Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why is BP so cagy about plumes and so forth?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
yella_dawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 08:59 AM
Original message
Why is BP so cagy about plumes and so forth?
BP's denial every drop of oil found in the gulf is based on sound legal strategy, so to speak. There is a leaky well less than fifty miles away that has been puking into the sea since Hurricane Ike in '08. The leak is trivial compared to the big one, but it's a matter of legal liability. They don't want documented data that will show up in court.



From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Ike#Oil_and_gas_spills">Wikipedia:


Hurricane Ike's winds, surge and giant waves tossed storage tanks and punctured pipelines. However, operators in the Gulf of Mexico (ranging from major integrated producers like BP and Shell, to small privately owned independents) shut in operations in advance of Ike's approach as a precautionary measure. As a result of these shut-ins, US oil production dropped from 5 MMbbl/d (million barrels per day) to 4 MMbbl/d in the immediate aftermath of the hurricane. By late November, production was restored to pre-Ike levels. Despite the hurricane, only half a million gallons of crude oil (12,000 barrels or 1900 cubic meters — a cube 12.3 meters on a side) spilled into the Gulf of Mexico and the marshes, bayous and bays of Louisiana and Texas over a coastline distance of ~300 km. Much of the spillage occurred in the High Island area of Galveston County, Texas, where storm surge rose over a low-lying oilfield and flooded the marshy area around several producing wells, beam pumps and storage tanks. During the days both before and after the storm, companies and residents reported around 448 releases of gas, oil and other substances into the environment in Louisiana and Texas. The hardest hit places were industrial centers near Houston and Port Arthur, Texas, as well as oil production facilities off Louisiana's coast.



From http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/05/national/main4502537.shtml">CBS:



The Minerals Management Service, which oversees oil production in federal waters offshore, said the storm destroyed at least 52 oil platforms of roughly 3,800 in the Gulf of Mexico. Thirty-two more were severely damaged. But there was only one confirmed report of an oil spill - a leak of 8,400 gallons that officials said left no trace because it dissipated with the winds and currents.




Basically, lying their asses off is worth money in the end. What a wonderful world we have created. Capitalism: had enough yet?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
burnsei sensei Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. Denying the facts
does not render them non-existent.
Ignoring the truth does not stop the truth from being true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yella_dawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Even worse.
Jockeying for legal cover long before the first case is filed dramatically increases the damage outside the courtroom.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. The first independent case may not be launched,
but there is a DOJ investigation going on that could lead to criminal charges.

That moves it from "Gee, this will go to court, should we be covering our collective ass?" to "There's an open investigation, meaning that if there's sufficient evidence, given the political situation, it will go to court. Rev up Operation Armored Butt immediately, and put 5 lawyers in charge of all decisions involving the spill."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. The facts, however, are still fuzzy.
The "plumes" or "clouds" exist.

There are at least three proposed origins for them, although more can't be ruled out.

We have no evidence for ascribing the clouds to any of these potential origins, apart from the positing of a source and stating that they exist.

Therefore it's established conclusively that the clouds are from the Deepwater Horizon/BP spill.

That logic worked so well for reports of tar balls, didn't it? Of course, having reached the conclusion by such a sound application of the scientific method and rigorous logic, a lot of people, when confronted with lab tests of the tar balls, decreed their logic to trump chemical analysis. We all want to be critical thinkers and if the analysis were right, that would keep us from being ever so slightly less critical of BP. (Bonus point if you spot the fallacy in that sentence!)

Of course, the researchers claim that they can't ID the source of the clouds without a sample of the oil from the DH/BP spill. On the other hand, if the clouds result from dispersed petroleum, they should find traces of Sorbitan and other chemicals contained in Corexit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 04:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC