Why aren't environmentalists upset that 1 million barrels will be traveling every day from Vancouver to Asia on the open ocean?

[ding]

And you believe this without a shred of evidence and you think YOU are being honest? Fuckin' vainglory.

Deepwater Horizon ... Chevron publically stated they use five concrete plugs in their sea floor test wells ... BP only uses one ...

You've told me to fuck off ... thank you ... that's as close as you'll ever admit you're wrong ... those tar sands ain't going anywhere, the longer we wait to exploit that resource, the smaller percentage of revenue will be needed to remediate the land afterwards ... simple economics ...

My youngest brother was called in after the fact to do an audit of BP's safety compliance on Deepwater Horizon.. What he found was that BP had subbed out safety compliance reporting to a variety of companies that did not communicate with each other.. In other words BP set it up that way for CYA... Further, BP has always been a shitty oil company for the past 70 years that has NO core values.

No arguments here. It was a systemic failure. But I doubt very seriously if the outsourcing of safety compliance reporting had anything to do with the DW Horizon/Macando incident. BP was primarily focused on personal safety instead of process safety. BP like many of the other producers had a poor process safety culture in their Wells group.

I do doubt it was set up that way for CYA though. I believe it had to do with poor understanding of risk and incompetence of leadership.

 

[surada]

And you believe this without a shred of evidence and you think YOU are being honest? Fuckin' vainglory.

Deepwater Horizon ... Chevron publically stated they use five concrete plugs in their sea floor test wells ... BP only uses one ...

You've told me to fuck off ... thank you ... that's as close as you'll ever admit you're wrong ... those tar sands ain't going anywhere, the longer we wait to exploit that resource, the smaller percentage of revenue will be needed to remediate the land afterwards ... simple economics ...

My youngest brother was called in after the fact to do an audit of BP's safety compliance on Deepwater Horizon.. What he found was that BP had subbed out safety compliance reporting to a variety of companies that did not communicate with each other.. In other words BP set it up that way for CYA... Further, BP has always been a shitty oil company for the past 70 years that has NO core values.

No arguments here. It was a systemic failure. But I doubt very seriously if the outsourcing of safety compliance reporting had anything to do with the DW Horizon/Macando incident. BP was primarily focused on personal safety instead of process safety. BP like many of the other producers had a poor process safety culture in their Wells group.

I do doubt it was set up that way for CYA though. I believe it had to do with poor understanding of risk and incompetence of leadership.

Yes, it did.. They were cutting corners in the interest of speed... damn personal safety.

 

[ding]

And you believe this without a shred of evidence and you think YOU are being honest? Fuckin' vainglory.

Deepwater Horizon ... Chevron publically stated they use five concrete plugs in their sea floor test wells ... BP only uses one ...

You've told me to fuck off ... thank you ... that's as close as you'll ever admit you're wrong ... those tar sands ain't going anywhere, the longer we wait to exploit that resource, the smaller percentage of revenue will be needed to remediate the land afterwards ... simple economics ...

My youngest brother was called in after the fact to do an audit of BP's safety compliance on Deepwater Horizon.. What he found was that BP had subbed out safety compliance reporting to a variety of companies that did not communicate with each other.. In other words BP set it up that way for CYA... Further, BP has always been a shitty oil company for the past 70 years that has NO core values.

No arguments here. It was a systemic failure. But I doubt very seriously if the outsourcing of safety compliance reporting had anything to do with the DW Horizon/Macando incident. BP was primarily focused on personal safety instead of process safety. BP like many of the other producers had a poor process safety culture in their Wells group.

I do doubt it was set up that way for CYA though. I believe it had to do with poor understanding of risk and incompetence of leadership.

Yes, it did.. They were cutting corners in the interest of speed... damn personal safety.

Ok, tell me how the well blew out? What caused it to actually blow out?

 

[surada]

And you believe this without a shred of evidence and you think YOU are being honest? Fuckin' vainglory.

Deepwater Horizon ... Chevron publically stated they use five concrete plugs in their sea floor test wells ... BP only uses one ...

You've told me to fuck off ... thank you ... that's as close as you'll ever admit you're wrong ... those tar sands ain't going anywhere, the longer we wait to exploit that resource, the smaller percentage of revenue will be needed to remediate the land afterwards ... simple economics ...

My youngest brother was called in after the fact to do an audit of BP's safety compliance on Deepwater Horizon.. What he found was that BP had subbed out safety compliance reporting to a variety of companies that did not communicate with each other.. In other words BP set it up that way for CYA... Further, BP has always been a shitty oil company for the past 70 years that has NO core values.

