WASHINGTON — President Obama for the first time will address the nation about the ongoing oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico on Tuesday night and outline his plans to legally force BP executives to create an escrow account reserving billions of dollars to compensate businesses and individuals if the company does not do so on its own, a senior administration official said on Sunday.

“The president will use his legal authority to compel them,â€

It is not idle speculation that Obama was told to get mad by his handlers and the liberal media.

Here is one (of many articles) that chides Obama to get mad. This one by Gloria Borger of US News and World Report, a well-known liberal:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/06/02/b ... index.html


It says right in the article I posted from the NY Times:
"Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing."

It is a commonplace that the liberals in Congress (in addition to Clinton) wanted FNMA to loosen its standards to let poor people buy homes (even if they could not afford them). Only a moron would not understand politics of that, and which constituencies the Democrats were trying appease.


You are the one who changed the subject. The person who originally mentioned Iraq implied that Obama cannot deal with the Gulf Oil Spill because he is burdened by the war in Iraq. I correctly pointed out that the war in Iraq (unlike the war in Afghanistan that Obama supports and has expanded) has not been a serious problem for the US since Obama took office, because the withdrawal plan was already in place. You changed the subject to blame Bush for starting the war, which is not relevant to any issue raised in this thread by others (the question is about Obama's capacity to deal with the Gulf Oil Spill, not about Bush or the origins of the Iraq war).

Apparently you didn't read the part about George Tenet telling Bush not to worry because it was a "slam-dunk" that Iraq had WMD.

Regarding deregulation of everything else, I have documented in excruciating detail (in prior posts) that Clinton deregulated the financial industry that caused the crisis of the last few years, and Clinton failed to reign-in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from their guarantees to buy up worthless loans (unlike Bush and McCain , who both tried to solve the problem).

Whether or not there was some deregulation of the oil industry that led to the Gulf Oil Spill, I have not seen any documentation on that form you or anyone else. If that was the case, why didn't the Democratic controlled Congress (filibuster proof for about a year) or Obama (via executive order) changed it in the first 18 months of his term? I am tired of hearing about all these other problems that Obama had that prevented such changes. What prevented such changes is that they didn't believe any changes were necessary.

Normally. one would think it would be necessary to know the exact cause of the spill before claiming it was the result of deregulation. Also, I would like to see the exact regulation that was repealed that led to the spill. Of course, the "true believers" don't need facts, they know all the answers ahead of time.

It looks to me (on the basis of hearing testimony from workers on the platform) that the oil spill was gross negligence by BP as a result of an attempt to speed up completion of the well and save $750,000 per day they were paying to the drilling contractor (and they were already $26 million over budget). The platform workers said that BP forced the driller to put sea-water down the well, instead of mud that would reduce the wellhead pressure, as is normal procedure. It is doubtful that one can regulate against that kind of recklessness (but I will keep an open mind and we will have to wait for the facts to come out before a final determination can be made).

For someone who like to call me a liar, you sure do make up a lot of facts. And you are a dis-honorable person to boot.

After all that, I still don't understand why BP is taking all the heat...

This thread is about the oil spill -- let's stay on that topic.

Just imagine how much the folks at BP now wish that they had spent the $500,000 on the acoustically activated switch, that only the USA rules allow you to do without!

Hmmm, who set those rules, I wonder?

1. Are you sure that is correct? I heard that UK does not require it either.

2. It has not been determined yet that such a device would have prevented this particular disaster, so in the interest of reason and truth, can we suspend judgment for the time being? It would be good if that was the solution (requirement of an acoustically activated switch) so that drilling can be resumed , but I fear it is more complicated than that (I hope I am wrong).

Maybe in France you don't get the same information we get in the US. Multiple oil workers who were on the drilling platform have been interviewed on television and who said the following:

1. BP was paying the drilling and service companies $750,000 per day for the drilling platform (deep water drilling is very expensive) to complete the well (it had not started producing yet). BP was $26 million over budget because of delays and they wanted to get back on schedule.

