This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
In Trying To Cover It's Own Behind, BP Has Lowballed the Amount of Oil ... Which Has Made Everything Worse
Blog
The head of the government's flow study group - Ira Leifer - told
Dan Froomkin:
The lack of accurate information
has taken its toll, he said. If BP had properly understood what was
going on 5,000 feet below the surface, it never would have attempted to
stop it with a "top hat". And had they realized the pressure from the
oil reserves was beyond the threshold for "top kill" they wouldn't have
wasted time on that, either. [While BP and the government originally
estimated the leak at 1,000
barrels a day, Leifer said
that it may be spilling as much as 100,000
barrels a day.]
"We could have effective containment
systems available now, if we'd had the measurements," he said.
This
is unfortunate. Not only did top hat and top kill waste months of time in which BP could have
taken effective steps to contain the oil, but top kill probably
made the oil spill worse:
BP's most recent efforts to stop the flow of oil
have only made the situation worse, says Leifer. The engineers' attempt
to seal off the well from above, using a method known as "top kill,"
failed and only enlarged the borehole, according to Leifer. Now, he
adds, there is almost nothing stopping the oil from flowing out of the
well.
Moreover, Leifer previously told
the Associated Press that the lack of certainty as to the flow rate
will make it more difficult to successfully drill relief wells:
Many unknowns about the flow rate and
pressure and quantity of oil coming from the well make it difficult to "design and engineer
safe oil recovery systems, such as the 'cap,' nor design and engineer
ultimate solutions safely such as the relief
wells."
This is important, as the stakes
are high:
Independent experts warn that relief wells, like any
well, are not without risk. "More oil could leak than before,
because the field is being drilled into again," says Fred Aminzadeh, a
geophysicist at the University of Southern California. Ira Leifer, a
geochemist at the University of California in Santa Barbara, voices
similar concerns: "In the worst case, we would suddenly be dealing with
two spills, and we'd have twice the problem."
While
BP is pretending that it is difficult to determine the amount and
pressure of oil flowing out of the gusher, this
is not true. Indeed, BP is actively blocking
Leifer and other scientists from making the measurements.
Similarly, telling cleanup workers they'll
be fired if they use respirators is increasing the toll on human
health, and using dispersants to hide the amount of spilled oil is only
worsening
the long-term damage to marine life.
- advertisements -
JewTard. You think you know what is going on here? It doesn't take more than 20 minutes to look at the JewTarded Risks involved in drilling into a "SALT DOME" yes a "SALT DOME". Probably had a double stacked Diaper below the rock layer.
Get a load of this Sh*te that you apparently have no clue about. The Company BP outsourced the 3D-Seismics to, Wavefield Inseis, is a startup company that existed only one F'n year before BP choose them to survey Macondo (probably very cheaply). I'm sure they got "ALL" that was under the Salt Shelf? Apparently a "False Positive" in the safe zone.
Dumb*ss day traders like you, J-Tard, are going to have to sit back and shut the F'up at some point. That day is now.
M'kay?
BP bet on a pre-IPO company with less than 2 years in the industry for 3D/4D seismic mappings in 2007. And they F'N LOST IN THE BIGGER SCHEME OF REALITY. M'Kay J-Boy?
Like I said, it takes only 20 minutes to see the idiocy involved here, this deep, which bears upon you.
----
Wavefield Inseis Wins Seismic Contracts from BP and OMV Wavefield Inseis ASA |Friday, September 14, 2007
After a rigorous tender process, BP selected Wavefield Inseis for the project ahead of a number of other operators. The first time the companies have worked together, the 4D survey will rely on Wavefield Inseis’ leading edge acquisition technology and experience of 4D marine projects.
"The agreement with BP represents another significant step forward for Wavefield Inseis," commented Rick Donoghue, Wavefield Inseis’ vice president sales and marketing. He continued, "We are delighted to be awarded this 4D survey and look forward to working with BP on many other projects."
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=50207
-------
Here's the Equity Offering 2006:
http://www.wavefield-inseis.com/investors/Wavefield%20Inseis%20company%2...
-------
At these depths, seismic mappings under these underwater SaltDomes and Salt Tectonics is not CLEAR and UMISTAKEABLY "CUT" -- and if you hit rich "hydrates" at the wrong "TEMP" you blow a major F'N "Deal"... so don't J-Tard yourself in a corner and think a Pre-IPO had it all cleanly mapped at 5000+ Feet in 4D. They had IT problems and they even mentioned it in their press releases. So think Idiot in a very clear picture kind of way. No J-Tribe Bitching/Millenialism = Cheap oil.
BP has been a Rothschild owned company since the late 1800s. It amazes me to see how many dumb Goyim work for idiot J-B*tches!
