Does anyone else feel like people are being too hard on BP?

[RedCOMET]

CLite,

Its funny offshore everybody talk big about safety this and safety that... yet they don't apply those same values to their on shore operations... I guess within the company they have different ideas on what safety is and isn't.

 

[CLite]

CLite,

Its funny offshore everybody talk big about safety this and safety that... yet they don't apply those same values to their on shore operations... I guess within the company they have different ideas on what safety is and isn't.

Well RedCOMET as I'm sure you know there are two kinds of safety. The first is personal safety i.e. always using harnesses / wearing hardhats/ watching for hazards/etc. I don't know of any company that doesn't always harp about that.

The other kind of safety is general operational safety, implementing a robust maintenance and reliability program and always erring on the side of caution when making critical decisions. This kind of safety can get ignored and the deficiency in this area doesn't reveal itself until a major disaster occurs, sometimes those disasters take a long time to occur.

 

[Attic]

People like to be a part of something, even if it is hate for a person or corporation. Our implicit need for oil outweighs the concern for safety on these operations IMO. BP will recover from this and as long as we get our oil this spill will fade from memory until the next big spill which it can be compared to.

 

[CLite]

People like to be a part of something, even if it is hate for a person or corporation. Our implicit need for oil outweighs the concern for safety on these operations IMO. BP will recover from this and as long as we get our oil this spill will fade from memory until the next big spill which it can be compared to.

It is not hate to condemn a company for failing to implement a quality maintenance and reliability program. The concern for safety doesn't mean shutting down drilling, it means making sure BP adheres to the standards that the rest of the industry conforms to.

However, as I’ve said before my experience is primarily with the downstream side of the business, where BP is flagrantly giving the U.S. the finger with its performance history.

 

[nobodyknows]

The problem is apparent. BP doesn't give their top management big enough bonuses so that have to settle for inferior help.

 

[CLite]

The problem is apparent. BP doesn't give their top management big enough bonuses so that have to settle for inferior help.

spending 4 minutes on google can prevent you from looking like an idiot. Hayward is paid more than Exxon Mobile's CEO.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/exxon-ceos-compensation-increased-in-2007

2008, Tillerson Exxon Mobile's CEO earned $1.87M, stock awards were only listed for 2007, they were $5.7M

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/exxon-ceos-compensation-increased-in-2007

2009, Hayward pay increased from $4.26M to $6M, with about $4.26M in stock.

 

[Modelworks]

BP covered up the seriousness of the leak for over a week which could have allowed a faster response. Instead they were hoping they could fix it and nobody would know, something a child does to keep from getting caught by the parent. $50 million ad campaign to make BP seem like they care ? People are not being hard enough .

 

[nobodyknows]

spending 4 minutes on google can prevent you from looking like an idiot. Hayward is paid more than Exxon Mobile's CEO.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/exxon-ceos-compensation-increased-in-2007

2008, Tillerson Exxon Mobile's CEO earned $1.87M, stock awards were only listed for 2007, they were $5.7M

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/exxon-ceos-compensation-increased-in-2007

2009, Hayward pay increased from $4.26M to $6M, with about $4.26M in stock.

Did you hear that "whooshing" sound go over your head??

If my memory serves me correctly Exxon's last CEO was making $69 million a year when he retired and got a $400 million retirement package. That would have paid for a lot of safety equipment/study/etc.

 

[Specop 007]

BP covered up the seriousness of the leak for over a week which could have allowed a faster response. Instead they were hoping they could fix it and nobody would know, something a child does to keep from getting caught by the parent. $50 million ad campaign to make BP seem like they care ? People are not being hard enough .

You know, its not as if BP did jack shit for the first few weeks. It isnt quite as easy as sending 2 guys and a service truck out there to fix it.

Having said that, while this is a terrible disaster I'm glad it happened to us first. Imagine if it was a Chinese or Russian rig off Cuba that had this problem. They might go so far as to just pack up and leave, and I highly doubt they would have it resolved as quickly as BP will.