2. A BP executive came to the platform to a meeting with the workers and the drilling contractors and told them they need to speed things up to finish the well. BP proposed that they pump sea-water into the well instead of using mud (the traditional method) because it was faster. The BP workers and the drilling company were very concerned because this was not normal procedure, and using mud kept the pressure down to be able to control the well so that it could be completed safely. The workers said that despite heated disagreement from the drilling contractor, the BP executive told them "that's they way it is going to be" [that they will use water instead of mud].

3. Several of the workers who survived said they had taken taken steps to get their personal affairs in order (wills, etc.) in the weeks leading up to the disaster because they could see that BP was engaging in very dangerous and unusual procedures in an attempt to get back on schedule after going $26 million over budget to delays.

Since BP was the operator, and hired the contractors, and told them what to do, I don't understand why you would think BP is not responsible?

Obama to demand oil giant BP set aside cash to deal with mountain of claims by shattered businesses

WASHINGTON - President Obama will give BP an ultimatum this week: show me the money, or else.

Obama will deliver a prime-time speech on Tuesday and face down BP executives on Wednesday to show them, and his legion of critics, that me means business.

White House officials said they want BP to hand over billions of dollars into an escrow account run by an independent third-party panel.

The aim is to guarantee a mountain of claims left behind by the endless stream of oil gushing in the Gulf of Mexico will be paid.

"We want to make sure that money is escrowed for the legitimate claims that are going to be, and are being made, by businesses down in the Gulf - people who've been damaged by this," senior adviser David Axelrod said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

And if BP doesn't set aside the cash voluntarily, officials signaled Obama is ready to unleash Justice Department lawyers to go after it.

"The President will make clear that he expects -- and that if necessary will exercise his full legal authority to ensure -- that BP sets aside the funds required," an administration official said.

Obama will deliver the ultimatum no later than Wednesday, when he meets at the White House with BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg and other execs from the bumbling oil giant.

The first segment of this "Need To Know" is all about BP, and the US government, and the reasons for the spill:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/video/need-to-know-june-11-2010/1457/

(The second & third segments are also excellent, but totally off topic!)

You are correct, the UK does not require this device.
It's function is soley to act as a backup device in the event that the physical link from the rig floor to the subsea BOP is lost because either the Hydraulic lines have been cut or the rig floor has ceased to exist due to an explosion.
In this case it is by no means certain that an acoustic switch would have been any use because it appears that the BOP did function but was unable to close in the well completely. This was because there seems to be drillstring or casing in the BOP. The shear rams that are designed to cut through the drill pipe and form a seal operated but not fully because what ever was in the way was too strong for them to cut through.

Additionally, as I pointed out earlier, if the well had been shut in, the results might well have been even more catastrophic. Because there appears to be communication between the annulus and formation pressure there is every chance that there would have been an underground blowout:
(NB This is a general illustration and does not represent the GOM well)



This why the relief well is the only method of killing the well because the actual producing formation will be plugged with cement.

Not quite correct - the well was already full of mud as it always is while drilling. Before the rig moves away the riser (pipe from sea bed to rig) and some portion of the upper section of hole would always be displaced to sea water.
This would normally be done after setting a third and final cement plug. In this case it was decided by BP to displace to sea water before the final plug was set; as you correctly point out, to speed things up. In the normal course of events this would be OK because the well should have been effectively sealed by this time. As it turns out, it wasn't, because the previous cement jobs had been ineffective - the reasons for this are unclear.

Calculated risks are taken all the time in many areas of our lives - they don't always come off and in this case a disaster ensued.
As I've said before there was no single cause - a combination of failures and suspect procedures caused the event.

I think that is pure hyperbole.
No on in their right minds would undertake the procedures if they were so convinced that they might die. They are oil rig workers, not Marines going into battle.
Every worker is entitled to refuse to do a task if they consider it to be unsafe. Even if they were threatened with losing their jobs it is likely that most people would rather be unemployed and alive.