Without J-Tribe ZioTards in large numbers in the M.E. and the Bankrupt US Govt. and Bankrupt Fed, the USA could enjoy relatively "Cheap" oil.
--CSR
Top Hat and Top Kill were nothing but diversions. If they knew all along that the only way to stop the leak was a relief well, it does not look too good for your public image as your company is just sitting around. It is the way our world works with media watching everything. Image is everything.
The point that bothers me the most is the cost cutting and corner cutting. This mess should never occurred with proper equipment. Managers should be fired on their way to the top.
The relief wells were always going to take 3 months. Why wouldn't you spend the money to TRY things with only a 30-50% shot at working? I agree with everything in your second paragraph but the first makes no sense. When the shit really hits the fan you try as much as possible SIMULTANEOUSLY. You don't try "a" then wait to see how it works before trying 'B'. You do everything you conceivably can.
gas, you are right. They should do whatever is required to fix the mess immediately. If they knew that a relief well was the only way, it should have been a relief well. All of their efforts should have been directed at drilling a relief well. Hire all available hands. Bring in other major oil. DO WHAT IS REQUIRED. The problem would most likely been fixed by now instead of the Gulf turning into a giant oil barrel.
Top Kill and the other capping methods looked good for the cameras. It was all a big circus, an ugly circus full of idiots.
Nothing they did slowed down the relief wells. The wells were spud as soon as the rigs could get onto location. Top Kill et al were done WHILE THE RELIEF WELLS WERE ALREADY DRILLING.
NOTHING COULD HAVE GOTTEN THE RELIEF WELLS DOWN ANY FASTER THAN THIS - it doesn't matter what they did - NOTHING could have been done that would "most likely been fixed by now" unless they had lucked into a successful Top Kill. The relief wells COULD NOT BE DRILLED ANY FASTER than they have been.
Alright gas, we agree to disagree. You are right in the fact wells take a long time to drill. No easy way around that.
One thing that I think you will agree with though is BP could have deployed cleanup quicker. Yes, the oil is loose. Cat is out of the bag. The sh*t hit the fan. Removal of oil should have been a higher priority. The skimmers and other booms should have been there in force immediately. They could have somewhat isolated this mess. Focusing on the Top Kill and other methods took away from isolating the slick. I used to work in a lab that had toxic gases that kill. I would joke, "If you made it to the door after a leak, you were lucky." The only way to take care of these movable contaminants is through isolation. In case of a leak, the lab would have been isolated. BP should have acted accordingly with their leak.
I do agree with your second paragraph. In that vein you might check out this story from the Canadian press:
http://www.financialpost.com/Avertible+catastrophe/3203808/story.html#ix...
Much more could have been done immediately - why wasn't it. And yes I do blame BP but not exclusively.....
GW, you're probably all over the attached that I found on Rence.com. I have no idea how credible this woman is. But, if she's half correct, quarter correct, we are fucked. I nearly cried at the end of this vid. Sorry if it's old news to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vpJVELKPPM
Yea... Whats this ladies background? Concerned soccer mom? She sounds like a blathering idiot. Not sure about her hurricane and temperature comments, but her logic on the tsunami is a bit over the top.
here's some background about who the lady says she is:
I'm not sure why BP would let her in and then not put on the "ponies and balloons" for her too.... but, maybe that's why they shut down everyone else at this point. Not even CNN can get in there is what is being said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkYJDI8pK9Y&feature=related
I'm sure it's all hunky-dory and under control which is why "not even CNN can get in there", or at least that's what some of the commenters on this thread would have you believe.
that's not my opinion.... sorry I didn't post this CNN documentation of my statement first
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyUjgRfOdDg
you mean www.rense.com ? Some of their stuff is good, but a lot of UFO articles which may hurt their street cred
Thanks. Seems over the top. But still...
She's Kindra Arnesen.
I don't buy the whole mud volcano/tsunami scenario, and I think people will use this video to discredit other things she's said.
Even if you don't agree with the apocalyptic case she presented in that video, this one is definitely worth a watch:
This is the third video of this woman that I've followed links to and I haven't been able to listen to more than 3-4 minutes of any of them. Does she EVER make a coherent argument? Just wondering because if this is what you people consider evidence/argument/rational evaluation then I'm beginning to understand why nothing gets through.
Perhaps there is something wrong with you?
There are many things wrong with me sir.
However listening to blathering innuendo cloaked in conspiracy mongering vitriol and presuming it is logical argument is not one of them. Based on the content of your comments in this thread to date I'd suspect you find this compelling argument. This woman was a "community outreach volunteer" and is now striving for her own reality program apparently. On the one hand you'd have me believe that BP is nefariously planning the deaths of the entire Gulf Coast population and scheming with the government to keep it all secret. While on the other hand a "community outreach volunteer" got access to all their secrets?