 

[JSt0rm]

but the we did largely fixed the problem,but it is still possible for a massive oil spill from such super tankers.

ohh ok so tankers DONT have as much risk as this spill today. Thank you for being honest.

 

[JSt0rm]

Also we need to stop for a minute.

I'm not saying to stop offshore drilling. I'm saying to stop it till we know why this happened and adjust to make sure it doesn't happen again. If that means something as simple and costly as relief wells dug on every well then thats what we should do.

 

[Zebo]

No.

They pushed production to unsafe levels and knew it was unsafe but forged ahead anyway. e.g. Broken seal on BOP, not drilling with heavy drilling mud but sea water, dead batteries on BOP, etc.

Then they had no plan to stop leak after catastrophe struck. Every permutation should have asset(s) in place to stop leaks and thoroughly tested at the depth before drilling. They didn't have shit in place but shipped various "fixes" from around the world and are still floundering for a solution almost two months later.

Bury those cockroaches.

 

[Darwin333]

ohh ok so tankers DONT have as much risk as this spill today. Thank you for being honest.

They fixed some problems on oil rigs 20 years ago too, so using your logic oil drilling is safe!!

Fact is some of those tankers carry more oil than has leaked from the well so far. Supertankers can spill 2-3 million barrels of oil into the gulf in the worst case scenario and given the lax regulation on oil drilling shouldn't we be just as concerned about tankers which could conceivably cause a BIGGER spill?

I thought you guys cared about the environment. Why would you want to wait for another tragic disaster that could dump millions of barrels of oil into the gulf before you act? All I am advocating is that the same oversight and review that is being proposed for drilling be done for tankers as well. Why are you so against this?

 

[K1052]

electric cars always seemed curious to me... the seem like they would work best in an urban area, but in an urban area, most people don't have places to charge them (ie: no one has garages and everyone parks on the street in parking spaces of questionable legality).

in any event, they don't seem like they'd be a viable replacement for our trucking industry.

With better battery technology now available they work well just about everywhere since the average trip is within their batt only range.

Given incentive to install the charging systems the cars could just as easily be charged at their place of work instead of home. While this would probably cause them to rely on their gasoline motors a little more the gains would still be substantial.

There are many possible replacements for diesel. It's actually the easiest petroleum based fuel to displace.

 

[werepossum]

spending 4 minutes on google can prevent you from looking like an idiot. Hayward is paid more than Exxon Mobile's CEO.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/exxon-ceos-compensation-increased-in-2007

2008, Tillerson Exxon Mobile's CEO earned $1.87M, stock awards were only listed for 2007, they were $5.7M

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/exxon-ceos-compensation-increased-in-2007

2009, Hayward pay increased from $4.26M to $6M, with about $4.26M in stock.

Dude, your sarcasm meter is apparently a two by four covered in tin foil with a dead mouse for a pointer and a rat turd for a light. Next time, caveat emptor and try before you buy. Not only was that clearly sarcasm, but it was clever and damned funny.

 

[Darwin333]

Also we need to stop for a minute.

I'm not saying to stop offshore drilling. I'm saying to stop it till we know why this happened and adjust to make sure it doesn't happen again. If that means something as simple and costly as relief wells dug on every well then thats what we should do.

That is exactly my point though. A single well out of thousands goes tits up and you want to kill the industry in order to ensure that it doesn't happen again, which is understandable. Why wouldn't you want to proactively prevent an even larger spill from supertankers that travel the exact same waters?

Take a look at their "plans" for worst case scenarios and assets they have in position should the worst case scenario happen and I guarantee you it is no better than BPs and likely worse.

It sounds like you are perfectly willing to take the risk (actually, you are willing to put US at risk) when it is going to cost YOU something but as long as it doesn't cost you anything then the risk is unacceptable. If your main concern is another major spill in the gulf then you should be advocating the same thing across the board for everything that can cause a major spill. Oil tankers that are larger than aircraft carriers and can carry over 3 million barrels of oil fit in that category yet you want us to wait until one has a catastrophic accident before we ensure they are being properly regulated and have proper safety and cleanup plans in place.

