Author Topic: The 'other' spill BP will be keeping quiet  (Read 3371 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ryan

  • Just another crazy runner
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8247
  • Karma: 11
  • 2011 Walleye Run
    • Hillrunner.com
The 'other' spill BP will be keeping quiet
« on: June 07, 2010, 12:44:43 PM »
This article only skims over the surface of BP's not properly implemented procedures but, if you dig deeper, you discover this is not just playing up a few bad incidents. This is very representative of the company's track record. Scary.

Quote
With the Gulf Coast dying of oil poisoning, there's no space in the   press for British Petroleum's most recent spill.

Just last week over 100,000 gallons were lost at its Alaska pipeline   operation. A hundred thousand used to be a lot. It still is.


Last Tuesday, Pump Station 9, at Delta Junction on the 800-mile   pipeline, busted. Thousands of barrels began spewing an explosive   cocktail of hydrocarbons after "procedures weren't properly implemented"   by BP operators, say state inspectors.


"Procedures weren't properly implemented" is, it seems, BP's company   motto.
Quote
In one case, BP's CEO of Alaskan operations hired a former CIA expert to   break into the home of whistleblower Chuck Hamel, who had complained of   conditions at the pipe's tanker facility.


BP tapped his phone calls with a US congressman and ran a surveillance   and smear campaign against him. When caught, a US federal judge said   BP's acts were "reminiscent of nazi Germany."
   

Offline Ed

  • 4 Consistent months and Counting!
  • Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Karma: 1
Re: The 'other' spill BP will be keeping quiet
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2010, 02:39:21 PM »
What would happen if we detonated a small tactical nuclear weapon above the pipe?
Next Goal Race - Al's Run

Offline Ryan

  • Just another crazy runner
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8247
  • Karma: 11
  • 2011 Walleye Run
    • Hillrunner.com
Re: The 'other' spill BP will be keeping quiet
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2010, 07:11:27 PM »
I heard a geological expert discuss this on WPR a couple of weeks ago. It was something that Russia has done on a few occasions but the geology of the Gulf of Mexico is far different than the locations where Russia has done this. The experts seem to agree that the risk of opening fissures that would increase the flow of the leak and make it impossible to close off is significant.

Offline Andrew A.

  • NDCQ
  • Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1611
  • Karma: 17
  • It is simple, but not easy.
    • Distance Running Observer
Re: The 'other' spill BP will be keeping quiet
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2010, 07:32:58 PM »
What about radiation poisoning for umpteen generations in that region?  Not exactly comparatively lifeless tundra there.

I am starting to understand why the South tends to feel oppressed.
Why dink around? Go for it, be the best. It is worth whatever risk there is even if you fall short. You will be better.
‎"There is no such thing as an overachiever. We are all underachievers to varying degrees." - John Wooden.

Offline Ryan

  • Just another crazy runner
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8247
  • Karma: 11
  • 2011 Walleye Run
    • Hillrunner.com
Re: The 'other' spill BP will be keeping quiet
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2010, 06:22:48 AM »
Andrew, that is a great point. A very small and controlled nuclear explosion may or may not allow radiation to reach areas populated by humans but what about those who take to the seas? What about non-human life in the area?

That said, another issue raised in the discussion I heard on the radio would be to use a non-nuclear tactical bomb instead of a nuclear bomb (raised due to the concern of radiation). Even that option was deemed too risky to try due to the geological reasons I mentioned. You could end up with multiple uncontrollable leaks directly from the sea floor. Now, at least it's a single leak from a pipeline and there is still hope that the pipe can be sealed.

Now, assuming these relief wells fail, would it be worth it to consider a small preferably non-nuclear detonation to try to pinch off the well? With no viable alternative, it might be the last option available. Even if this were the scenario, though, would it be worth the risk of making the flow significantly higher with no way to attempt to capture it?

Offline Ed

  • 4 Consistent months and Counting!
  • Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Karma: 1
Re: The 'other' spill BP will be keeping quiet
« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2010, 06:45:02 AM »
This is surely a very sad moment - brilliant minds can put a remote controlled vehicle on a planet millions of miles away and yet a small pipe less than two miles deep cannot be handeled.
Next Goal Race - Al's Run

Offline Andrew A.

  • NDCQ
  • Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1611
  • Karma: 17
  • It is simple, but not easy.
    • Distance Running Observer
Re: The 'other' spill BP will be keeping quiet
« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2010, 08:09:45 AM »
It has as much to do with priority -- if it were vitally important to those in charge of the situation then it would get taken care of effectively and quickly. 
Why dink around? Go for it, be the best. It is worth whatever risk there is even if you fall short. You will be better.
‎"There is no such thing as an overachiever. We are all underachievers to varying degrees." - John Wooden.

Offline Ryan

  • Just another crazy runner
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8247
  • Karma: 11
  • 2011 Walleye Run
    • Hillrunner.com
Re: The 'other' spill BP will be keeping quiet
« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2010, 08:28:25 AM »
The truth is that, for over 40 years, we've had better luck exploring space than the oceans. I don't want to get political here (though I question why something this significant has anything to do with politics) but what I find very sad is that we allow people to perform inherently risky procedures with no plan or knowledge of what to do if something goes wrong. The oil companies give such thought to their disaster response procedures that they are supposedly required to think through and submit for each well that their procedures are nearly carbon copies of each other to the point where Gulf of Mexico disaster response procedures include information on how they will protect the walrus population if a spill occurs. Because the Gulf of Mexico walrus is such an endangered species it doesn't exist.

Tags: BP oil spill Alaska