Posted on 08/08/2006 4:38:02 PM PDT by John W
So you claim that BP deliberately killed 15 or 16 people in the refinery explosion and deliberately allowed their pipelines to corrode so that they could maintain share price.
You are a business genius.
poured 2 days worth of oil into the Arctic
Don't let the facts get in your way.
This is a dog and pony show to keep pump prices jacked up.
I was almost with you till this bullshit statement
And you're probably correct, seeing as gas prices at many stations in this area dropped 35 cents a gallon late this morning, from $3.09 down to $2.74. Some stations remained unchanged at $3.09 late this afternoon, which is a mystery to me. We'll see how fast they go back up, but for now, I'll take it.
It shows how people get "conditioned" to higher gas prices though. A year ago I would have been screaming at seeing gas at $2.30/gal and now I'm happy to see them at "only" $2.74.
Gas prices have doubled in three years no matter how you slice it, that's a fact, and no matter what the cause, it just ain't right. Someone is lining their pockets bigtime at the expense of millions of people.
"Gas prices have doubled in three years no matter how you slice it, that's a fact, and no matter what the cause, it just ain't right. Someone is lining their pockets bigtime at the expense of millions of people"
Prices have doubled and consumption continues to increase as well. I don't like the cost any more than the next guy. I am glad though that I'm not waiting in line for hours to purchase 10 gallons on designated days.
Firstly, I did not suggest that BP killed 15 people to maintain its share price, but I DID suggest that these examples were indicative of a culture of ignoring problems and looking for cheap answers at BP. I could also point to the previous accidents at BP’s Texas City refinery (poor maintenance) and the way it has previously persecuted whistle blowers who try to highlight safety concerns (described by a US Federal judge as “reminiscent of Nazi Germany”!)
I personally favor the view that the cause of the problem was negligent incompetence rather than conspiracy, but it just will not wash to pretend that BP comes out of innocent. BP has not run a smart pig through that pipe to check the corrosion for 14 years. They only ran one this month - months after the pipe ruptured in March - because the Alaskan State ordered them to. If this had been done in March, after the spill they would have had the materials in place by now to replace the pipe and work would have been completed this year.
I DID suggested that the timing of the pipe closure is convenient for BP, as the shut down now falls right in the middle of peak seasonal demand, and a Middle East crisis. When the earnings this year are reported, and executive bonuses calculated, they will be larger in both cases than last time. Meanwhile, BP’s share price remains squarely in the middle of its 12 month range.
By contrast with the Trans Alaska Pipeline is checked every 12-18 months. Is it made out of some other substance? Does it carry something other than the same oil that BP’s pipe carries? No. So why does BP not run Smart Pigs in its pipeline? Because it’s cheaper to run the ultrasound, then argue the findings are inconclusive and that nothing needs doing. It certainly isn’t smart, but then the culture at BP, as suggested by their string of accidents, suggests that cheap is better than smart at BP.
As for the comment about ‘2 days’ worth of oil, BP have been quoted almost everywhere as saying that they pump around 120,000 barrels of oil per day through that pipeline (about another 180,000 from Exxon Mobil and others also pass through it), so a spill of 250,000 constitutes about 2 days worth of oil as far as BP is concerned. As long as 2+2 still equals 4 in this world, I was actually understating BP’s earlier failings.
You also cannot deny that ARCO in California will benefit from jacked up gas prices.
If you read the reports to the public on this accident, you would know that the root cause of the accident was due to the operators negligently not following the written procedures for restarting the reformer unit. Also the supervisor tasked with managing the restart had left the premises for a family emergency. The major factor contributing to the scale of the accident was indeed poor maintenance. This was an old refinery BP acquired in the merger with Amoco. BP was in the process of updating the facilities, but as is now apparent the pace was not quick enough and it was not recognized by refinery management the seriousness of the deficient safety systems that would have helped compensate for the negligence of the operators who did not follow procedures. These managers were relieved of duty because of their negligence and I’m sure that’s not the end of their problems.
the way it has previously persecuted whistle blowers who try to highlight safety concerns (described by a US Federal judge as “reminiscent of Nazi Germany”!)
Liberals, including liberal judges, sling the term “Nazi” around liberally, so that doesn’t have the import it once used to. The negligent managers have been relieved of duty. I personally favor the view that the cause of the problem was negligent incompetence rather than conspiracy
You have hidden this well in your previous posts by taking the effort to link BP's accidents with increasing it's share price. By the way, BP's share price immediately dropped after the pipeline leak, and is still down, so your theory is wrong.
it just will not wash to pretend that BP comes out of innocent
Nobody has claimed BP is innocent. Something happened and they are responsible. I just don't go with your theroy that they planned these accidents to drive up their share price.
