Studies Suggest MMS knew Blowout Preventers had 'Critical' Flaws (Oil Spill)

Christian Science Monitor ^ | 6/17/2010 | Mark Clayton

[jongaltsr]

Someone who doesn’t know who the MMS is, has clearly not been following the gulf disaster.

When I worked for MODA as a TFE I knew what that meant and everyone that worked in Saudi Arabia knew who I worked for. When I work as a A1C in the military EVERYONE knew what that meant. So if I became a BFDS for the BFD in Mississippi, everyone in that part of Mississippi would know what I was talking about.

The point is that not everyone knows all the anachronisms available at any given time and that those anachronisms change as fast as people can make them up. If you want people to know what you are talking about, the more you rely on anachronisms the harder it is for ANY audience to keep track of what you are trying to convey.

I also worked for the IRS for awhile and one thing is that most people would have thought that I meant that I was working for the Internal Revenue Service when in reality I worked for a company called the International Relief Society.

[Carley]

Thanks. The best thing about this website is all the knowledge shared by the members.

[Elle Bee]

Inquiring minds want to know who were the incompetents?

I would like to know more about Obama's law school classmate and environmental attorney ... the woman he appointed to head MMS and then fired the day after the blowout

.

[worst-case scenario]

It could have been more profitable, if they’d only followed sensible business practices and industry safety standards.

Since BP’s last quarter profits totaled $6 billion, it looks like they have a little less than 2 years of profits so far.

Perhaps if they’d taken more of their profits in the past, and invested in a the acoustic BOP for half-a-million, that would have been the wisest investment for their stockholders.

But they apparently were more interested in cutting corners. I guess they made some terrible management decisions. It’s their own damn fault.

[Qbert]

But at the same we had a negligent administration:

March 10, 2009 – BP submits an Initial Exploration Plan to MMS for its Macondo well

April 6, 2009 – Obama Administration issues permit for Macondo well

February 2, 2010 – Obama proposes cuts to Coast Guard budget

March 31, 2010 – Obama proposes expanded offshore drilling

April 20, 2010 – TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER HORIZON explodes, killing 11

House committee on transportation and infrastructure timeline

[worst-case scenario]

Did you read the long expose in the NY Times yesterday? It’s not pretty for the administration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/us/21blowout.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

The MMS was still under the effect of a Bush Executive Order, signed in 2001, that required the Dept of Interior to expedite energy production. How? They *had to approve all well drilling applications within 30 days.* If that meant waiving all the environmental apps, so be it. The wells HAD to have expedited approval. The Executive Order of May 2001 is still standing.

That’s why you see such fast turn-around in March - April 2009 on the Macondo well.

It also seems to be why the government took the word of the drillers when the guys lied that the drilling would be safe and they knew how to handle blowouts.

The administration was negligent in that it didn’t kick all the former oil executive cronies out of the MMS and start really scrutinizing these applications *hard.* This government was negligent in appointing Ken Salazar, a huge proponent of off-shore drilling, as Secretary of the Interior. Salazar, with his cozy ties to industry, never met a deep-water well he wasn’t willing to approve.

They were also negligent in taking BP’s word that they could handle the spill and knew what to do. Top Hat, Junk Shot, Top Kill - Obama was played for a chump by these crooks. Of course, now it turns out that NO one knows how to shut this down, so I am still trying to figure out what any government can do to end the gusher if the experts can’t The guys with the experience and expertise all turn out to have no clue.

I guess the other question is if a McCain administration would have handled this any differently. They certainly wouldn’t have been about house-cleaning the MMS - they supported all the Bush era oil-drilling policies.

About the only place where any government could have made a difference is before the drilling operation began. Once BP started, they kept cutting corners and lying about whatthey were doing. The well was a “time bom,” as former rig workers have described it.

Obama could have slowed down the entire process and gotten MMS cleaned up, examined each well application thoroughly even if that meant months of delays. He could have put a moratorium on deep-well drilling until he *knew* that the drillers could deal with a blow-out.