There was probably a lot of moaning about not doing things by the book and cutting corners but that sort of thing goes on all the time in all walks of life. 9 times out of ten it's not a problem but when it does go wrong it serves to show why "the book" is there in the first place.

No one seems to be able to stop the spill. Gulf coast people need something to feel good about. Well, BP has given us tons of tar and we can use feathers from all the dead pelicans. I suggest we tar and feather CEO Tony Hayward and send him to South Africa as the "Giant Pelican" USA World Cup mascot!

The oil spewing in the Gulf is a slow motion explosion. Once it has started, we can only limit the damage, and try to mitigate the effects.

Once it started, there is nothing anyone can do to make it go away. The damage is done, and continues to get worse and worse -- and we are powerless to undo the damage.

Unfortunately, we are probably making it worse, with all the chemicals we are dumping into the water. The dispersants only make it look like a smaller problem, but they are actually making the problem worse; possibly much worse.

And hurricanes will probably make things still worse. The water is a lot warmer than normal (due to global climate change) and all the factors are pointing to a worse than normal hurricane season. Oh joy.

We put the oil well there. We did not limit the risk enough. We lit the fuse of this bomb, and now it is exploding as we should have known it would.

I don't know what you mean by hyperbole? I quoted what they said.

Only one person mentioned "getting his life in order" but several of them mentioned the argument between BP and the drilling company, and that BP mandated that water was going to be used instead of mud over everyone else's objection, and that it was not normal procedure.

They also mentioned that anyone can stop the drilling for safety reasons, but that eventually you would be fired if you did that.

I was just quoting what the platform workers said in their interview on CNN. There was a group of 5 of the survivors interviewed together.

Not from you - from them.

I'm just saying maybe BP had some part in this mess but weren't other contractors working on the platform too ? What's their part in this disaster ?
One of my best friends works on drilling rigs and platforms, mostly in Western Africa, and he does says the way the work is done depends a lot of where the workers are from, including the way safety procedures are implemented on the rig. If I remember correctly, no matter what happens on the rig, it's down to the rig captain, or whatever he is called, to make those decisions. He is the person in charge. Was/Is he a BP guy ?

I really hope this disaster makes people realize how their favorite gallon of fuel is grilled out of the sea... Time for other non-fuel transportation I guess !

I already explained to you that:

1. BP hires and supervises the contractors. They are ultimately responsible for what happens.

2. In this particular case, a BP executive told the contractor to use sea-water instead of mud (mud reduces the pressure) to speed up completion of the well, and that the contractor was opposed to that, but that BP insisted it be done that way.

This isn't going to be like in France where you can blame Continental Airlines when the Concorde exploded for something that was not ever proven to be Continental's fault. In civilized countries we go by the facts and the rule of law, not by mob mentality.

The guy in charge of the rig is called the toolpusher and he would be a Transocean employee, they are the company that own the rig and supply the drilling crew.
BP own the well and they are represented by the "company man", who is usually an ex-toolpusher with years of drilling experience. He will have seen it all before and is there to make sure the drilling operation goes smoothly and to sort out any problems that might occur. There will probably also be a BP drilling engineer on board although he may well be "on the beach" i.e. in the office on shore, during routine operations. It is his responsibility to devise the programme for drilling the well, for example diffferent casing depths etc. He (or the senior drilling engineer) will almost certainly have made the decision to displace to seawater and will have instructed the company man to get it done. Drilling engineers are graduates while toolpushers, company men and drillers are men who have worked their way up the ranks from roughneck - some may also be graduates but they are hands on.

The driller physically operates the drilling equipment with the aid of 3 roughnecks and a derrickman, collectively known as the floor crew and they would all be Transocean employees. These guys all got killed in the explosion. The driller is answerable to the toolpusher. He should have been the first person to notice that a "kick" was in progress and would immediately have operated the BOP to shut the well in so as to prevent the "kick" becoming a blowout. For whatever reasons this did not happen, gas reached the drill floor and ignited causing the explosion.