They only ran one this month - months after the pipe ruptured in March - because the Alaskan State ordered them to.
Wrong again, Kemosabe. Immediately after the leak, BP started making the arrangements for smart pigging, before the State order was made.
If this had been done in March, after the spill they would have had the materials in place by now to replace the pipe and work would have been completed this year.
BP doesn't just have smart-pigs sitting on the shelf to use. These are contracted out and have to be shipped in. This takes time and depends on if the smart-pigs are readily available and not in use elsewhere. Then the pigging data needs to be analyzed and reports made. Before you speculate any further, look into what's the lead time for getting this pipe to the Alaskan North Slope.
I DID suggested that the timing of the pipe closure is convenient for BP
No, you suggested they planned it for this timing. Now your conspiracy theory says they carefully engineered the corrosion rate to occur during peak demand. Besides being a business genius you are also an engineering genius. By the way, BP has now found a way to reduce the shutdown volume by half. They wouldn't have done that if they were going to benefit by huge reductions of production, as you've suggested, so that part of your theory is now proven false.
Meanwhile, BP’s share price remains squarely in the middle of its 12 month range
The fact is that BP's share price was increasing before the leak, and immediately dropped after it. The share price is still down significantly from the pre-leak peak. Your theory is wrong.
By contrast with the Trans Alaska Pipeline is checked every 12-18 months. Is it made out of some other substance? Does it carry something other than the same oil that BP’s pipe carries? No. So why does BP not run Smart Pigs in its pipeline?
Yes, the Trans Alaska Pipeline does carry some other substance, since it transports oil from a number of other fields, with varying compositions of crude and contaminants, besides the one where the pipeline leak occurred. So the composition of the fluids in the Trans Alaska Pipeline is not the same as where the leak occurred. Before jumping to conclusions, you should look into the metallurgy of both lines to see if they are the same. Not all pipelines are made of the same alloys.
So why does BP not run Smart Pigs in its pipeline?
BP runs smart-pigs in Alaska all the time. There have been newspaper articles about, it if you had cared to check. Why this pipeline had not been recently smart-pigged is that earlier smart-pig runs, through 15 years of pipeline usage, indicated no significant corrosion was occurring. Follow-up checks were then routinely conducted with multiple spot checks with ultra-sound detection equipment. These checks were part of the $73 million annual budget BP had for corrosion protection and monitoring. These ultra-sound checks have proven reliable until just recently, and use of these ultra sounds are industry standard practice for corrosion monitoring. No business spends extra money if all the indications are it isn't necessary. Your accusation is again that BP intentionally let the lines corrode to save money. Your a business and engineering genius.
As for the comment about ‘2 days’ worth of oil, BP have been quoted almost everywhere as saying that they pump around 120,000 barrels of oil per day through that pipeline (about another 180,000 from Exxon Mobil and others also pass through it), so a spill of 250,000 constitutes about 2 days worth of oil
250,000 what? GALLONS, not barrels. You do understand the difference in units don't you? At least try to get your facts straight.
As long as 2+2 still equals 4 in this world, I was actually understating BP’s earlier failings.
But your answer didn't add up to 4. Go back to business and engineering school and learn what you are talking about.
You also cannot deny that ARCO in California will benefit from jacked up gas prices.
I'm sure you'll carry-on in your belief that these accidents were done on purpose. You've proven you don't let the facts get in your way.
As I keep asking and never get a coherent response, if Big Oil has this omnipotent ability to fix prices, why were we ever paying less than $1/gallon? If there were a conspiracy, prices would be high and *stable*.
Not only were you wrong about the volumes spilled, but you need to understand that you can go to any WalMart parking lot in the country, on any given day, and find more spilled oil there than has been spilled in 98% of the spills on the North Slope of Alaska. The operators there are working under very tight restrictions.
Even very small amounts of contaminants spilled receive attention. The vehicles operated there are required to have drip pans placed under them, when parked and running or not, to catch any drips off the engine, radiator, or exhaust. And quite a few of the larger trucks have drips pans placed permanently to catch anything even while driving. Do you personally make that effort to save the environment?
Any oil that reaches the tundra is recovered. All of it. The oil that couldn't be recovered on the surface is recovered by digging up the soil and remediating it. Strict testing requirements are in place and the oil companies, along with the Alaska Dept of Environmental Conservation conduct follow-up tests to ensure no contamination of the tundra remains.
So for all the oil BP has "poured into the Arctic", there is none still there.