But no, he did the politically expedient thing and tried to placate the “drill, baby, drill” contingent by opening even MORE areas for exploration and drilling - and even bragged about how this was going to speed up energy independence!
(Or is that not the sort of negligence you mean?)

[Eva]

If they kicked all the oil executive cronies out of the MMS, they wouldn’t have anyone left who knew what they were doing. Without experience, book learning is nothing. Academics are mostly dreamers, without any real world experience.

The fact is that some of the oil companies, including BP had developed close ties to the radical greens and had formed an alliance to further the green agenda in exchange for favorable treatment on regulations. There is no other explanation for the exemptions that BP received on the regulations for deep water drilling, particularly allowing them to use a substandard gauge pipe for the casing to save money. Read the article, The Ties that Bind from the LA Times. Those ties are a lot tighter and a lot closer than even the LA Times knew.

[Qbert]

Had Obama wanted to rescind the Bush Executive Order, he had well over a year to do so as president (he’s rescinded other Bush EO’s, btw).

What would McCain have done? That’s pure speculation. McCain only adopted a mildly pro-drilling stance late into his 2008 campaign to try to shore up his base. Would Johnny Come Lately have kept his promise? Well, he’s been known to waffle many times before, so maybe/maybe not.

OTOH, Sarah Palin, despite the “drill baby, drill” ad hominen attacks, had a track record of going after oil companies- in fact she attacked BP for safety lapses. She didn’t simply “take BP’s word”...Hmmm, I know who I would’ve trusted here...

And you dodged my question about airline crashes...

[worst-case scenario]

“There is no other explanation for the exemptions that BP received on the regulations for deep water drilling”

Every other oil drilling company received the same waivers in order to get their applications approved and out the door within 30 days. That was the point of the Executive Order - they were all treated with the alacrity as an industry.

That would be *every* drilling company in the Gulf, not just BP. It can’t be favoritism if the treatment is the same for all.

And as far as oil executives being the only ones who “knew what they were doing,” let’s just point to the evidence at hand. These guys have very little idea what they are doing, or they would have turned off this gusher weeks ago.

[worst-case scenario]

What question about airline crashes? Perhaps you posed it to someone else.

[Eva]

No, they didn’t. The exemptions came after they got the approvals. For instance, BP used sub standard gauge casing arount the pipe that goes into the well, a thinner gauge than was regulation. This is thought by the industry to have played a big role in the blow out and is the reason that Andarko, BP’s partner in the well is accusing BP of negligence. BP was allowed to make one change after another, including three waiver requests in the last days before the blow out. The three requests in such a short time period was unheard of.

[Qbert]

My comment must have not posted- Had that happen with a post once. Oh well, my bad.

[worst-case scenario]

Now that is info I hadn’t read before. Can you source me? I’d love to follow it up.

I was familiar with the Andarko suit and its rationale. What is really imperative is to find out if there was really a “quid pro quo”, with the granting of waivers in exchange *for* something of value to radical greenies. That would be the smoking gun.

For example, was the granting of waivers everyday business for the MMS? The defense might argue that it doesn’t matter how many BP got, if everyone gets whatever they ask for.

We need to pin this down firmly or any attempts to hold the administration accountable will flounder.

[worst-case scenario]

Actually, it looks like you asked freethinker_for_freedom about jet engines. Tweak *his* nose ;)

[Eva]

I think that the information about the three waivers in the days before the blow-out were included in an article in the WSJ. The remark that went along with the statement was that the waivers were unprecedented.

[Eva]

There seems to be a lot that you haven’t read before. What I have been trying to say is that BP is a politicized company and has been for over ten years, since they started their “Beyond Petroleum” campaign. The company has developed a sort of, you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours, relationship with bureaucrats, politicians and activists on environmental issues. It’s phony of course, but BP execs have been willing to talk the environmental talk, often to the detriment of others in the industry and even private property owners, to help advance political environmental issues to increase their own green creds and win support of both regulators and politicians. Remember that regulators are nothing but bureaucrats, union bureaucrats.