BP's "company man" would instruct the toolpusher what they wanted doing and how they wanted it done but the toolpusher would still be responsible for his rig, it's crew and all safety concerns; he should stand up to BP if he thought they were making the wrong decisions. Obviously in real life he would be under a lot of pressure to go with BP's wishes - they would be threatening to sack Transocean and get another drilling contractor in. He would also probably be getting blamed for the previous delays that led up to this.

Then there is Halliburton who are responsible for the cementing jobs, there will usualy be only two cementers on board and they will be carrying out the programme set by BP so in effect they answer directly to the company man but work with the toolpusher and the drill crew.

It is BP's responsibility to run a cement bond log after the cement job to check the integrity of the cement and proceed accordingly.
It is Transoceans responsibility to maintain the BOP in good condition and test it regularly. There would also be a "kick" drill on a regular basis to ensure that the crew knew exactly how to react in the event. In fact this procedure becomes so second nature that most roughnecks could do it in their sleep.

For the record, from 1981 to 1986 I was a roughneck for 3 years, a derrickman for 2 years and an Assistant Driller for 1 year on a jack up rig working in the North Sea off the East Coast of England drilling for gas. I got my well control certificate at drilling supervisor level but have no experience of the kind of deepwater drilling such as that in the GOM.

Gosh, I thought you were in America...obviously not.
Canada maybe?

right.... I'll ignore that.

So who is responsible for those 11 dead ? Is BP's CEO going to jail anytime soon ?

In order for someone going to jail, there would have to be crime that was committed and a conviction obtained. Gross negligence might be considered a crime in some circumstances (as specified by law), but that has not been proven yet, and a crime does not necessarily lead to jail time (especially in cases of involuntary manslaughter).

Unless there is some specific law for oil drilling to the contrary that automatically holds the CEO liable for all crimes committed by a company, one would also have to prove that the CEO himself contributed to the gross negligence (and not just someone lower in the organization). There are such laws that automatically hold the CEO liable for financial fraud, but there would have to be similar laws relating to oil drilling unless the CEO was proven to be involved in the gross negligence. It is possible that the CEO was involved or contributed to the gross negligence, but that has certainly not been established yet.

So despite your protests, what I said about mob rule, as opposed to civilized rule of law and determination of the facts, still applies in the USA to this situation.

If you cant actually put a dive team on the wellhead within a few hours of a failed blowout prevention, you shouldn't be drilling there. Period.

Penalty for not shutting down a blowout and properly cleaning up any spill should be the seizure off 1% per day, of the assets of any companies who would have profited.

BTW- The brit bashing is nothing more than media spin. What would BBC say if it was exxon tanker split in two outside the mouth of the Thames?

I don't think such a penalty is realistic or fair. What about a company that has few assets, or just declares bankruptcy? What is needed are laws such as those recently enacted for financial fraud, such that the CEO and the Board of Directors are liable for all acts of financial fraud perpetrated by anyone in the company, whether or not they knew about it.

Also, not being a liberal, I have no qualms about using capital punishment in the proper circumstances. Bernie Ebbers (who deliberately misstated Worldcom financial results by $11 billion) and Bernie Madoff ($50 billion Ponzi scheme) should have received the death penalty, no doubts in my mind whatsoever. (I wonder why they are both "Bernie"). I will reserve judgement in the BP case.

They only reason the Brits are complaining is because so many people and pension funds in the UK own BP stock. They are not concerned with the truth.

BP took shortcuts on blown-out well: lawmakers
Chris Baltimore
HOUSTON
Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:18pm EDT

HOUSTON (Reuters) - BP Plc took risky shortcuts in drilling its Macondo well that "increased the danger of a catastrophic well failure," two U.S. lawmakers probing the well's blow-out and the worst U.S. oil spill said on Monday.

"It appears that BP repeatedly chose risky procedures in order to reduce costs and save time and made minimal efforts to contain the added risk," said Representatives Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak, the top Democrats on the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee.

