clmonk · 06-04-2010, 07:21 AM

I KNOW! That's why I wrote it would not make a difference. And even a large scale boycott would not help. Let's face it, every single ounce of petroleum product is going to be sold on the open market at market rates. If they do not need it at their stations, it will still be sold at millions of other stations, refineries, and processing plants. That's what I was trying to say. The average Joe has no way to "vote with his wallet". We cannot make a difference. Exxon is a great example. How much did their disaster hurt their bottom line? Last I checked they were doing business as usual with no adverse ramifications.

mel · 06-04-2010, 07:27 AM

Part of the news broadcast I was watching, but not really paying attention to, interviewed a former government something (like I said, I wasn't paying much attention, it was 5:30 am) explaining how the US Government could take actions that would essentially put them out of business, but won't do so because BP is a huge supplier of oil/fuel to the government itself, largely the Department of Defense. Does any one know anything about this process? (again, it was 5:30am, I don't remember what the name of the action was).

reeftool · 06-04-2010, 07:43 AM

I hope the govt. goes forward with their promised investigation and really go after those responsible. If this ends up with a rinky dink fine, then everybody is in trouble. It will happen again and again. Far too often in these kind of accidents, some grunt on the rig will get blamed and the higher ups who ordered the work will be untouched. They will probably blame one of the dead guys for "not following proper procedures" or some such crap. BP will blame the sub-contractors. The sub-contractors will blame the equipment builders. The courts will be hearing these cases for years to come. A lot of lawyers will become millionaires many times over. Some guy on the rig will go to jail because he was taking a crap when the explosion happened and some guy that doesn't like him will testify he had a couple of beers at lunch. That how this will probably end.

The states will probably get stuck for most of the cleanup. BP will write out a big check but it won't cover anywhere near the cost. These corporate execs know how to cover their asses. If they didn't, they wouldn't have made it to the position they are in. Am I too cynical? Lets wait and see. I hope I'm wrong.

clmonk · 06-04-2010, 07:43 AM

Mel wrote: Part of the news broadcast I was watching, but not really paying attention to, interviewed a former government something (like I said, I wasn't paying much attention, it was 5:30 am) explaining how the US Government could take actions that would essentially put them out of business, but won't do so because BP is a huge supplier of oil/fuel to the government itself, largely the Department of Defense. Does any one know anything about this process? (again, it was 5:30am, I don't remember what the name of the action was).

I would find that very difficult to believe. How could the US government put a British company out of business? As I said in a previous post. ANY petroleum product produced by ANY company will be bought on the world market at market price. The US Government may be able to make it more difficult for them to operate in the US--and even then I wonder--but put them out of business??? I can't see how.

graphicgr8s · 06-04-2010, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by clmonk

Not that it would make any difference to BP's bottom line, but I wonder how many Americans are choosing to purchase their petroleum products from othercompanies right now. There really doesn't seem to be anything the average Joe can do to indicate our displeasure. At least no way we can actually "vote with our wallets" as is usually suggested.

The only one I personally won't buy from is Citgo. Can't see giving Hugo any of my money. I wouldn't gas up there if they were the only station around. Never bought at BP because they post cash prices only. I usually use a debit card and other stations have it for the same price without having to use cash.

mel · 06-04-2010, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by clmonk

I would find that very difficult to believe. How could the US government put a British company out of business? As I said in a previous post. ANY petroleum product produced by ANY company will be bought on the world market at market price. The US Government may be able to make it more difficult for them to operate in the US--and even then I wonder--but put them out of business??? I can't see how.

Okay. I was BARELY awake. And I think it was out of business in the US. The Feds are probably the largest purchaser of petroleum products. But regardless of the nationality of the company, losing your largest single company would put a huge damper on your ability to stay solvent would it not?

Okay off to go researching to see if I can figure out what the person was saying while I was all muzzy-headed.

Peter Zack · 06-04-2010, 08:16 AM

Oh they could get BP out of the US market if they wanted to. But as a producer, BP just needs to sell the product to another company and then it moves worldwide. My hope is they put the Exc's in jail and fine them to the point the company has to dissolve assets to pay the bills.

To Reeftool's point, they have the perfect guy to blame this on. The "Tool-Pusher" was killed on the rig during the explosion. For those who don't know, he's like the Captain of the ship. He would be employed by Trans continental and he basically goes with the lease of the rig to BP. BP would only have a few staff on board, a "Company Man" and a few others.