No arguments here. It was a systemic failure. But I doubt very seriously if the outsourcing of safety compliance reporting had anything to do with the DW Horizon/Macando incident. BP was primarily focused on personal safety instead of process safety. BP like many of the other producers had a poor process safety culture in their Wells group.

I do doubt it was set up that way for CYA though. I believe it had to do with poor understanding of risk and incompetence of leadership.

Yes, it did.. They were cutting corners in the interest of speed... damn personal safety.

Ok, tell me how the well blew out? What caused it to actually blow out?

You'd have to ask my brother.

 

[ding]

And you believe this without a shred of evidence and you think YOU are being honest? Fuckin' vainglory.

Deepwater Horizon ... Chevron publically stated they use five concrete plugs in their sea floor test wells ... BP only uses one ...

You've told me to fuck off ... thank you ... that's as close as you'll ever admit you're wrong ... those tar sands ain't going anywhere, the longer we wait to exploit that resource, the smaller percentage of revenue will be needed to remediate the land afterwards ... simple economics ...

My youngest brother was called in after the fact to do an audit of BP's safety compliance on Deepwater Horizon.. What he found was that BP had subbed out safety compliance reporting to a variety of companies that did not communicate with each other.. In other words BP set it up that way for CYA... Further, BP has always been a shitty oil company for the past 70 years that has NO core values.

No arguments here. It was a systemic failure. But I doubt very seriously if the outsourcing of safety compliance reporting had anything to do with the DW Horizon/Macando incident. BP was primarily focused on personal safety instead of process safety. BP like many of the other producers had a poor process safety culture in their Wells group.

I do doubt it was set up that way for CYA though. I believe it had to do with poor understanding of risk and incompetence of leadership.

Yes, it did.. They were cutting corners in the interest of speed... damn personal safety.

Ok, tell me how the well blew out? What caused it to actually blow out?

You'd have to ask my brother.

But you were the one who just claimed it happened because they cut corners. right? What corners did they cut? How did outsourcing safety compliance reporting to cover their ass result in a blow out?

 

[Crick]

My2Cents pegged it. Environmentalists haven't been opposing the Keystone pipeline because they think the pipeline is an environmental hazard. They oppose it because they oppose oil sand mining and extraction and don't want to support the process. And I haven't heard anyone mention the point that the pipeline was to take oil from Canada to the American Gulf Coast where it would be put on tankers and sold to Asia. America was getting none of it. Keystone isn't a US project. It's a Canadian project. That's why Trump and other supporters always talked about the (temporary) jobs benefit; that was the only benefit the US was ever going to see from Keystone.

 

[ding]

My2Cents pegged it. Environmentalists haven't been opposing the Keystone pipeline because they think the pipeline is an environmental hazard. They oppose it because they oppose oil sand mining and extraction and don't want to support the process. And I haven't heard anyone mention the point that the pipeline was to take oil from Canada to the American Gulf Coast where it would be put on tankers and sold to Asia. America was getting none of it. Keystone isn't a US project. It's a Canadian project. That's why Trump and other supporters always talked about the (temporary) jobs benefit; that was the only benefit the US was ever going to see from Keystone.

That whole Canadian oil going to China is a red herring.

 

[Crick]

From Wikipedia's article on the Deepwater Horizon:

Regulation, safety, and inspection[edit]
The Minerals Management Service (renamed on 18 June 2010 to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or Bureau of Ocean Energy (BOE))[52] is the regulatory and inspecting body for offshore oil drilling and rigs in the United States of America.[52] According to an Associated Press investigation, certain safety documentation and emergency procedure information, including documentation for the exact incident that later occurred, was absent.[51] The exact number of required monthly inspections performed varied over time; the inspections were carried out as required for the first 40 months, but after that around 25% of inspections were omitted,[51] although the investigation notes this is partly expected, since there are circumstances such as weather and movement which preclude an inspection.[51] Reports of the last three inspections for 2010 were provided under Freedom of Information legislation. Each of these inspections had taken two hours or less.[51]

