BP Prolonged the disaster by deliberately misleading flow rates, TransOcean claims.

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Now this one got my attention in a major way. They're turning on each other and of course, they know what the other REALLY did vs. what the public has been left believing or being told they did. This is very damning, if shown to be true as a deliberate and calculated action by BP. It's unconscionable. This is the Gulf of Mexico. Not some two bit drainage pond or creek. It's a part of the planet's overall currents and water flow.....and they dumped millions of gallons more per day, for months beyond what had to happen, according to this.



NEW ORLEANS (CN) - BP prolonged the Gulf of Mexico oil spill by two months by concealing the rate of oil flowing from the broken Macondo well, Transocean claims in a document filed in the damages trial.


Now that's a bombshell in general terms but the specifics? People need to go to prison for this. They raped our Gulf.


Transocean's document states that "on April 28, 2010, Suttles represented to Admiral Landry in a meeting at Unified Command that BP's internal flow rate estimate was between 1,000 and 5,000 barrels of oil per day ('bopd') with 2,500 bopd being the most likely flow rate number."
Transocean claims those numbers "were false and misleading and omitted material information within BP's possession."

(An email conversation between BP officials on the day the rig sank, released last year, shows that BP had estimated that oil could have been flowing at up to 82,000 barrels a day, or well over 3.4 million gallons.)

(The email from Rob Marshall, BP subsea manager of the Gulf, on April 22, 2010, two days after the Deepwater Horizon explosion killed 11 people and set off the worst oil spill in U.S. history, stated: "Alistair Johnston altered his Macondo well model to approximate open hole flowing conditions and calculated a rate of 82,000 barrels per day."
Source

I've always felt that while TransOcean sure did screw up, (they all did in this), they were the scapegoat and patsy thrown out rather quickly to dilute the blame and hit an expendable party. Anything to cover BP.

Whatever even caused this to begin with? The court filings and documents here suggest something outright criminal and almost to a Hollywood Villain level of outright environmental evil for how long it dragged on ... and on ...and on. I happened to be down with a broken ankle for a fair part of that and couldn't escape the coverage. Such a horror, seeing the open wound that formed and blowing for live cameras 24/7, for months.

Where is the outrage here? The damage is real and the oil (or sludgy mess) on the bottom isn't left to computer models to guess at. It can be seen. Some have gone out to sample it.


For many Americans, the story of the BP disaster began on April 20, 2010, and ended on August 15 of that year, when the Obama Administration declared that “the majority of the oil is gone,” though the opposite was true.

For those on the Gulf Coast, the disaster remains, and life continues to be measured in terms of “before” and “after” the BP oil spill. They are tired of it all: BP, the government, the lies and the lawyers, the hardship and the illness, the oil on the beach and in the water, the dead dolphins and the disfigured fish, the ever-shrinking hauls of oysters, crab, and shrimp, and the rest of the nation’s cold shoulder. They still don’t know the answers to many life-and-death questions. But they keep going, hoping for life to return to the way it was before.
Source

It's quite a story to follow ... I think it's far from over. Whatever Politicians and Oil Execs would like to have happen.




posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Wow this is incredibly sickening that they have purposely done such a negligent and sick thing to the environment just to protect profits....I am absolutely disgusted and they should all be sent to jail and fined.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


BP concealed flow rate, Haliburton used wrong equipment, Transocean in it up to their necks. Good old oil business, working for the benefit of humanity!

The thing is though, bad as the damage was, it was a drop in the ocean in comparison to that done to the Gulf of Mexico from agri chem run off from the USA. So, by all means, go after these guys as they deserve it. However, also get the priorities in order and go after the biggest polluters. Otherwise it is simply distraction from the main problem.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Sad, that the Oceanic sea Life had to send such vibrations of HELP... 1 is not the Judge nor Jury so its understood $$$ was more important then the Ocean Life to those who managed to make it not to mention those mass sellers of abnormal Sea animal products from there, and to Close- the land life that has INGESTED the SEA LIFE tainted with... The Genetics
1 Remains Hopeful that somehow that blob of decade bio and chem material is somehow cleaned YES down there sitting out of site out of mind. Don't know but it just SAD in so many ways. Thanks for the update OP.

NAMASTE*******



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


However, also get the priorities in order and go after the biggest polluters. Otherwise it is simply distraction from the main problem.


TRUTH



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 

Not everything is a question of relativism or pointing to other bad things as some measure of reducing the horror of a crime. They blew unbelievable amounts of raw crude into the water and dumped unknown quantities of poisons like Corexit after it to highly questionable effect in the end, anyway..

The run off from agriculture is a bad thing, no question. It probably even deserves a thread (all it's own).

No one is currently in the process of being assessed for damages and liability on that. They are on the ongoing nightmare that is the Gulf of Mexico. Hopefully, they pay at least something serious to what they've done although I doubt it. A good portion of a whole coastline has been spoiled. One Louisiana Parish is suing for how the Wetlands are 're-oiled' after every storm of any note. It's all still out there and doing what toxins do. It keeps giving.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   
If all true, then those responsible for this should be hung. Send a message that these sorts of actions are totally unacceptable. The funny thing is that we as the general public are being blamed and shamed over this “climate change” nonsense, and pollution when these are the true and sole purporters of such actions.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by BlindBastards
 

I'm thinking hanging would be appropriate. Or perhaps... long prison term on bread and water. I'll give ya a moment to figure out where I'd insist the water come from to sustain them.