But ultimately the Tool-Pusher has command and makes all safety desicions on the rig as it is leased and set up. Of course he has no capacity to determine how the BOP is set up or the equipment they have to work with. BP would make those choices.

Since he died in the explosion, they will blame it all on him. Since the rig is a pile of junk in 5000 feet of water, the evidence is mostly gone.

jsherman999 · 06-04-2010, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Peter Zack

All this destruction could have easily been avoided had they properly installed a remote operated blow-out protector. But no they decided to save $500K.

.

I read an article last week in the NYT in which they reported on an occurrence a few hours before the blowout - A BP official was apparently on a conf call yelling at drill platform management to pump out a heavy, dense solution in a chamber above the upper well head reservoir and replace it with less dense seawater, because they needed the dense solution to use on another project. (read: cost savings attached to other BP project.)

A Platform guy was overheard saying, "well, I guess that's what we have the pinchers for" ("pincher" being the term they used for the mechanical 'jaws' that are supposed to clamp the well shut in the event of blowout.)

So, BP can not hide behind the "It was our contractors fault!" implication they were riding for a while.

.

philbaum · 06-04-2010, 09:16 AM

Peter,
I totally agree.

I just called, as a resuult of this thread, Patty Murray's office, my senator from WA state. I got a bunch of platititudes, they're starting an inquiry and all that.

I complained about the Mineral Mine Safety office Head who was holding coke parties for the petroleum industry and also Obama's opening up 11 more leases for oil platforms since this problem started.

I complained that all platforms should be shut down since no safety program inspections have been done for a long time.

I didn't swear or yell but they just hung up on me. So i called back and got an answering machine. so i complained about the rude behavior of the staff :-)

I think by the time the tar balls reach New York and Washington DC, there will be an uproar that will result in some real change - i hope!

BP bankruptcy would be nice, but a 20 year prison sentence for the CEO, the MMS head, and about 50 Senators would be nice as well.

Nesster · 06-04-2010, 09:31 AM

What I want to know: are those other companies now reviewing their safety and backup plans, and if they are, will all the cut corners actually come out in the reviews (I bet not).

I also wonder how the new drilling area will stick, it probably will (local politics - jobs) but maybe with much stricter safety requirements.

BP may end up going bankrupt after paying for everything, but this isn't necessarily the ideal outcome financially. If they remain a going concern we can keep milking them for the decade or two it will take to get past all the problems the spill may cause.

graphicgr8s · 06-04-2010, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Nesster

What I want to know: are those other companies now reviewing their safety and backup plans, and if they are, will all the cut corners actually come out in the reviews (I bet not).

I also wonder how the new drilling area will stick, it probably will (local politics - jobs) but maybe with much stricter safety requirements.

BP may end up going bankrupt after paying for everything, but this isn't necessarily the ideal outcome financially. If they remain a going concern we can keep milking them for the decade or two it will take to get past all the problems the spill may cause.

But legally they are only responsible for $75 million in cleanup.

Peter Zack · 06-04-2010, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

.

I read an article last week in the NYT in which they reported on an occurrence a few hours before the blowout - A BP official was apparently on a conf call yelling at drill platform management to pump out a heavy, dense solution in a chamber above the upper well head reservoir and replace it with less dense seawater, because they needed the dense solution to use on another project. (read: cost savings attached to other BP project.)

A Platform guy was overheard saying, "well, I guess that's what we have the pinchers for" ("pincher" being the term they used for the mechanical 'jaws' that are supposed to clamp the well shut in the event of blowout.)

So, BP can not hide behind the "It was our contractors fault!" implication they were riding for a while.

.

If that's true, they caused the blow out. Drilling mud is the dense solution used to hold the pressure back of the well. There's no way that seawater can hold back oil under pressure.

I've seen confrontations between the "company Man" (Aka BP) and the "Tool-Pusher" (Rig 'captain'). In one case they got into a fight on my rig and the tool pusher blasted the CP with a fire hose. The tool pusher was fired and whatever they were fighting over caused an accident that caused the rig to be shut down for nearly a month.

