BP Relied on Faulty U.S. Data

online.wsj.com...

And here we go. The New York Times has released a story in which BP places blame right back on to the U.S. for underestimating the impact of a major spill.

It does explain the lack of coordinated response, and the chaos ensuing over which state needs what resources the most.

Agreed. It's a further illustration of this chaotic mess, and yet another pointless media release blaming the wrong people for the wrong things.

Although allegations have been made that inspectors, at least, did not do their jobs, this seems terribly inappropriate to post in a U.S. paper.

Apparently their focus is on shifting blame and letting the states on the Gulf just fend for themselves.

It would be better if they put ALL their efforts on cleaning up and stopping the leak, rather than releasing high-profile, inflammatory stories to major media outlets.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Copperflower]

That's funny, we have that document from BP assessing the impact.
They all signed it. Did they not see the dates on the surveys? I'll have to take a closer look to see if there are dates?

And are these the same oil companies who all use the same oil spill recovery plan verbatim? Right down to the expert to call in the case of a marine disaster. Oh and he's been dead for three or four years.

As for this?

BP and government agencies responding to the spill have scrambled to assemble enough oil-containing boom and the ships and hardware needed to keep oil out of marshes and off beaches.

There are dozens of video and whistleblower reports that say otherwise. That the boats and crews only pretend to work when the media is present.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Exactly. So BP has no time to talk to worried people RIGHT there, but plenty of time to talk to the NY Times about how it's not their fault, but ours?



If BP is claiming "faulty data" then why did they go along with it? If they claim it was faulty all along then they just admitted their own liability. If they claim they didn't have that data til now, then how can it be reliably established now that the BOP is destroyed? Fail.

Also, hasn't it already been established that the BOP was owned by TransOcean? Not an American company, is it? But a comfy business partner of BP, yes.

Wall Street Journal = Roger Murdoch.

End of story.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by David9176]

reply to post by David9176


It's Rupert... but we get your point.

Anyway... BP doesn't have a leg to stand on, given their wild claims in their 2009 Application to drill...

Wonder if he WSJ did any googling for PDF's

reply to post by Copperflower

I don't believe the US are lilley-white in all this because why the hell did the US grant BP a licence to drill a mega well deep into the unknown when people were well aware ( no pun intended ) of the inherent dangers including piercing a batholth, super high pressures, and release of very toxic substances, It was common knowledge that the Russians hit similar problems but were able to solve due to being surface drill heads.
If the departments were not aware of the associated dangers they were not qualified to grant a licence, if they were aware they had no right to do so. They should have been aware that this bloody dangerous operation had never been attempted 1500m below sea level.
BP had no right to request a licence for an operation that they did not appear to have enough experience to carry out.
Who formulated and accepted / the associated risk assessment ?
I believe there a lot of guilty parties who did not have a mandate to put us all at such risk.
Massive projected profits never ever sanction the acceptance of such risk to the ecosystem, population, wildlife and enviroment.

reply to post by HunkaHunka

It's Rupert... but we get your point.

DOH!!!!

Let's just call him Waldo.

Originally posted by IMOVERHERE
reply to post by Copperflower

 

I don't believe the US are lilley-white in all this because why the hell did the US grant BP a licence to drill a mega well deep into the unknown when people were well aware ( no pun intended ) of the inherent dangers including piercing a batholth, super high pressures, and release of very toxic substances, It was common knowledge that the Russians hit similar problems but were able to solve due to being surface drill heads.
If the departments were not aware of the associated dangers they were not qualified to grant a licence, if they were aware they had no right to do so. They should have been aware that this bloody dangerous operation had never been attempted 1500m below sea level.
BP had no right to request a licence for an operation that they did not appear to have enough experience to carry out.
Who formulated and accepted / the associated risk assessment ?
I believe there a lot of guilty parties who did not have a mandate to put us all at such risk.
Massive projected profits never ever sanction the acceptance of such risk to the ecosystem, population, wildlife and enviroment.

If only "they" had asked the U.S. people! This could have all been avoided with a public referendum. Studies would have been requested, and people (lots of them) would have had to be convinced.

That usually happens when safety measures are found and approved.

Now it's all in the hands of these executives. It's not the US vs. Britain.

It's big business vs. the rest of us.

reply to post by IMOVERHERE

Actually in the PDF Hunka mentioned in this thread there's mention that they drilled in a military zone.

reply to post by Copperflower

The audio on the source site sounds to me different than the article reads. I looked at the some of the maps in the MMS Initial Exploration Plan. Have seen two types, so far, both dated 2009. However, I will note that in the article and the audio, they keep referring to models, which I assume are 3D models.

MMS said in early 2000, in a notice to lessees, that it planned to require oil companies operating in deep-water to use new oil-spill predictions specifically designed for deep water.

That regulation never came into effect. Oil companies today still base their contingency plans on the government's models, designed only for surface spills.

And I'm sure the companies were just fine with not upgrading, more time to make money and to avoid spending money to comply. They also knew it could be just the out they needed, when they screwed up. "We were just following orders...the govt plan!" I wonder who sicked the dogs on the MMS?

So basically BP is saying that you did it, that I did it, that the taxpayers of the US did it.

Sure all of this taxpayer funded data was just fine while they sucked out billions of profit from our land with the hundreds of other holes. But this one somehow is our fault?

Unhappy with our data? Get the eff out.

I am wondering what BP is saying in the British media?

Any UK residents on ATS who have seen interviews or anything could help here.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


This is from an Alabama State Television report. Can Mabus help? Let's hope so.

I can't see a Navy man taking BP's approach lying down.

blog.gulflive.com...

By Blaming the "US Government", they allow it to feed the meme that this is "Obama's Fault".

Muddy the waters. Blame everyone but BP.

reply to post by Copperflower


I am wondering what BP is saying in the British media?

y UK residents on ATS who have seen interviews or anything could help Anhere

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We in Britain are not getting an up to date commentry of the whole leak affair. Especially the horrific, catrosrophic effect on the enviroment. There appears to be a massive news suppression operation going on. And to worry you more I think the news control is global. We get no day to day news at all just a bit of BP sponsored propaganda that the BBC seem more then pleased to churn out without question.

We get the odd comment that the US is going to sue the arse off of BP and this will cripple all the pension funds. Then we are told Americans hold 40% share in BP. They dont even broadcast here that Halliburton have a heavy involvement.

Its not the American people v British people. It is all of us against the corporation and any government that has got its hand in the cookie jar.

[edit on 26/6/10 by IMOVERHERE]

This is pretty damning. I feel it reason to liquidate BP and distribute the assets to the states affected, right into the state treasury.

All of the US Geological Survey Data is paid for by the labour and the taxes of the citizens of this country. It is provided to these corporations so that they may extract untold wealth from our lands.

BP is placing the blame on the American citizen now. Our tax-payer funded surveys are just fine for them when it results in profits never before seen in all of human history.

Our taxpayer funded surveys and data are fine when it results in the elevation of the BP Board of Directors to a life of ease and comfort which would make a working man shake with rage.

But when BP effs up and spews their product all over the taxpayers it is now our fault?

It is time to round up the Board of BP, the high level executives, and their lawyers and arrest them. It is time to liquidate BP.

Bastards.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by mike_trivisonno]