Hollywood to save the Gulf?

[charlz]

Interesting development:

World's largest oil skimmer positions in Gulf

They say they 'decant' the oil/water mix to separate.

 

[dmccarty]

I don't see how the regulations that were on the books would not have stopped this accident. I don't think even a second BOP would have stopped this accident. The BOP is a last ditch Oh Schucks device. To only have one BOP is just daft. There is supposed to be a 10% chance of the BOP being placed over the connection of two pipes. If the BOP is over that section of the pipe it cannot cut the pipe to block the flow from the well.

The BOP ain't cheap but I sure bet BP was wishing they had a second BOP to try after the first one failed to work. If the second BOP had stopped the flow it would have saved BP billions.

The coverage in the WSJ, NYT, and other places points the finger at the BP manager on the rig. He made multiple decisions to keep pushing the well to completion in the face of multiple events telling him there were major problems with the well. Having a Federal official on the rig who could shut down the operation might have stopped this mess.

Regulations are useless when you have someone in control who is going to push forward regardless of reality and risk.

Later,
Dan

 

[dmccarty]

Interesting development:

World's largest oil skimmer positions in Gulf

They say they 'decant' the oil/water mix to separate.

Its going to be interesting to see if it works. This was a tanker that after the accident was sent to be refitted in Portugal to suck up oil. T,hey refitted it very quickly.

Hopefully it works but the Feds can still stop the ship because the water it "cleans," while cleaner than what was brought on board, still has oil. Dumping it back overboard would violate Fed Regulations.

Given that BP go into trouble for using approved dispersents I wonder what will happen with this ship. Hopefully they will use it and see if it works.

Later,
Dan

 

[aczlan]

I don't disagree with that. Looking at the energy 'policy' that developed after the former VP had secret meetings with energy representatives and fought to maintain the secrecy of who attended, let alone what was discussed; I think things got pretty sloppy in terms of regulators actually doing their jobs. We are living with the legacy of that now.

This one: http://wtrg.com/EnergyReport/National-Energy-Policy.pdf/? I will have to read it and see what it says.

You can't rebuild a bunch of broken agencies overnight - even if we weren't involved in Afghanistan and Iraq, and clawing our way out of this recession. We know the gov't doesn't move that fast, it should be no surprise.

If you know that a department was corrupt (as was known) wouldn't you make cleaning it up a priority? Was any cleanup done? Wouldn't you ask for an independent review before signing an exemption for an environmental impact plan if it was recommended by such a department? (U.S. exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study) Or does such verification only get done when someone does not make enough campaign contributions?

It is commendable at least, that the $20 B fund was setup in public view and now has an administrator from the 9/11 payment process. I wouldn't doubt other quid pro quo deals were made at the same time, I think it would be naive not to think that isn't happening. It is politics after all. I also think other presidents have used similar tactics in the past; they just didn't involve a payment of money - at least one that was publically announced. There are many things a US Pres. can wring out of somebody that are as good as money.

I can imagine that the conversation may have went something like:

You have promised to pay this money out anyways, let me get the good press/ratings for putting it under an independent administrator and I will stop the bad press saying that you aren't getting the money out fast enough or that you are not paying some claims

Aaron Z

 

[aczlan]

I don't see how the regulations that were on the books would not have stopped this accident. I don't think even a second BOP would have stopped this accident. The BOP is a last ditch Oh Schucks device. To only have one BOP is just daft. There is supposed to be a 10% chance of the BOP being placed over the connection of two pipes. If the BOP is over that section of the pipe it cannot cut the pipe to block the flow from the well.
The BOP ain't cheap but I sure bet BP was wishing they had a second BOP to try after the first one failed to work. If the second BOP had stopped the flow it would have saved BP billions.

IIRC, a BOP has several rams which could cut the pipe (ensuring that a joint will not be in front of all of the rams at the same time).
From what I have read, the problem in this case (in addition to the BOP not working) is that they dont trust the pipe in the seafloor to withstand the pressure (or to leak around the outside of the well casing) if they plug the top of the well. That is why they are focusing on recovering oil and drilling relief wells rather than stacking another BOP on top of the broken one.

The coverage in the WSJ, NYT, and other places points the finger at the BP manager on the rig. He made multiple decisions to keep pushing the well to completion in the face of multiple events telling him there were major problems with the well.

So it would seem.

Having a Federal official on the rig who could shut down the operation might have stopped this mess.

That or a tipline that workers could call (sort of like a OSHA tip line) and report unsafe practices on a rig.

Regulations are useless when you have someone in control who is going to push forward regardless of reality and risk.

I agree. Dad used to have a sign in his shop that said Stupid is forever, ignorance can be fixed.

Aaron Z

 

[vsumoski]

This one: http://wtrg.com/EnergyReport/National-Energy-Policy.pdf/? I will have to read it and see what it says.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him read.

 

[keegs]

The problem that I have with the fund is that the government cannot legally take that money without due process of law (ie: going through the courts). IMO, it sets a bad precedent to have the government step in and (without any law or precedent to back them up) say we are taking 20 Billion and we will be giving it to those affected when BP was already paying out as they have been asked to.
The only issue that I have heard was that BP wasn't having a fast enough turnaround time for claims, but when they are doing something that has NEVER (AFAIK) been done before, I am not surprised that it takes some time to get into the swing of things and get the needed processes setup. IIRC, the new person in charge said that it will take him 30-60 days to get things changed and working smoothly.

Aaron Z

Arron,

I'm think the trial lawyers would agree with your position.

It's my understanding that claimants who agree to and receive compensation from the fund. reliquish their right to litigate.

Such an arrangement seems to me no different than any other damages claim that settles outside of court.

Claimants always have the option to persue through litigation. outside this private compact between the Feds and BP, their claim.

The Obama Adminsitration has taken an interesting tack on this IMO.

Chris.

 

[dave1949]

It is not without precedent for a president to step in and mandate financial conditions.

Richard Nixon imposed national wage and price controls.
Nixon Imposes Wage and Price Controls

Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt both did it during the Great Depression.

A president mandating your wages or your prices is not a lot different than a president securing a payment from a company, in terms of the exercise of presidential power.
Dave.

 

[charlz]

Interesting development:

World's largest oil skimmer positions in Gulf

They say they 'decant' the oil/water mix to separate.

Looks like it got at least preliminary permission to start processing.

Supertanker skims oil as spill now worst accident on record - Yahoo! News

 

[dmccarty]

Looks like it got at least preliminary permission to start processing.

Supertanker skims oil as spill now worst accident on record - Yahoo! News

I read today and over the holiday that the ship is not a supertanker but a cargo ship. I wonder what the ship was really designed to do originally.

The initial tests did not go well and they extended the test period.

It will be very impressive if this ships works after only a few weeks of work in the shipyard. Not much time was taken in the design or modification of the ship.

Later,
Dan