Ratmagiclady · 06-04-2010, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by seacapt

Peter and the rest , you need to stop thinking about dead birds , turtles and porpoises. Think about the devastation at the bottom of the food chain and it's effects on everything else.

Bingo.

And the dispersants used to make the size of the oil slick look less for the TV satellite shots?

As bad as the spill itself for deep-level oxygen.

Which doesn't come back very fast.)

Quote:

Mel and all the other Mid- Atlanticers don't forget that Obama openned up an area in the Atlantic from Va to SC just a short time before this disaster. Keep track of local politics with regard to Atlantic offshore drilling they will try to slip it through. Our governor was trying to sell exploration leases 8 months before Obama openned the area. Kinda makes me wonder

Well, you shouldn't listen to oil companies about what's *safe,* but the areas off the Mid-atlantic which were offered to be opened, actually were offered to be opened because the currents don't *run* the same way as the Gulf does.

But obviously, Big Oil's 'expert' safety assurances are worth ...well, nothing, now, right?

I'd say all bets are off.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-x 2 lens kit (18-55/55-300) #7 on Amazon top selling dSLR list	johnmflores	Pentax News and Rumors	12	02-05-2010 03:35 PM
K-x in top 10 selling DSLR cameras list	rawr	Pentax News and Rumors	7	11-03-2009 11:32 AM
K200D in Top 25 & K-7 out of Top 25 at Amazon	Samsungian	Pentax News and Rumors	8	10-20-2009 07:06 AM
The most annoying thing on TV	RichardS	General Talk	37	08-19-2009 10:51 AM
My wish list...	DanLoc78	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	05-18-2008 06:18 PM

06-04-2010, 07:06 AM	#16
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643 Original Poster	Oh the whole area is screwed for a long time to come for sure. It's pathetic to see guys with rags wiping grass in the marsh. They have no clue how to clean a lot of this up. Of course they have cut the pipe now and that way more oil can spew out. Another smart move. In addition to that, if a weather system rolls through, the "top cap" has to be removed until the storm passes. I sent several places (including the White house) a couple of simple and solid ideas on how to cap this thing until the relief well is completed. Of course no one has emailed me back. One is fast and simple. Take the first dome they built, weld a bunch of heavy steal plate all over the outside to make the thing heavier. Then lower it back over the BOP and use the recovery nozzle they had there for oil recovery to inject hydro cement to make the whole thing a sarcophagus over the BOP and hole. You should be easily able to put 50-100 tonnes of steel and concrete on top of it and stop the flow. It could be done in 3-4 days easily. I sent them this idea 4 weeks ago 3 times. They are idiots.

06-04-2010, 07:14 AM	#17
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by clmonk Not that it would make any difference to BP's bottom line, but I wonder how many Americans are choosing to purchase their petroleum products from othercompanies right now. There really doesn't seem to be anything the average Joe can do to indicate our displeasure. At least no way we can actually "vote with our wallets" as is usually suggested. The problem there is that the only ones actually hurt financially would be the owners of the individual stations. The corporation would likely not even notice unless it were a very large scale, organized boycott. This is another example of risk v. benefit. Unless people start actually going to jail, or the parent corporations are barred from doing business in the U.S.; the potential benefit will outweigh the risk and nothing will change.

06-04-2010, 07:21 AM	#18
clmonk Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Eastern TN Posts: 269	I KNOW! That's why I wrote it would not make a difference. And even a large scale boycott would not help. Let's face it, every single ounce of petroleum product is going to be sold on the open market at market rates. If they do not need it at their stations, it will still be sold at millions of other stations, refineries, and processing plants. That's what I was trying to say. The average Joe has no way to "vote with his wallet". We cannot make a difference. Exxon is a great example. How much did their disaster hurt their bottom line? Last I checked they were doing business as usual with no adverse ramifications.

06-04-2010, 07:27 AM	#19
mel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,531	Part of the news broadcast I was watching, but not really paying attention to, interviewed a former government something (like I said, I wasn't paying much attention, it was 5:30 am) explaining how the US Government could take actions that would essentially put them out of business, but won't do so because BP is a huge supplier of oil/fuel to the government itself, largely the Department of Defense. Does any one know anything about this process? (again, it was 5:30am, I don't remember what the name of the action was).

