Thread: If I was CEO of BP. . . .

Originally Posted by NeilPearson

Bullshit!

BP had a long history of cutting corners on that well. Using seawater instead of mud, using 6 stabilizers instead of the recommended 21. The concrete was flawed from their cut backs and they purposely didn't install some safety equipment in order to save a few million bucks.

The precautions weren't taken.

I find it kind of ironic how Haliburton and Transocean all claim that anybody on the rig can stop the process for safety concerns at any time and they all said nothing.

Plus our own safety regulators allowed all of the above and said nothing.

I beleive BP deserves the largest share of the responsibility but it amazes me how the rest get a free pass.

What some don't realize is that BP purchased Amoco some years back and by freezing dividend checks from BP all of the people who had shares in Amoco (majority of which are in the US) got screwed as well.

The Brazilian government began urging the use of the remote-control equipment in 2007, after an extensive overhaul of its safety rules following a fire aboard an oil platform killed 11 people, said Raphael Moura, head of safety division at Brazil's National Petroleum Agency. "Our concern is both safety and the environment," he said.

Industry critics cite the lack of the remote control as a sign U.S. drilling policy has been too lax. "What we see, going back two decades, is an oil industry that has had way too much sway with federal regulations," said Dan McLaughlin, a spokesman for Democratic Florida Sen. Bill Nelson. "We are seeing our worst nightmare coming true."

U.S. regulators have considered mandating the use of remote-control acoustic switches or other back-up equipment at least since 2000. After a drilling ship accidentally released oil, the Minerals Management Service issued a safety notice that said a back-up system is "an essential component of a deepwater drilling system."

The industry argued against the acoustic systems. A 2001 report from the International Association of Drilling Contractors said "significant doubts remain in regard to the ability of this type of system to provide a reliable emergency back-up control system during an actual well flowing incident."

By 2003, U.S. regulators decided remote-controlled safeguards needed more study. A report commissioned by the Minerals Management Service said "acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly."

The Acoustic Remote is $500,000 they say....a drop in the bucket for oil firms and yet they relied on a main cable and "failsafe" DeadMan switch, which obviously neither worked, then they relied on the next best method using the subs which took too long and wound up being unsuccessful...... Hopefully from now on they will require a boat to patrol on stand-by away from the rig with 2 of these things installed on every rig....