BP opted for a well design with few barriers to impede a "kick" of methane gas that surged up the drilling pipe and set off a catastrophic series of explosions in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, and failed to ensure that the drill pipe was adequately sealed with cement to prevent an influx of flammable gas, the lawmakers said.

The lawmakers disclosed the details in a letter to BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward, who is slated to testify before the committee on Thursday. BP declined to comment on the letter.

"It would be inappropriate to comment on these matters in advance," BP spokesman Toby Odone said in a written comment. "No doubt they will raise these matters during the hearing."

The letter presents a potentially damning account of key decisions made by BP drilling officials in the days before the catastrophic explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig that killed 11 workers and eclipsed the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster as the worst U.S. oil spill.

The letter, a synthesis of facts gathered by the Energy and Commerce Committee's investigations panel, portrays BP engineers as under the gun and in a hurry to wrap up drilling operations, which were running more than 40 days late.

To drill the well, BP leased the Deepwater Horizon rig from Swiss-based Transocean at a rate of about $500,000 a day, and the drilling delays meant an extra $21 million in leasing fees, lawmakers said.

'NIGHTMARE WELL'

In some cases, BP ignored warnings from contractors like Halliburton Co and their own employees and chose faster and cheaper drilling options, they said.

On April 15, five days before the explosion, BP drilling engineer Brian Morel wrote in an email to a BP colleague: "This has been (a) nightmare well which has everyone all over the place."

On April 16, BP opted for a minimal number of "centralizers" in the well that were meant to ensure that the casing ran straight to aid the cement in setting properly.

Halliburton suggested that BP use 21 centralizers to reduce the potential for gas to flow into the well casing, but BP decided to use only six even though Halliburton warned of a "SEVERE gas flow problem."

When informed that extra centralizers were available in Houston and could be flown to the rig the same morning, BP well team leader John Guide responded, "It will take 10 (hours) to install them .... I (am) very concerned about using them."

BP drilling engineer Brett Cocales emailed Morel,"But, who cares, it's done, end of story, will probably be fine and we'll get a good cement job.

"So Guide is right on the risk/reward equation."

Lawmakers said BP had flown a team of engineers from Schlumberger Ltd to the rig to perform a cement bond log to ensure that the cementing job was adequate, but decided not to use their services.

BP flew a crew from Schlumberger to the rig on April 18, but told them on the morning of April 20 that their services were not required, lawmakers said. The decision "may have been driven by concerns about expense and time," the lawmakers said.

The Schlumberger crew flew off the rig at 11:15 a.m. on April 20.

At 9:53 p.m. that evening, the rig exploded, and sank a mile beneath the Gulf of Mexico two days later.

It is looking more and more like someone fairly high up in BP told them to speed things up to get the well completed and reduce the $500,000 per day charge for the drilling platform. The question is: will we ever find out who was actually involved in applying that pressure? My guess is that it was very high up in the BP hierarchy, possibly all the way back to company headquarters.

This is going to get very interesting.

http://theweek.com/article/index/203971/bps-8-dumbest-mistakes



BTW, TransOcean is a Swiss based company.

The individual BP employees who submitted the phony disaster recovery plan and the individual Federal employees who approved it need to be criminally charged with fraud.

What happened to the site??? did BP hack/DOS SPCR?!!!

Penalties for fraud are not a big enough deterrent. as i said on page two, the guillotine is the proper penalty. couple that with seizure off all remaining BP holding and change the name to US Petroleum, restructuring it as a nonprofit oil company that puts all profits into green tech energy alternatives.

I am starting to get the feeling that the Obama Administration (despite the get-tough talk we will hear in the coming days when he addresses the nation) is going to back off somewhat from criminal prosecutions that involve BP management.

My suspicion (unproven) is that the British PM told Obama that if things get really bad for BP, then he will be forced to pull out of, or severely cut back from, the war in Afghanistan due to political pressures at home. For that reason, I suspect that Obama will do a lot of talking, but not much in the way of criminal prosecution. Of course, I could be wrong.