06-04-2010, 07:43 AM	#20
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,553	I hope the govt. goes forward with their promised investigation and really go after those responsible. If this ends up with a rinky dink fine, then everybody is in trouble. It will happen again and again. Far too often in these kind of accidents, some grunt on the rig will get blamed and the higher ups who ordered the work will be untouched. They will probably blame one of the dead guys for "not following proper procedures" or some such crap. BP will blame the sub-contractors. The sub-contractors will blame the equipment builders. The courts will be hearing these cases for years to come. A lot of lawyers will become millionaires many times over. Some guy on the rig will go to jail because he was taking a crap when the explosion happened and some guy that doesn't like him will testify he had a couple of beers at lunch. That how this will probably end. The states will probably get stuck for most of the cleanup. BP will write out a big check but it won't cover anywhere near the cost. These corporate execs know how to cover their asses. If they didn't, they wouldn't have made it to the position they are in. Am I too cynical? Lets wait and see. I hope I'm wrong.

06-04-2010, 07:43 AM	#21
clmonk Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Eastern TN Posts: 269	Mel wrote: Part of the news broadcast I was watching, but not really paying attention to, interviewed a former government something (like I said, I wasn't paying much attention, it was 5:30 am) explaining how the US Government could take actions that would essentially put them out of business, but won't do so because BP is a huge supplier of oil/fuel to the government itself, largely the Department of Defense. Does any one know anything about this process? (again, it was 5:30am, I don't remember what the name of the action was). I would find that very difficult to believe. How could the US government put a British company out of business? As I said in a previous post. ANY petroleum product produced by ANY company will be bought on the world market at market price. The US Government may be able to make it more difficult for them to operate in the US--and even then I wonder--but put them out of business??? I can't see how.

06-04-2010, 07:47 AM	#22
graphicgr8s Guest	Originally posted by clmonk Not that it would make any difference to BP's bottom line, but I wonder how many Americans are choosing to purchase their petroleum products from othercompanies right now. There really doesn't seem to be anything the average Joe can do to indicate our displeasure. At least no way we can actually "vote with our wallets" as is usually suggested. The only one I personally won't buy from is Citgo. Can't see giving Hugo any of my money. I wouldn't gas up there if they were the only station around. Never bought at BP because they post cash prices only. I usually use a debit card and other stations have it for the same price without having to use cash.

06-04-2010, 07:58 AM	#23
mel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,531	Originally posted by clmonk I would find that very difficult to believe. How could the US government put a British company out of business? As I said in a previous post. ANY petroleum product produced by ANY company will be bought on the world market at market price. The US Government may be able to make it more difficult for them to operate in the US--and even then I wonder--but put them out of business??? I can't see how. Okay. I was BARELY awake. And I think it was out of business in the US. The Feds are probably the largest purchaser of petroleum products. But regardless of the nationality of the company, losing your largest single company would put a huge damper on your ability to stay solvent would it not? Okay off to go researching to see if I can figure out what the person was saying while I was all muzzy-headed.

06-04-2010, 08:16 AM	#24
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643 Original Poster	Oh they could get BP out of the US market if they wanted to. But as a producer, BP just needs to sell the product to another company and then it moves worldwide. My hope is they put the Exc's in jail and fine them to the point the company has to dissolve assets to pay the bills. To Reeftool's point, they have the perfect guy to blame this on. The "Tool-Pusher" was killed on the rig during the explosion. For those who don't know, he's like the Captain of the ship. He would be employed by Trans continental and he basically goes with the lease of the rig to BP. BP would only have a few staff on board, a "Company Man" and a few others. But ultimately the Tool-Pusher has command and makes all safety desicions on the rig as it is leased and set up. Of course he has no capacity to determine how the BOP is set up or the equipment they have to work with. BP would make those choices. Since he died in the explosion, they will blame it all on him. Since the rig is a pile of junk in 5000 feet of water, the evidence is mostly gone.

06-04-2010, 08:47 AM	#25
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Peter Zack All this destruction could have easily been avoided had they properly installed a remote operated blow-out protector. But no they decided to save $500K. . I read an article last week in the NYT in which they reported on an occurrence a few hours before the blowout - A BP official was apparently on a conf call yelling at drill platform management to pump out a heavy, dense solution in a chamber above the upper well head reservoir and replace it with less dense seawater, because they needed the dense solution to use on another project. (read: cost savings attached to other BP project.) A Platform guy was overheard saying, "well, I guess that's what we have the pinchers for" ("pincher" being the term they used for the mechanical 'jaws' that are supposed to clamp the well shut in the event of blowout.) So, BP can not hide behind the "It was our contractors fault!" implication they were riding for a while. .