During its lifetime the rig received 5 citations for non-compliance, 4 of which were in 2002 (safety, including the blowout preventer) and the other in 2003 (pollution).[51] A sixth citation in 2007 related to non-grounded electrical equipment was later withdrawn when the equipment was determined to be compliant with regulations.[51] Overall the Deepwater Horizon's safety record was "strong" according to a drilling consultant reviewing the information.[51] In 2009 the Minerals Management Service "herald[ed] the Deepwater Horizon as an industry model for safety".[51] According to AP's investigation "its record was so exemplary, according to MMS officials, that the rig was never on inspectors' informal 'watch list' for problem rigs".[51]

AND


At 7:45 p.m. CDT on 20 April 2010, during the final phases of drilling the exploratory well at Macondo, a geyser of seawater erupted from the marine riser onto the rig, shooting 70 m into the air. This was soon followed by the eruption of a slushy combination of drilling mud, methane gas, and water. The gas component of the slushy material quickly transitioned into a fully gaseous state and then ignited into a series of explosions and then a firestorm. An attempt was made to activate the blowout preventer, but it failed.[53] The final defense to prevent an oil spill, a device known as a blind shear ram, was activated but failed to plug the well.[54]

Eleven workers were presumed killed in the initial explosion. The rig was evacuated, with injured workers airlifted to medical facilities. After approximately 36 hours, Deepwater Horizon sank on 22 April 2010. The remains of the rig were located resting on the seafloor approximately 1,500 m deep at that location, and about 400 m northwest of the well.[45][55][56]

This, of course, does NOT identify the actual cause of the accident.

 

[Crick]

If you're actually interested in environmentalists views about Keystone XL, read the article at this link:

What Is the Keystone XL Pipeline?

How a single pipeline project became the epicenter of an enormous environmental, public health, and civil rights battle.

www.nrdc.org

 

[danielpalos]

Putting infrastructure underground could mean mass storage along with mass transit in energy delivery.

 

[Crick]

Putting infrastructure underground could mean mass storage along with mass transit in energy delivery.

Here's what you can get when you put it underground:

An enormous mess created before anyone knows there's a leak and a far, far more difficult problem to correct since everything in the area has to be excavated first.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My2Cents pegged it. Environmentalists haven't been opposing the Keystone pipeline because they think the pipeline is an environmental hazard. They oppose it because they oppose oil sand mining and extraction and don't want to support the process. And I haven't heard anyone mention the point that the pipeline was to take oil from Canada to the American Gulf Coast where it would be put on tankers and sold to Asia. America was getting none of it. Keystone isn't a US project. It's a Canadian project. That's why Trump and other supporters always talked about the (temporary) jobs benefit; that was the only benefit the US was ever going to see from Keystone.

And I haven't heard anyone mention the point that the pipeline was to take oil from Canada to the American Gulf Coast where it would be put on tankers and sold to Asia.

It was going to Texas to be refined.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you're actually interested in environmentalists views about Keystone XL, read the article at this link:

What Is the Keystone XL Pipeline?

How a single pipeline project became the epicenter of an enormous environmental, public health, and civil rights battle.

www.nrdc.org

Thanks for the link.


The Keystone XL pipeline extension, proposed by energy infrastructure company TC Energy (formerly TransCanada) in 2008, was designed to transport the planet’s dirtiest fossil fuel to market—fast. An expansion of the company’s existing Keystone Pipeline System, which has been operating since 2010 (and is already sending Canadian tar sands crude from Alberta to various processing hubs in the middle of the United States), it would dramatically increase capacity to process the 168 billion barrels of crude oil locked up under Canada’s boreal forest. To be precise, it would transport 830,000 barrels of Alberta tar sands oil per day to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas.

 

[ding]

Putting infrastructure underground could mean mass storage along with mass transit in energy delivery.

View attachment 478882
View attachment 478883
Here's what you can get when you put it underground:
View attachment 478884

An enormous mess created before anyone knows there's a leak and a far, far more difficult problem to correct since everything in the area has to be excavated first.

Which is remediated using microbes.

Pipelines aren't going anywhere.

 

[danielpalos]

Putting infrastructure underground could mean mass storage along with mass transit in energy delivery.

View attachment 478882
View attachment 478883
Here's what you can get when you put it underground:
View attachment 478884

An enormous mess created before anyone knows there's a leak and a far, far more difficult problem to correct since everything in the area has to be excavated first.

Not with appropriate infrastructure. Conduits could be contained one within the other with the bigger conduit providing a container for smaller conduits actually transporting energy. Electrical and oil could be in separate conduits within a larger conduit that contains all the rest.

 

[Crick]

Putting infrastructure underground could mean mass storage along with mass transit in energy delivery.

