BP ‘not prepared’ for deep-water spill (Hayward admits company lacked tools to handle oil disaster)

[maddezmom]

Source: FT

By Ed Crooks in Houston

Published: June 2 2010 16:20 | Last updated: June 3 2010 08:55

BP did not have all the equipment needed to stop the leak from its Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico in the aftermath of the explosion on an oil rig six weeks ago, the UK company’s chief executive admitted.

Speaking to the Financial Times in Houston as engineers worked on their latest bid to trap the escaping oil, Tony Hayward said BP was looking for new ways to manage “low-probability, high-impact” risks such as the Deepwater Horizon oil rig accident.

“What is undoubtedly true is that we did not have the tools you would want in your tool-kit,” Mr Hayward said. He accepted it was “an entirely fair criticism” to say the company had not been fully prepared for a deep-water oil leak.

The containment effort on the surface, he said, had been “very successful” in keeping oil away from the coast. “Considering how big this has been, very little has got away from us,” Mr Hayward said. But in trying to plug the leak, BP had been reaching for many of the same techniques used to control the Ixtoc 1 blow-out in the Gulf of Mexico 31 years ago.



Read more: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e1e0e21c-6e53-11df-ab79-00144feabdc0.html

[dipsydoodle]

1. Hardly surprising.

Working out issues at that depth was like crossing a new frontier and I doubt that any of the other oil companies had the necessary experience either.

[Downwinder]

2. Haven't seen any of them jumping in and helping out. n/t

[Cass]

3. Why in the world was drilling ever permitted to this depth?

Did BP mislead regulators into thinking they did have the capability to handle problems at this depth, or did regulators know this and permit it anyway? This makes it all the more infuriating that they were allowed to bypass that piece of safety equipment (name escapes me at the moment) due to the cost. I apologize if this question is addressed in the article but it requires registration (free) to read the whole thing.

[dipsydoodle]

4. Chances are

nobody could've foreseen the problems which have occured.

They didn't bypass anything - you have no requirment for their use over you side unlike us in Europe.
None to the best of my knowledge are in use anywhere in the Gulf.

[Cass]

15. Its not required in Europe, either. Only Norway and Brazil require it.

The name of it is the remote control shut-off switch.

Nevertheless, regulators in two major oil-producing countries, Norway and Brazil, in effect require them. Norway has had acoustic triggers on almost every offshore rig since 1993.

The U.S. considered requiring a remote-controlled shut-off mechanism several years ago, but drilling companies questioned its cost and effectiveness, according to the agency overseeing offshore drilling. The agency, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, says it decided the remote device wasn't needed because rigs had other back-up plans to cut off a well.

The U.K., where BP is headquartered, doesn't require the use of acoustic triggers.
...
As a third line of defense, some rigs have the acoustic trigger: It's a football-sized remote control that uses sound waves to communicate with the valve on the seabed floor and close it.

An acoustic trigger costs about $500,000, industry officials said. The Deepwater Horizon had a replacement cost of about $560 million, and BP says it is spending $6 million a day to battle the oil spill. On Wednesday, crews set fire to part of the oil spill in an attempt to limit environmental damage.

Some major oil companies, including Royal Dutch Shell PLC and France's Total SA, sometimes use the device even where regulators don't call for it.

more at the link
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html

[dipsydoodle]

8. Because

assuming you're USA, YOU need the oil. It's that simple.

edit to add : that is the second largest oil field known to exist in the world.

[pocoloco]

12. The oil goes to the highest bidder , worldwide.

[Thor_MN]

9. Dick Chenney

'nuf said.

[FBI_Un_Sub]

10. Should not have been.

Tortious and criminal.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

11. You need to ask Dick Cheney that question.

[Botany]

5. department of no shit sherlock

you kept on drilling after the rig ripped up a rubber seal on the blowout preventer

you packed out the casing with seawater instead of drilling mud

you did not install a sonic cut off valve to save money

your well and the safety equipment failed many tests

the sealing of the well w/ cement was not done right

you pushed the operators to speed up the drilling to save money

but your company filed paperwork that said it handle a problem 10 Xs bigger than this one.

**************

Your surface containment effort was all about using a chemical dispersement to sink the oil to hide it from the public ...
and in doing so you caused even more harm.

[Karenina]

7. About that dispersant, that COREXIT poison...

NALCO makes it AND has financial ties with BP

It's the least effective and the most toxic.

It's never been applied under these conditions.

They used it during Exxon-Valdez and people are STILL SICK.

People are ALREADY sick in Louisiana.

Is BP using USAF planes to spray? :tinfoilhat:

This is some sick, dysfuntional shit.

BTW, BP does bidness RATHER differently in Scotland. Wanna connect a few more dots?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLu-Hp9--RU

[Scuba]

6. Well then how did their permits get approved? Oh yeah....

...it was Dick Cheney's Haliburton goons accepting whores and drugs from Big Oil that approved them.

[sinkingfeeling]

13. But according to the Right, the US government should be able to step in and cap

the leak within days. This is the same group of people who don't want the federal government to interfere with private industry.

[Hugin]

14. "Low-probability"?

HA!

Let's see... The only thing connecting the platform to the well-head nearly a mile below was... A pipe. It's going to break.