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-04-2010, 09:16 AM	#26
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Peter, I totally agree. I just called, as a resuult of this thread, Patty Murray's office, my senator from WA state. I got a bunch of platititudes, they're starting an inquiry and all that. I complained about the Mineral Mine Safety office Head who was holding coke parties for the petroleum industry and also Obama's opening up 11 more leases for oil platforms since this problem started. I complained that all platforms should be shut down since no safety program inspections have been done for a long time. I didn't swear or yell but they just hung up on me. So i called back and got an answering machine. so i complained about the rude behavior of the staff :-) I think by the time the tar balls reach New York and Washington DC, there will be an uproar that will result in some real change - i hope! BP bankruptcy would be nice, but a 20 year prison sentence for the CEO, the MMS head, and about 50 Senators would be nice as well.

06-04-2010, 09:31 AM	#27
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	What I want to know: are those other companies now reviewing their safety and backup plans, and if they are, will all the cut corners actually come out in the reviews (I bet not). I also wonder how the new drilling area will stick, it probably will (local politics - jobs) but maybe with much stricter safety requirements. BP may end up going bankrupt after paying for everything, but this isn't necessarily the ideal outcome financially. If they remain a going concern we can keep milking them for the decade or two it will take to get past all the problems the spill may cause.

06-04-2010, 10:08 AM	#28
graphicgr8s Guest	Originally posted by Nesster What I want to know: are those other companies now reviewing their safety and backup plans, and if they are, will all the cut corners actually come out in the reviews (I bet not). I also wonder how the new drilling area will stick, it probably will (local politics - jobs) but maybe with much stricter safety requirements. BP may end up going bankrupt after paying for everything, but this isn't necessarily the ideal outcome financially. If they remain a going concern we can keep milking them for the decade or two it will take to get past all the problems the spill may cause. But legally they are only responsible for $75 million in cleanup.

06-04-2010, 10:37 AM	#29
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643 Original Poster	Originally posted by jsherman999 . I read an article last week in the NYT in which they reported on an occurrence a few hours before the blowout - A BP official was apparently on a conf call yelling at drill platform management to pump out a heavy, dense solution in a chamber above the upper well head reservoir and replace it with less dense seawater, because they needed the dense solution to use on another project. (read: cost savings attached to other BP project.) A Platform guy was overheard saying, "well, I guess that's what we have the pinchers for" ("pincher" being the term they used for the mechanical 'jaws' that are supposed to clamp the well shut in the event of blowout.) So, BP can not hide behind the "It was our contractors fault!" implication they were riding for a while. . If that's true, they caused the blow out. Drilling mud is the dense solution used to hold the pressure back of the well. There's no way that seawater can hold back oil under pressure. I've seen confrontations between the "company Man" (Aka BP) and the "Tool-Pusher" (Rig 'captain'). In one case they got into a fight on my rig and the tool pusher blasted the CP with a fire hose. The tool pusher was fired and whatever they were fighting over caused an accident that caused the rig to be shut down for nearly a month.

06-04-2010, 12:06 PM	#30
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by seacapt Peter and the rest , you need to stop thinking about dead birds , turtles and porpoises. Think about the devastation at the bottom of the food chain and it's effects on everything else. Bingo. And the dispersants used to make the size of the oil slick look less for the TV satellite shots? As bad as the spill itself for deep-level oxygen. Which doesn't come back very fast.) Quote: Mel and all the other Mid- Atlanticers don't forget that Obama openned up an area in the Atlantic from Va to SC just a short time before this disaster. Keep track of local politics with regard to Atlantic offshore drilling they will try to slip it through. Our governor was trying to sell exploration leases 8 months before Obama openned the area. Kinda makes me wonder Well, you shouldn't listen to oil companies about what's safe, but the areas off the Mid-atlantic which were offered to be opened, actually were offered to be opened because the currents don't run the same way as the Gulf does. But obviously, Big Oil's 'expert' safety assurances are worth ...well, nothing, now, right? I'd say all bets are off.