On one hand you have Admiral "Hanging Thad" Allen speaking of transparency. You have a Federal Class D Felony and $40,000 on the other.
Please explain gasmiinder.
I will agree I find her full access privileges more than odd. We will likely never know. My opinion is that she sees her tough husband sicker than a dog signing non-disclosure agreements and decided that enough was enough. BP wanted to show her how much they care and what they are trying to do but she's in rampage mode because her husband is already damaged, her livelihood is destroyed, her kids are at risk..."Screw you BP! I don't care who you send after me!" That's what she said after her first interview back in May. Tough, smart gal; lucky husband. Hope they can make it.
But we DO know the water is highly toxic and they are lying not only about transparency but just about every other facet we can discover. We have to shove evidence in their face before they acknowledge what we already know. And now that's a felony.
Gasmiinder - you slay me.
So we can only consider Kindra Arneson "an unrelieable source" some of the time, whereas BP lies all the time, BP is dispicable, BP can do nothing right, BP is incapable of telling the truth .... (and I could go on but the moonbats on here will do it for me).
Kendra, on the other hand, well she's a bit over the top about this whole mud volcano/tsunami scenario, but you should really believe all her other videos.
Questions:
What does BP have to gain from prolonging this oil spill (or uncontrolled well if you prefer)?
What does Kendra Arneson have to gain from mugging the camera at every opportunity?
What does BP have to gain from giving the truth....?
What does Kendra have to gain from lying...?
Even if she's a bald faced know nothing, it doesn't freaking matter. She is a pimple on the clusterfuck of a disaster that's destroying the Gulf. She's a red herring. To gather other's focus on discussing her and discrediting her is a neat and convenient way to do away with what the fuck is really going on.
Tell your buddy Cass that the MONSTROUS GUSHER (or "spill" if you prefer...nice downplayage by the way)being out of control as it is still seems to be on the minds of us common folk. Not a solution, but might help-pull head out of ass and call in those 12 or so nations to clean up. I'm sure your bonus would be affected as BP will have basically conceded incompetence, but your share price is NOTHING in the grand scheme of things.
They don't give a shit about any cleanup as long as they can hide it and spin it. If hiding and spinning is cheaper than capping/controlling/cleanup they'll do that, no matter what the consequences on the environment - even ifit means dumping chemicals even more toxic than the oil into the ocean. But the fact of the matter is that they cannot control it and cleanup costs money, so they'd rather just keep - you guessed it - hiding and spinning it till they can pin the blame on somebody/something else.
And yet the rumor is that they are drilling 2 relief wells. Collecting and flaring oil and gas from the above the well site every day.
Is this an overt reference to Corexit? If it is, you might want to review the EPA analysis thereof.
... and paying out vast sums of money to everyone who has a claim ... liable for $4000 per every barrel spilled. Yes, clearly their best course of action is to "hide and spin". //sarcasm off
Yeah, EPA, right...
http://www.wdsu.com/news/24178322/detail.html
BTW, how much is BP paying you for this PR effort?
Okay, so the EPA is in on the conspiracy too I take it.
How bout this guy? Is he a paid BP PR guy? http://www.zerohedge.com/article/oil-gusher-worse-ever#comment-448223
BP did not put 20 billion in escrow? Please provide source.
You know Gekko, I have not hawked anything on ZH except for some substantiated facts and/or science. You on the other hand are hawking gold 24/7. Who the fuck is paying you? I didn't want to go down this road but it is a path you have chosen. Either man up and stick to the facts or keep your mouth shut.
The $20B escrow plan (note, it's a long-term phased deposit plan stretched over ~5 years) is really pretty disingenuous...nothing more than a liability mitigator, eliminating potential cases, as accepting payment under this escrow plan recuses you from filing suit. Those who initially fought against the $20B escrow reminded me of the banks who yell boisterously at financial regulation, making a big show of it, even though that regulation is really about protecting them...read the Creature from Jeckyll Island by G. Edward Griffin when you get the chance.
So yes, the account will likely reach $20B, but it's really no skin off BP's back, it's very much in their interest.
+1
Especially for the book. Jimbo is more likely to take a swipe than to discuss the merit of such an accessible source of truth.
Jimbo the Troll: "Please show me." "There is no such thing as two or more men conspiring for their financial benefit." "I love bankers." I love the way Timothy Geithner walks." "I drink oil every day for breakfast and I'm perfectly fine."
If the book is about taking swipes, you would seem to have mastered it.
Well, personally, I just added the following to my previous post on Arneson:
Disclaimer: On July 8, 2010, I found a video which may impugn Arnesen's credibility. See below for more.