View attachment 478882
View attachment 478883
Here's what you can get when you put it underground:
View attachment 478884

An enormous mess created before anyone knows there's a leak and a far, far more difficult problem to correct since everything in the area has to be excavated first.

Not with appropriate infrastructure. Conduits could be contained one within the other with the bigger conduit providing a container for smaller conduits actually transporting energy. Electrical and oil could be in separate conduits within a larger conduit that contains all the rest.

A lovely idea. But when soon no one will be using fossil fuels anymore, why bother?

 

[surada]

And you believe this without a shred of evidence and you think YOU are being honest? Fuckin' vainglory.

Deepwater Horizon ... Chevron publically stated they use five concrete plugs in their sea floor test wells ... BP only uses one ...

You've told me to fuck off ... thank you ... that's as close as you'll ever admit you're wrong ... those tar sands ain't going anywhere, the longer we wait to exploit that resource, the smaller percentage of revenue will be needed to remediate the land afterwards ... simple economics ...

My youngest brother was called in after the fact to do an audit of BP's safety compliance on Deepwater Horizon.. What he found was that BP had subbed out safety compliance reporting to a variety of companies that did not communicate with each other.. In other words BP set it up that way for CYA... Further, BP has always been a shitty oil company for the past 70 years that has NO core values.

No arguments here. It was a systemic failure. But I doubt very seriously if the outsourcing of safety compliance reporting had anything to do with the DW Horizon/Macando incident. BP was primarily focused on personal safety instead of process safety. BP like many of the other producers had a poor process safety culture in their Wells group.

I do doubt it was set up that way for CYA though. I believe it had to do with poor understanding of risk and incompetence of leadership.

BP was completely focused on speed NOT safety.

 

[ding]

And you believe this without a shred of evidence and you think YOU are being honest? Fuckin' vainglory.

Deepwater Horizon ... Chevron publically stated they use five concrete plugs in their sea floor test wells ... BP only uses one ...

You've told me to fuck off ... thank you ... that's as close as you'll ever admit you're wrong ... those tar sands ain't going anywhere, the longer we wait to exploit that resource, the smaller percentage of revenue will be needed to remediate the land afterwards ... simple economics ...

My youngest brother was called in after the fact to do an audit of BP's safety compliance on Deepwater Horizon.. What he found was that BP had subbed out safety compliance reporting to a variety of companies that did not communicate with each other.. In other words BP set it up that way for CYA... Further, BP has always been a shitty oil company for the past 70 years that has NO core values.

No arguments here. It was a systemic failure. But I doubt very seriously if the outsourcing of safety compliance reporting had anything to do with the DW Horizon/Macando incident. BP was primarily focused on personal safety instead of process safety. BP like many of the other producers had a poor process safety culture in their Wells group.

I do doubt it was set up that way for CYA though. I believe it had to do with poor understanding of risk and incompetence of leadership.

BP was completely focused on speed NOT safety.

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to explain how that focus on speed resulted in a blowout, right?

 

[surada]

And you believe this without a shred of evidence and you think YOU are being honest? Fuckin' vainglory.

Deepwater Horizon ... Chevron publically stated they use five concrete plugs in their sea floor test wells ... BP only uses one ...

You've told me to fuck off ... thank you ... that's as close as you'll ever admit you're wrong ... those tar sands ain't going anywhere, the longer we wait to exploit that resource, the smaller percentage of revenue will be needed to remediate the land afterwards ... simple economics ...

My youngest brother was called in after the fact to do an audit of BP's safety compliance on Deepwater Horizon.. What he found was that BP had subbed out safety compliance reporting to a variety of companies that did not communicate with each other.. In other words BP set it up that way for CYA... Further, BP has always been a shitty oil company for the past 70 years that has NO core values.

No arguments here. It was a systemic failure. But I doubt very seriously if the outsourcing of safety compliance reporting had anything to do with the DW Horizon/Macando incident. BP was primarily focused on personal safety instead of process safety. BP like many of the other producers had a poor process safety culture in their Wells group.

I do doubt it was set up that way for CYA though. I believe it had to do with poor understanding of risk and incompetence of leadership.

BP was completely focused on speed NOT safety.

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to explain how that focus on speed resulted in a blowout, right?

Sorry, I wasn't privy to my brothers report.. ALL very official and such.

 

[ReinyDays]

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to explain how that focus on speed resulted in a blowout, right?

It takes five times longer at five times the expense to put five plugs in the bore hole ... BP only put one plug in, and it failed ... profits before people ...