[worst-case scenario]

What a gracious way to say “You’re Welcome.” There is perhaps not “a lot” that I haven’t read, but certainly not that one WSJ citation you mention. Once again, thank you for your reference. You can keep the gratuitous insult, though there are probably an abundance you could provide.

[Eva]

I didn't mean to insult you, but I get really tired of people trying to defend BP. BP is indefensible and has been a drag on the industry for decades. My husband has been personally involved with trying to reform BP for three decades. We have been adversely affected by BP, and my husband has been professionally threatened by BP, and all we hear from government bureaucrats, politicians and activists is that BP is just alway trying to do the "right" thing.

Following the EXXON Valdez spill, BP threatened to professionally destroy my husband in a court of law if he testified against Alyeska. My husband had never considered testifying against them, but BP knew that his testimony would have been devastating.

[worst-case scenario]

Eva, I think you misunderstand my position. I have no patience for BP apologists, either.Every single one of my comments about this disaster has laid the blame firmly on BP, who I believe to be a criminal enterprise masquerading as a responsible corporation. Behind its crass “Beyond Petroleum” image is nothing but a group of thieves determined to extract as much cash from energy sources as possible, with disregard for safety, environmental impact, personal or corporate responsibility or even human life. I have even gotten attacked by some BP apologists here as a “greenie” for my position.

This is only the last of many, many despicable actions that BP has committed in its quest for the greatest profit at the least cost of investment, hang the consequences for anything but the bottom line.

Their failure to use an acoustical BOP on the Deepwater Horizon that they must use on almost every other deep-well drilling project in the world, because it would cost half a million - this from a company that earned 6 billion dollars profit *last quarter alone* - should be cause for their debarment from drilling anywhere near our shorelines(at least until they drill more responsibly.)

I see now that we are on the same side of this equation. I find it naive and even fantastic that the Obama administration relied on the boiler-plate assurances of BP without even reading their boiler-plate documents fully.

Where we may differ is that I think that naive trust of BP does not equate to a conspiracy to willingly let them engage in known reckless actions. I think the Obama administration were chumps. I think they didn’t clean house in the 18 month of office before this happened.

But the political demand for “lesas regulation” and for “letting the xperts in business handle things, not the bureaucrats in Washington” has been constant for the last thirty years. Now we can’t just get angry at DC because they didn’t do what we were fighting to stop them from doing for so long. It’s intellectually contradictory.

If I had to apportion blame, I would give 90% to this lying, reckless, criminally negligent band of embezzlers. The US, of course, ran the risk of this happening when they let the rigs drill so close to our shores. We believed what we wanted to hear - and these con men sold it to us.

But I blame the con men, not the conned. And I include the Bush and Obama administrations among the conned.

I am deeply sympathetic to your husband’s obviously unjust treatment. All we can say is that at least he wasn’t blown to bits like the men in Texas City or on the Horizon. But his experience is just one more proof of how willing this corporation is to destroy lives in order to protect income streams.

Thank youfor your response.

I would deeply appreciate any links you can forward me. This is a major event in our nation’s history, and I am trying to learn as much as I can.

[Eva]

Where you make your mistake is thinking that the Obama administration were simply "chumps". How could they be "chumps" when it was one of their own, who designed the whole "beyond petroleum" campaign?

To use another example, BP has built new double hulled tankers to carry Alaskan oil. BP has a straw company which was set up to skirt the Jones Act, with regulators permission. These tankers were losing parts, important parts, right in the Gulf of Alaska. The president of the tanker company wrote to Congress to plead with them to force BP to replace these defective parts which were made with improperly cured Chinese steel. Again, no action was taken against BP. As a matter of fact, BP was praised for no accidents and no lost days of service. They didn't consider breaking down in the Gulf of Alaska, an accident.