***
Update: This video of Arnesen reduces her credibility, since she spouts theories such as "mud volcanoes" and tsunamis which I believe are contrary to the science.
I admire your work GW, but IMHO we really cannot rule anything out until and unless the BP/Govt. tells us the whole truth about what's going on down there. I mean why the hell is there so much secrecy surrounding this oil spill with $40,000 fines and all. I really don't think verbalizing a hypothesis makes a candidate for "reducing credibility".
Even if it offends logic, common sense, mathematics, hydraulics, thermodynamics? Really? Good luck with that ...
And here I was thinking that at least a disaster this size would shut the "drill baby drill" crowd up for good.
BTW, the scenario discussed is not physically impossible.
Read this: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/relief-wells-are-ahead-schedule-%E2%80%A6-will-they-work#comment-458425
I defy you to find any posts by me that encouraging more drilling. You know your tactics are starting to piss me off gecko. By all means, don't take issue with the substance of my posts but instead try to label me as "a BP PR guy" or a "drill baby drill guy". I would have thought a goldbug wouldn't have his head so far up his ass, but obviously, I stand corrected.
BTW, here is some more details on the ball of slime that you're trying to defend:
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/shedding-light-on-the-dark-hole-in-the-gulf-by-jerry-mazza/
Please cite where I have defended BP. Defending logic, the law of gravity, and fluid mechanics is not defending BP. I like how you quote from the EPA though .... use them in one instance, discount them in the next. Must be nice to live in the world you live in. How did gold do today?
Jerks like you always have an agenda. How has gold done over the last YEAR? Decade?
STFU
Well you need to be more specific about which scenario you mean. If it's the mud volcano/tsunami scenario you are mistaken. It is physically impossible. There have been scientists who have postulated large-scale margin collapses due to methane hydrate destabilization (this allows them to feed at the climate change trough even though their research otherwise would be peripheral to that funding - and no that is not meant to impugn them or their work).
Those postulates are very theoretical and far from universally accepted but more importantly HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS SITUATION. Nothing that is happening here can possibly cause a tsunami or any other massive collapse of the seafloor.
GG, I understand your point, but it's also important to scrupulously stick to known facts, and if the facts aren't known, point to the cover-up!
I just think it is important for people living in the area/planning to go to the area to consider all possibilities as it will be their lives at stake; not Obama's or Tony Hayward's or Joe Biden's or the heads of any of the red tape laced tottering government agencies and their families. I definitely think there's a case for evacuation and declaring permanent dead/restricted zone within a 200 mile distance from the Gulf coast. Unfortunately, IMHO, we've lost that part of the continental US for the next 100 years. I dare anybody who disagrees with this assessment to consider placing their near and dear ones in that zone.
Gekko -
And what fine would you propose for anyone who wanders in to the dead/restricted zone? $40,000?
" I definitely think there's a case for evacuation and declaring permanent dead/restricted zone within a 200 mile distance from the Gulf coast."
Ah ... I now see your point.
I have no opinion about whether we should evacuate.
What I'm REALLY worried about is a hurricane slamming this stuff all over the place.
Everyday that goes by, any criticisms leveled at GW or Matt Simmons or The Oil Drum seem less and less credible. Thank you for the stories, GW!
http://www.gregpalast.com/
Yeah, Palast is a real arbiter of truth <NOT>. I read that whole stinkin self-serving article and not once did he mention Aleyska which is a consortium of oil companies that really own and operate the pipeline. Read and believe Mr. Palast at your own peril. I made a comment on his site about 24 hours ago and it is still "awaiting moderation". I'm sure he's way too busy negotiating a consulting contract with some victims' group.
But I do agree with you on one thing for sure: "criticisms leveled at [edit] The Oil Drum seem less and less credible."
Truthout appears to have gotten Aleyask CEO fired
Are you the PR guy for BP?
Gekko,
It is nice of Matt Simmons to let his pool boy spend so much time posting on the internet. He must really need to get some cash out of that short.
No, just a PR guy for substantiated fact (such as posted here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6706).
Ownership and operation of the pipeline can be substantiated rather easily although I doubt there is a youtube video that will explain it to you in pictures. But who knows, you might get lucky....
@Jim_Rockford
I used to work for Exxon, so I know Alyeska is a consortium. Still, BP operates the pipeline and it's BP's show. BP is to the oil and gas industry what GS is to the FIRE industry. As for Greg Palast, he is a left-of-center reporter. I am right-of-center, but I believe in heterodoxy and an open mind. Mr. Palast did some excellent reporting on New Orleans/Katrina. I invite you to watch his 27-minute documentary. I am on the ground here and there is much truth to his reporting. Does that mean he is right about everything? No, but believing that we are fighting a war on terror in Iraq is a mistake, too.