Slashdot Mirror


BP Knew of Deepwater Horizon Problems 11 Months Ago

jkinney3 was one of several readers to send in news of recently discovered internal documents from BP which indicate the company knew "there were serious problems and safety concerns with the Deepwater Horizon rig far earlier than those the company described to Congress last week." According to the New York Times, "The documents show that in March, after several weeks of problems on the rig, BP was struggling with a loss of 'well control.' And as far back as 11 months ago, it was concerned about the well casing and the blowout preventer." Reader bezenek points out this troubling quote about BP's inconsistent risk assessments: "In April of this year, BP engineers concluded that the casing was 'unlikely to be a successful cement job,' according to a document, referring to how the casing would be sealed to prevent gases from escaping up the well. The document also says that the plan for casing the well is 'unable to fulfill M.M.S. regulations,' referring to the Minerals Management Service. A second version of the same document says 'It is possible to obtain a successful cement job' and 'It is possible to fulfill M.M.S. regulations.'"

7 of 438 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Liability caps by Darkness404 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Yeah, but the nice thing about corporations is that unless government interferes, you can -choose- not to use them. If because of these fees BP has higher priced oil than say Exxon, people will flock to Exxon and ignore BP.

    Of course due to governments creating artificial monopolies, kickbacks, bailouts and the like this doesn't happen for many businesses.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  2. Re:Liability caps by demonlapin · · Score: 0, Troll

    If you routinely drive those kinds of distances, you're an idiot if you rely on a single standard fuel tank.

  3. Re:Liability caps by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Troll

    there no monopolies today, save for de Beers cartel that became what they are without dealing favors and money and power with governments' officials. It is pure nonsense to believe otherwise. You show me an example of a monopoly, I'll find the government involvement in it being a monopoly.

    Microsoft you say? Easy: copyright is a government imposed protection, so are patents. More specifically Bill Gates dealt with IBM, a monopolist who is in governments all over the world and has been since the beginning, when they got a government contract to run census counts. Oh, and they are war profiteers, who were working for Nazis.

    Standard Oil though was a monopoly that dealt with governments of-course, but they were a very effective monopoly. They had efficiencies nobody else had at all, it is the kind of monopoly that allows customers to purchase products at fair/acceptable prices. The reason they were broken up is not because they were a monopoly on the markets, but because they became a competing force against the US government and it could not be allowed by the US government, surely the politicians felt threatened. More importantly, by the time that monopoly was forced to break, it was not a monopoly at all! There were easily 5 or 6 competitors in the market that Standard could not take.

  4. Why do you think there are liability caps? by gbutler69 · · Score: 0, Troll

    No company or individual would EVER consider taking on the risks involved in this kind of deep-water drilling without these caps. Without these caps, noone would drill-for and obtain this oil. WE THE PEOPLE of the United States NEED this oil. So, we allowed our politician to make these caps on liability. Live with the caps or die (due to lack of energy needs being met). Those are our options. This is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more serious than political back-dealing and/or incompetence, fuck-ups, etc. This is the reality that WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF FUCKING OIL! The only way to meet the demand/need is to drill for it under extreme, dangerous conditions such as this that are at the limits of our technological ability. The risks ARE EXTREMELY FUCKING HIGH! So high, that noone in their right mind would even attempt it if they could be held liable for any and all potential damages. WAKE UP PEOPLE! THIS IS FUCKING SERIOUS! WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF OIL! FAST! Please, please, please, take a moment to think about all that has transpired here and ask yourself WHY? There is only one logical, sensible, and reasonable conclusion. We are desperate (as a nation and as a global community) for these energy resources. If we don't bring Nuclear Power on-line FAST we are fucking doomed (Yes, I know there are risks there as well....great risks...but, the alternative is a return to the stone age and the extinction of humanity). It's probably already too late. Lobby your congress-critters. Talk to your friends. Your family. Your neighbors. Your church. People NEED to know how serious this is and put it in the proper context and stop trying to point fingers and lay blame. This is WAY MORE SERIOUS than laying blame. Please, yes, BP needs to clean up this mess and compensate those affected. People need to be held responsible. But, that is the LEAST of the worries. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, think about what I'm saying here.

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    1. Re:Why do you think there are liability caps? by gbutler69 · · Score: 0, Troll

      In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

      Troll? Seriously? Tell me how what I posted above is in any way inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic? In what way does it disrupt normal on-topic discussion? Yes, I'll plead guilty to trying to "...[provoke] other users into a desired emotional response," but, meeting that criteria alone does not fit the definition of troll. The emotional response I'm looking for is for people to think about these issues and treat them with the concern they need to be treated. What, you're offended by some curse words? I don't give a flyin' fuck! FUCK is a GREAT word to provoke an emotional response. Whoever modded this troll is a put your head in the sand FUCKING MORON!

      --
      Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
  5. Environmentalists need to shoulder some blame by MillenneumMan · · Score: 0, Troll

    I will stipulate that any oil spill damages the environment. Given that accidents do happen, would you rather try and fix an accident that occurred 5000 feet below the surface of the ocean or one that occurred in ANWR? An accident that occurred on land likely would not be measured in multiples of Exxon Valdez. Sure I want solar and wind and any other renewable energy source development to be pursued vigorously. But until our world can wean itself off of petroleum we need to show more sense from the standpoint of disaster recovery.

  6. Re:President Obama by khallow · · Score: 0, Troll

    the united states used to dissolve the charters of thousands of corporations a year. Way back when, it was a valid punishment for fucking up. Then, suddenly, corporations became people too.

    Cite or shut the fuck up. Frankly, I don't understand where this stupid idea came from. Corporations aren't people or treated as people. I have yet to even hear a coherent path for fixing this supposed ill of society either. Sure there's a legal fiction out there so that corporations can be put under some of the same law as individuals. But the US would have to replace those laws with something similar so that business could continue to function in the US.