BP Used Cheaper, Riskier Oil Wells
Taken from the FOX NEWS article: [McAuley’s World Comments Bolded Blue – Another compliant article from the Media – An article intended to focus our attention on BP and shift the focus away from the Feds, Congress, BP’s contractors and the failed clean-up effort in the Gulf.]
BP Used Cheaper, Riskier Oil Wells
Anadarko Petroleum Corp., which owns a quarter of BP PLC’s blown-out oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, late Friday blasted BP “reckless decisions and actions” that led to the well’s explosion.
“The mounting evidence clearly demonstrates that this tragedy was preventable and the direct result of BP’s reckless decisions and actions,” said Hackett in the statement. “We recognize that ultimately we have obligations under federal law related to the oil spill, but will look to BP to continue to pay all legitimate claims as they have repeatedly stated that they will do.”
[“We recognize that ultimately we have obligations under federal law related to the oil spill”. That Andarko, as a contractor, has obligations? Obligations related to negligent actions at the well site? Why doesn’t this headline state, “Andarko admits negligence in Gulf Oil spill” and then tell us how they were negligent? By the way, exactly what “evidence” is Andarko referring to? Exactly what “reckless decisions and actions”? Is the use of an “approved” well design reckless? Has anyone else “recklessly” decided to use this well design? ]
The only other major well design, which is more expensive, includes more safeguards against a natural-gas blowout of the kind that destroyed the Deepwater Horizon.
[First, I’m not certain that anyone has confirmed what caused the explosion – just a small matter before we start assigning blame. Second, are they saying there are only 2 major designs and this is one of the two designs? Simply because there are alternate designs does not mean this design was not “approved”, “tested” and ‘certified”. “More expensive” is not always “better”. What this story does not point out is that some of BP’s “purchases” were made from companies other than Andarko. That Andarko is in some ways a competitor of BP and also a co-defendant in this disaster. Let me make an additional comparison – The US Air Force is now purchasing F22 aircraft not F16 aircraft. The F22s are smaller, cheaper and require less maintenance. Does that make the F22 an inferior aircraft? Did Congress make a “reckless decision” to purchase F22s to replace the F16s? Was Congress guilty of “gross negligence” for making the switch? If you ask the company that manufactured the F16 you would get a resounding “Yes” for an answer. If you ask F16 pilots they would say “Yes” also, but just ask an F22 pilot and you’ll get a different answer]
A Wall Street Journal analysis of records provided by the U.S. Minerals Management Service shows that BP used the less costly design—called “long string”—on 35 percent of its deepwater wells since July 2003, the earliest date the well-design data were available. Anadarko used it on 42 percent of its deepwater Gulf wells, though it says it doesn’t do so in wells of the type drilled by BP.
[Let me see, the premise is that the “well design is grossly negligent” – then how did the design get approved or certified for use and why has Andarko used it on 42% of its wells – 7% more frequently than BP has used the “design”. Is it because most people only read the headline of an article. I’m surprised the stats are right there, for all to read, in the body of the article].
Both companies used the design much more often, on average, than other major Gulf drillers. Out of 218 deepwater wells in the Gulf drilled since July 2003, 26 percent used the long-string design. It derives its name from its use of a single, long “string” of pipe from the sea floor to the bottom of the well.
[First, let us note that 218 “deepwater wells” have been drilled in the gulf without a prior incident. It would seem to me that the “well design” is not the answer, that the answer lies with “construction” or “installation”, that “design” is a lesser probability. As the “stats” in the article reflect – every drilling company in the world uses this method – some more often than others – You ask every drilling company in the world, and they all used this method, if the wells based on this design are inherently “safe” or inherently “grossly negligent”, when properly assembled and you’ll get a uniform response – in fact you can ask every Government in the world why they have approved the use of this design and they will tell you the same thing – the “design” is sound. One last “fact”. It is true that a “long string well” has a single, long piece of uniform pipe streching from the ocean floor to the “oil reservoir” below, however, contrary to what you might envision when you read the article, the “”single long string” of pipe does not stand alone. I’ve been researching this catastrophe. The “single long string” of pipe is actually encased in other “pipes” and “casings”. “Long string wells” were originally designed for use in “hazardous waste disposal” and were adapted to “deep sea oil drilling” because of their excellent reputation in preventing “hazardous material” leaks, because the well design was “secure” and “environmentally friendly”. http://www.kdheks.gov/uic/class_1.htm]
FOX’S WEEKEND EDITORS SHOULD BE ASHAMED
UPDATE: Oil spill: BP to sue partner in Gulf oil well
BP is preparing to sue its main partner in the leaking Gulf of Mexico oil field for its share of clean-up costs after the company, Anadarko, said BP’s behaviour revealed “gross negligence” and that the accident was preventable.
In a fundamental split between the two companies with lead responsibility for the well, a senor BP source told The Sunday Telegraph that Anadarko was “shirking its responsibilities”, not accepting its liabilities and that legal action in the US was now likely to follow.
Anadarko, which has a 25pc stake in the well, signalled this weekend that it will refuse to pay up.
BP has already sent the company one demand for payment but, the BP source said, had yet to receive any costs for the multi-billion dollar clean-up operation.
Jim Hackett, Anadarko’s chief executive, launched a damning attack on BP, the majority owner and operating partner, alleging there were signs of “gross negligence or wilful misconduct”.
“The mounting evidence clearly demonstrates that this tragedy was preventable and the direct result of BP’s reckless decisions and actions,” said Mr Hackett. “BP’s behaviour and action is likely represent gross negligence or wilful misconduct.”
Mitsui, the 10pc owner of the well, has made no decision on whether to admit liability for its share of costs, but is likely to join Anadarko in its refusal to contribute. BP could then also take legal action against that company as well.
The deepening row over costs followed a call from US Congressman Edward Markey, saying Anadarko and Mitsui should be held accountable and set aside money to pay a share of claims tied to the spill. “They cannot escape responsibility,” he said.
“Other parties besides BP may be responsible for costs and liabilities arising from the oil spill, and we expect those parties to live up to their obligations.”
Analysts are also getting restive about the uncertainty surrounding Anadarko and Mitsui because their involvement in paying claims would have a huge impact on BP’s financial position.
[Will Congress’ political theatre of this last week, a “show trial” called a “Congressional Hearing” conducted prior to the completion of any investigation, negatively affect the collection of damages from the responsible parties? Will Congress’ “rush to judgment” shelter at fault parties and prevent a full recovery of American damages? Will Congress’ rush to play the political CYA game, add insult to injury in the Gulf Coast?]