 

[bfdd]

Well RedCOMET as I'm sure you know there are two kinds of safety. The first is personal safety i.e. always using harnesses / wearing hardhats/ watching for hazards/etc. I don't know of any company that doesn't always harp about that.

The other kind of safety is general operational safety, implementing a robust maintenance and reliability program and always erring on the side of caution when making critical decisions. This kind of safety can get ignored and the deficiency in this area doesn't reveal itself until a major disaster occurs, sometimes those disasters take a long time to occur.

On the first part, sometimes they can be overbearingly bad about safety to the point it's practically unsafe again. ExxonMobile in Torrance, CA requires everyone to wear a face shield on their hardhats when in a unit. Well you have to duck and crawl and get under stuff and that face shield gets caught on things constantly. Personal experience it actually makes it harder to get into places safely and I've had it get caught on stuff and rip my hard hat clean off.

The other half I've said before in these threads and most the time it's contractors that will let a little here or a little there slide, seen it first hand numerous times. I personally would not cut corners when I was working in the industry, but I've seen it from pretty much every contractor I've ever worked along side with or for. These can be little things from not torquing a nut right to full on ignoring maintenance.

That said, having only worked on shore( they never let me have the good jobs ) these places take safety and environmental hazards extremely seriously.

 

[Darwin333]

With better battery technology now available they work well just about everywhere since the average trip is within their batt only range.

Given incentive to install the charging systems the cars could just as easily be charged at their place of work instead of home. While this would probably cause them to rely on their gasoline motors a little more the gains would still be substantial.

There are many possible replacements for diesel. It's actually the easiest petroleum based fuel to displace.

Where do we get the electricity from and how do we get that much more electricity to its point of use?

I have been saying this for a while now, we could have used the stimulus to at least partially rebuild our electrical grid. Without a vastly upgraded grid I don't see how we can move a substantial amount of our transportation fuel from oil to electricity.

 

[werepossum]

http://www.businessinsider.com/bp-h...s-has-an-awful-track-record-for-safety-2010-6

Now I will fully admit that BP's Alaska spill and texas city massacre may have contributed to OSHA paying more attention to BP than the other majors..... but still 760 "egregious, willful" violations versus Exxon getting 1.

SNIP

Thanks for the link. That settles it for me, there should be a moratorium on BP, not drilling. Put buttloads of government engineers (and environmentalists) on every BP project at BP's expense and pay 'em bonuses by the infraction until BP is either the most safety-minded energy company in the world, out of business, or out of the USA.

CANDU reactors don't use enriched fuel .

But yes, I am aware the infrastructure is not there right now.. but other than money there is no reason it could not be there in a few years. Which is why it is a weening process as I stated (until we have magic powers) but there is no reason we can't start now other than lack of will and/or money. My point was that we don't need oil in the sense that we can get as much power as we need from other sources. Obviously if all of the oil blew up today we would be kind of screwed for a while... but the only reason we still rely on it is because it is currently cheaper, which won't be the case for long (as government regulations change and the subsidization ends).

We don't 'need it' in the sense that we have other ways to extract the power it gives us. 50 years ago without oil we would lose the ability to fly planes and drive cars period. Now a days we can accomplish these technical feats other ways (albeit not for the same price).

There is enough power in the used fuel we store in holes to power us well through the next century.. It is just profoundly more expensive to reprocess that (to add to the fact that it is stored to make this nearly impossible.. at least the older 'waste') than to dig more out of the Canadian shield. We mine and sell to Asia more uranium than I'd care to think about.

Canada mines ten times as much uranium than the USA, though we have no enrichment facilities at all as our reactors do not need them. I will readily admit I am not well versed in the current state of Nuclear power in the USA.

