B.P. = Bit of Perspective?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Combwork

I still stand by what I said; the blame game started before the public realised how serious it was.

Perhaps but that doesn't mean that the accusations weren't justified. In fact, as more and more becomes known, it becomes clearer and clearer that BP was indeed in the wrong both before and after the blowout.

In a country where litigation is the first call, can you blame B.P. for putting the shutters up?

Well, yes. Not only have they "put the shutters up" but behind those shutters are attempting to conceal their own culpability and the extent of the catastrophe.

What I wrote was "seems as if they might have succeeded", not that they had succeeded.

You then suggested that congratulations were in order. Apart from the fact that your statement is manifestly false, are we to get into the habit of congratulating someone for the mere appearance of success?

Whatever you think about B.P. it's not all smoke and mirrors. B.P are not daft, they're a big corporation.

I'd suggest that smoke and mirrors is exactly what it is.

They know they can't hide 'the truth' forever

Oh, I don't know about that. Their dispersant application to sub-surface oil is designed to do precisely that. By breaking up the oil and causing it to become neutrally buoyant and then linger below the surface, BP is absolutely trying to prevent anyone from ever discovering how much oil has escaped.

and again as far as I know, whatever happened comes under American jurisdiction and is subject to American law. B.P are a prime target with enough assets to make them worth going for.

Are you implying that the US is cynically out to screw poor innocent BP?

When the Exxon Valdez ran aground and broke up it was the worst oil spillage at sea ever. No-one knew how to tackle it but well before the blame game got underway the Royal Navy tried to deal with it. Did Exxon ever admit that they with their undertrained crew and faulty radar (which they knew about beforehand) were to blame?

You're merging two events here, separated by decades and oceans. The Royal Navy was involved in the Torrey Canyon cleanup off Cornwall. Exxon wasn't involved. Occidental and BP were.

The Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska. By the time of that spill people had learned a lot about cleanups. There had been quite a few. The trouble is BP had been tasked with the responsibility of responding to spills in that area but were totally unprepared. Finally Exxon literally shoved them out of the way and took over but by then most of the oil had escaped and was coming ashore.

I don't know whether Exxon ever admitted any responsibility for the untrained crew, drunken captain below decks or the unrepaired radar. Frankly, since all this is established fact, it doesn't matter what Exxon will admit.

By the way, I'm not defending Exxon.

Going back to their 'unsuccessful' attempt to repair the damage, did any U.S. company try anything or did they sit back and wait? If B.P. had solved the problem, great but if they couldn't?

Nobody is saying that the US government is without blame in either the response to the blowout or for the lax regulation and bureaucratic corruption that made it more or less inevitable. That does not excuse BP. As for other companies, many have offered their services and BP, with the assent of the Coast Guard, has refused all of them.

B.P. are damned if they do and damned if they don't. What to the best of my knowledge has yet to be established is what actually happened. Was it a mistake by the crew, cost cutting by the operators, bad design or just bad luck?

There's plenty of information about that in the links I included in my earlier post and in the Rolling Stone article Dave linked to. The operation was way behind schedule and way over budget. BP ordered that the procedure be sped up by using significantly less cement at the well head and by using sea water instead of drilling mud to save money. The rig operator (Haliburton) objected and warned BP that they would be running the risk of precisely the sort of disaster that eventually occurred.

One thing there's speculation about here is the possibility that they drilled into a large pocket of highly compressed gas; something they could not know about until they hit it. Finally a genuine question. Although B.P. owned the rig, were they directly responsible for operating it or was this done by sub-contractors?

There's no speculation about that at all. The totally corrupt and inept MMS warned BP to be very careful with this well because of all the gas pockets they were sure to encounter and it's established fact that the drill had been hitting pocket after pocket after pocket. They were bound to hit more. That's why the decision to use sea water instead of drilling mud was so irresponsible. The mud, being denser and heavier, is more capable of damping down these gas eruptions.

I've just read this through and it all seems a bit vague, but no more than your post Boreas 31037.

My post was anything but vague unless you ignored the numerous links to supporting information.

my point is that U.S. corporations are seen as being better at avoiding responsibility than anyone else I can think of. Your legal system encourages this; lock everything in litigation for long enough in the hope that it will all go away.

BP should be alright then since they're subject to our legal system in this matter.

John