Post #61 was meant to be addressed to you.
Thanks, Titanites, I followed it.
I would thank you to stop putting words in my mouth, though. I did say “you decide” (i.e., for yourself). I said, “I personally favor the view that the cause of the problem was negligent incompetence rather than conspiracy.” You said, “The negligent managers have been relieved of duty.” That sounds like agreement on the cause: negligence.
I never claimed BP left the oil there in March, only that they did spill it because they have not maintained the pipe. If they have reclaimed it and cleaned up, that's great. What would be even greater is if BP operated the pipeline in line with the standard operating procedures of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, scraping & smart-pigged that pipe regularly. They have not for 14 years. You made the point that BP do not own a smart-pig (not an unreasonable precaution when they operate so many pipelines), and you point out that because they don’t own one they have to book one. But they have not done so for 14 years on this pipe.
You also make a good point about metallurgy. I am not a chemist or a metallurgist, but I do know that steel corrodes – especially in the extreme climate of Alaska, let alone with crude pumping through it. I also note that you don’t have any metallurgical analysis either, so that’s a moot point, I guess. But it does not change the fact that the TAP is scraped and smart-pigged regularly and BP haven’t bothered on this pipe.
No matter how good the data might be from the ultrasound, they have had numerous members of their own staff highlighting this very issue and have ignored, silenced and intimidated people to avoid doing anything. Now the bill comes due. As for the lead time on getting pipe to the North Slope, BP has said they now expect to get replacement pipe in the area by the end of the year. My point stands: if this had been dealt with immediately in March, the pipe would be in place now.
Congratulations on attempting to make this about my environmental record. Nice try at diversion. I cannot and do not claim to live an exemplary life with regards to the environment. I don’t have pans slung under my car to catch oil, but I have my car serviced annually or every 10,000 miles (which ever comes first), to ensure that it doesn’t leak, it works efficiently and safely. It’s a regime of checks that ensures smooth function, and I don’t begrudge the expense to maintain a safe, efficient, reliable vehicle.
It is not unreasonable to expect a multi-national company like BP to meet the same standards as its neighbours, competitors or the same standards it applies in other parts of the world (it does smart-pig its North Sea pipes in the UK every 5 years).
Regarding BP’s share price, BP Plc is trading on the London Stock Exchange right now at GBP 70.03. The 52 week high was 76.47 and the low was 63.33. They ARE tracking slap, bang in the middle of their 12 month range. The share price tail-dived through May/June to around 65, climbed to just over 72 and then down to 69 when the latest disaster was announced. I would say that this is causing no major damage to their share price as it is still 7% up on the price 2 months ago. If it drops below the 65 level I will stand corrected. If it manages to fall below 63, I owe you a beer.
BP is the majority owner of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and one of its executives is the president of that organization. It is, in essence, BP that ensures this pipeline is well maintained. As far as BP's pipeline that leaked, if you have years and years and years of smart-pig data and ultra-sound data that demonstrates that smart-pigging is no longer necessary, you don't spend the huge amounts of money to do it. It is prudent business practice, not that you have any experience with that. Where BP got caught is that something suddenly changed the environment in the pipe - fluid velocities decreased to a level that the solids weren't carried away, some water carried over into the pipe, or SRB growth was initiated, etc. As far as standard operating procedures - they don't apply to all pipelines. No pipe system is the same. It is impossible to apply the same standard operating procedure to all pipelines. You should know this with your vast engineering knowlege.
they have not maintained the pipe
This is a flat-out lie. The paper indicates they put a tremendous amount of maintenance into the pipe - including extensive ultra-sound testing and routine application of corrosion inhibitors. For nearly 30-years, their maintenance has proven adequate. Recently, something changed in the environment in the pipe and BP was caught by surprise. Corrosion happens everywhere - you can't stop it, you can just slow it down. Pipelines leak everywhere on a regular basis. Even the perfect Trans-Alaska Pipeline you keep touting has had to shutdown for leaks. Where were you then?
You made the point that BP do not own a smart-pig (not an unreasonable precaution when they operate so many pipelines), and you point out that because they don’t own one they have to book one.
Oil companies do not own there own smart-pigs. They are highly specialized tools, requiring high maintenance, and take specially trained personnel to read the data. There are companies who specialize in these services and supply the smart-pigs to the whole industry. Everyone in the industry has to book them. It is standard and accepted industry practice.
I do know that steel corrodes – especially in the extreme climate of Alaska, let alone with crude pumping through it.
