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.