I doubt Canada would have much issue diverting what we sell over seas to the USA instead.. provided the desire was there to buy it.


The issue is that we have to stop relying on a centralized mode of energy production. We could get away with using the plants we have now to subsidize the grid if each building was capable of producing energy though something like solar/wind/geothermal. For that to happen will require a large investment though as retrofitting a house is very expensive and even adding it to a new house it not an insignificant cost. Tax money would likely have to be diverted to this sort of thing as it is unlikely many home owners would want to partake on the up front capitol (but hey, if someone comes up with a clever business model to do this some folk might end up pretty well off)

I did not know it was even possible to run a reactor on non-enriched uranium. That was quite interesting as all our reactors around here are light water enriched fuel and one of the most dangerous parts of running a reactor is refueling. (Probably the most dangerous; the only actual nuclear-related death I can recall was from a flash fire during refueling, when a fuel rod stuck half way in.) Sounds like a really smart reactor design, and the lower thermal density might make it easier on the environment to cool too, less localized heat. As far as decentralized energy, current yields make it practical to provide a typical one or two story home or commercial business with solar panels that would provide all their energy needs and then some during at least partially sunny days, reducing the peak load on the grid considerably. The only thing we don't have are solar panels cheap enough to be practical.

As far as Canada importing uranium, the USA has begun to mine uranium again, and even build new enrichment plants, since the mid-Bush years. It remains to be seen if the Obama administration will allow this to continue. I have to wonder though if our uranium would be able to run the CANDU or advanced CANDU reactors; if I remember from the '80s, isn't Canadian uranium naturally richer than US?

 

[Modelworks]

You know, its not as if BP did jack shit for the first few weeks. It isnt quite as easy as sending 2 guys and a service truck out there to fix it.

A lot of what they did the first week was damage control and not on the well site. They knew there were thousands of barrels of oil pouring out of 3 different locations and they told the public it was nothing to worry about and even coerced the coast guard into keeping information private. Then the CEO has the nerve to make statements that if the workers, the dead workers, had followed procedure it could have been prevented. Accuse the dead people they can't defend themselves. Nothing redeemable about the company. The CEO should be fired.

 

[K1052]

Where do we get the electricity from and how do we get that much more electricity to its point of use?

I have been saying this for a while now, we could have used the stimulus to at least partially rebuild our electrical grid. Without a vastly upgraded grid I don't see how we can move a substantial amount of our transportation fuel from oil to electricity.

Nuclear and solar (when it's ready).

The vast majority of charging will happen at night when demand is lowest anyway and there is lots of excess generation and grid capacity.

 

[K1052]

As far as Canada importing uranium, the USA has begun to mine uranium again, and even build new enrichment plants, since the mid-Bush years. It remains to be seen if the Obama administration will allow this to continue. I have to wonder though if our uranium would be able to run the CANDU or advanced CANDU reactors; if I remember from the '80s, isn't Canadian uranium naturally richer than US?

CANDU reactors are heavy water based and can use natural uranium to achieve criticality instead of the low enriched stuff we use for our light water plants.

CANDUs can eat almost anything, from thorium to non-reprocesses LWR waste.

 

[Darwin333]

Nuclear and solar (when it's ready).

The vast majority of charging will happen at night when demand is lowest anyway and there is lots of excess generation and grid capacity.

Both are a decade or two away from being able to make any substantial difference but it can (and will) be done.

In the meantime, we are gonna need that nasty black stuff.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Oh, hell no! We haven't been hard enough on them. We definately can't let then skate like Exxon did for the Valdez disaster

 

[K1052]

Both are a decade or two away from being able to make any substantial difference but it can (and will) be done.

In the meantime, we are gonna need that nasty black stuff.

We can currently support a sizable number of PHEVs with our current infrastructure. Since cars are by far the largest consumers of petroleum fuel the effect would be sizable. The key is to add incentives to purchasing them over traditional engined cars.