Well, you are wrong again. The climate on the North Slope of Alaska is one of the least conducive to corrosion. Rain fall is low, and the North Slope is considered a desert environment. Humidity is low. So, for external corrosion, the problem is going to be much less than say places like Louisiana or Texas. As far as internal corrosion, which is really the concern here, the least corrosive environment you can have is pumping dry crude oil, i.e. with no water present. That is what the pipeline pumped. Your expertise in corrosion is lacking.
I also note that you don’t have any metallurgical analysis either, so that’s a moot point, I guess.
Yes, it is. You shouldn't have even brought it up if you don't have the facts to support your case.
But it does not change the fact that the TAP is scraped and smart-pigged regularly and BP haven’t bothered on this pipe.
This is a lie. They bothered to do it for 15-years. The data obtained indicated it wasn't necessary and that the high cost of smart-pigging was not justified. So they stopped, as all other companies would do if they follow prudent business practices. And they carried on with extensive ultra-sound tesing, according to standard industry practices.
No matter how good the data might be from the ultrasound, they have had numerous members of their own staff highlighting this very issue
Were there complaints specifically about smart-pigging? What were the qualifications of the people complaining? Were they corrosion experts? Unless you know, this is another moot point you're hanging your hat on. All of the reports I've read in the paper are that the people complaining were unionized hourly workers. They complain about everything, all the time, just as every union does. If business jumped to rectify every whim and complaint by the unions, there wouldn't be any more unions - because there wouldn't be any more business.
BP has said they now expect to get replacement pipe in the area by the end of the year. My point stands: if this had been dealt with immediately in March, the pipe would be in place now.
And if they had ordered it last year, it would have been in place at the time of the first leak. Hindsight is 20/20. You should hire yourself out as a consultant. As far as being dealt with in March, no your argument does not stand. I addressed this point above and the reasons for delay. Have you forgotten already?
Congratulations on attempting to make this about my environmental record. Nice try at diversion.
This diversion was started by you. You are the one who claimed BP poured oil into the Arctic. When you spill something it is an accident. Expect it to be addressed if you make untrue and inflammatory comments. When you pour something, it is on purpose.
It is not unreasonable to expect a multi-national company like BP to meet the same standards as its neighbours, competitors
It does meet the same standards. Please point out a single multi-national company like BP who has never had a leak on a major pipeline. Just one.
or the same standards it applies in other parts of the world (it does smart-pig its North Sea pipes in the UK every 5 years).
And BP smart-pigs a significant number of its pipelines on the North Slope of Alaska on a regular basis. As in the UK, it smart-pigs on those lines that the data indicates it is needed, and as frequently as is needed. 15-years of smart-pig data and 15-years of ultra-sound data indicated smart-pigging was no longer necessary on this dry oil pipeline in question. Can you understand that? Can you understand that BP regularly smart-pigs other lines on the Slope, as the data indicates is required? I've told you this elsewhere, but it keeps coming back.
The share price tail-dived through May/June to around 65, climbed to just over 72 and then down to 69 when the latest disaster was announced. I would say that this is causing no major damage to their share price as it is still 7% up on the price 2 months ago. If it drops below the 65 level I will stand corrected
Your original premise, that I addressed, was that BP did this to "maintain" share price. Your own words indicate that is not true since the share price dropped immediately when the pipeline leak was announced. Now you've changed your tune to "that this is causing no major damage to their share price". Neither is the accident maintaining share price. Your business sense is something else. Also, your use of "disaster" is fast and loose. What is the "disaster" you've envisioned?
I owe you a beer
Keep your beer. You're going to need the money with the business expertise you've acquired.
So do you work for BP, then?
Does it matter, when all I'm doing is pointing out that your facts and speculation are in error? To answer your question, no I don't. But I live in Alaska, and with the scrutiny the oil industry operates under up here, we all follow it pretty closely since the papers have them under the microscope all the time.
They haven't run a pig through it for over 10 years. That is criminal in my opinion.
You just need a Mister Fusion and the SUV will go for a long time on a gallon of milk.
I WAS wondering but being a hunter myself I got it!!! But hey what adults do is their business!
Good to hear that your local paper covers this stuff in such detail. It’s rare to find anyone on this board who trusts the media (by and large a wise move).
If I was wrong from the outset about cost of this incident to BP it WOULD have made sound business & financial sense to scrape & smart-pig the pipe regularly (and its not hindsight when employees and state officials have been asking the company to do so for years).
Or I was right, that they have not suffered any real loss from the incident caused by their failed inspection regime & subscequnet shut down of the pipe makes financial sense for BP.
It cannot be both.
Either way, I like the level of detail in your arguement and if I get up to Alaska I'd still like to buy you a beer!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.