If the Gulf is so clean and nice, as they keep babbling on TV, they should be happy to drink it and swim in it themselves, right? I never see that part of course. I only see the BP stooge, well away from any water line, talking about how everyone ELSE can go swim, drink up and eat seafood like it's the best thing since sliced bread and 8 track tapes.

BP really needs to pay for what they've done. Perhaps some day, our nation will address the laws on liability to reflect TRUE guilt and paying for wrong doing as opposed to just doing what 'sounds about right'. Alaska would still be sucking oil off the coast if Exxon had been allowed to get off this easily there. (Oh gee, can't see it...must not be here... err.. don't turn that rock over! no!)
edit on 5-3-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


That is where i have a problem with it to be honest Wrabbit. BP have already paid record fines (way surpassing other fines for other companies). US firms have caused similar and worse levels of pollution around the world. I firmly believe that until they start paying similar fines in those countries then BP should absolutely not pay another penny - it can't be a case of record fines for one company and no / negligible fines for US owned companies.

For example, if BP paid out 4 billion for the Gulf of Mexico then Dow Chemicals / Union Carbide should be paying out at least 20 Billion for Bhopal - won't happen though.

This isn't about where companies are owned though (BP is actually mostly US now anyway), rather it is about how such environmental pollution is cracked down on globally. If it is only huge fines for US shores then, quite simply, the rest of the world will not endorse it. It has to be equal. For example, look at all the absolutely huge oil spills in Brazil over the last year (both at sea and in the rainforest). Most have been caused by US oil firms that have consistently dodged any responsibility. If they can do that, why can't BP?

Basically, i am saying that environmental polluters need taking to task and fining properly. If they refuse to pay the fines then their operating licenses should be withdrawn. If that means BP being withdrawn from America then fair enough. Equally though, if that means US firms being withdrawn from South America, etc, then that should also be the case. However, i cannot help feeling that any US administration would be all over that braying about how unfair it is. You see the problem?



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Just thought i would add a bit of perspective for you (that you may not be aware of - if you are then i apologise). The reason a lot of UK people get worked up around BP (and several other firms) is that our state pensions are firmly tied up to such companies. Personally i don't agree with that but it is what it is. That is what leads to most of the resentment on this side of the pond regarding the Gulf of Mexico spill.

Everyone i speak to over here about it thinks BP are in the wrong (as well as Halliburton and Transocean) and that huge fines and even prison sentences are perfectly viable options for such a matter - as long as they are distributed even handidly (if that is really a word!).

Hope that explains it a bit better from over here...........
edit on 5-3-2013 by Flavian because: spelling



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 

I think you would make some good points here if we were talking about an incident perhaps overblown or being hammered because it happened in a politically sensitive area and not for the sheer scale of criminal conduct.

Now first, what other event in the history of Earth ranks as bad as this one for environmental damage related to the release of industrial material? I'll even keep that vague to cover non-oil issues.

In sheer numbers, this ranks #1 or #2 largest oil release in history. In release of toxic chemicals by the builk container, like Corexit, it's gotta rank up there near the top as well.

In terms of others being let off easy, where has this happened? I think Exxon feels a little raw, to this day, for what they were made to pay and do for their drunken captain on-board the Valdez. (some say they still got off too easy. Perhaps they did, too)

it's not about "making them pay" for some pain issue. In fact, the whole PROBLEM is that we seem to look at this as a question of "have they paid enough??". Well, I have just one question to that...

IS IT CLEANED UP YET? While the answer to that is no, then the question of whether they have paid enough is also no. When it's cleaned up, they've paid enough and the deal is a closed nightmare in the history of industrial accident.

They seem content to say there IS no more problem there....while state and local officials don't just SAY that's an outright lie, they sue BP on their own in separate cases over that very issue (I have another thread covering one of those cases which is running right now.)



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
Just thought i would add a bit of perspective for you (that you may not be aware of - if you are then i apologise). The reason a lot of UK people get worked up around BP (and several other firms) is that our state pensions are firmly tied up to such companies. Personally i don't agree with that but it is what it is. That is what leads to most of the resentment on this side of the pond regarding the Gulf of Mexico spill.

Everyone i speak to over here about it thinks BP are in the wrong (as well as Halliburton and Transocean) and that huge fines and even prison sentences are perfectly viable options for such a matter - as long as they are distributed even handidly (if that is really a word!).

Hope that explains it a bit better from over here...........
edit on 5-3-2013 by Flavian because: spelling

That does help for perspective and softens my attitude just a little on the STRONG defensive posture many British take relating to BP. Okay, I can see the concerns on that. I also don't advocate for ruining BP or destroying them as a company. That human cost is a large part of why.

That doesn't mean they should be allowed to walk away from this, by any means, while every storm of any measure comes and redeposits oil across the coastal wetlands as if taking from a vast reserve of the stuff, for the purpose. That stuff needs cleaned up..and honestly, at that point, I'd be happy. Most along the Gulf likely would be too.

It's the 'close enough is good enough' approach to clean-up that is burning my burns in the oven.
edit on 5-3-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   


concealing the rate of oil flowing from the broken Macondo well,


The public and MSM showed just how gullible they are. I couldn't believe anyone could see that leak and think "2000 barrels, yeah that's right".

Who needs conspiracy and cover ups when most people don't even know what they are seeing when it is in front of their face.





new topics
top topics
 
3

log in

join