*Agency That Was Supposed To Be Regulating BP Admits Cracks Appeared In Well Last February*

Agency That Was Supposed To Be Regulating BP Admits Cracks Appeared In Well Last February

www.businessinsider.com

The pathetic Mining and Mineral Services agency has released documents to Bloomberg that show BP was dealing with major cracks in the Maconda well as early as February.

On Feb. 13, BP told the minerals service it was trying to seal cracks in the well about 40 miles (64 kilometers) off the Louisiana coast,



Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 17-6-2010 by monkeySEEmonkeyDO]

WELL WELL WELL.......... It's all coming together now!!!


















www.businessinsider.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The entire article:


The pathetic Mining and Mineral Services agency has released documents to Bloomberg that show BP was dealing with major cracks in the Maconda well as early as February.

On Feb. 13, BP told the minerals service it was trying to seal cracks in the well about 40 miles (64 kilometers) off the Louisiana coast, drilling documents obtained by Bloomberg show. Investigators are still trying to determine whether the fissures played a role in the disaster.

The company attempted a “cement squeeze,” which involves pumping cement to seal the fissures, according to a well activity report. Over the following week the company made repeated attempts to plug cracks that were draining expensive drilling fluid, known as “mud,” into the surrounding rocks.

Proof that BP knew there was a problem months ahead of time could increase liability for BP. In a letter to Tony Hayward earlier this week, congressmen focused their questions on mistakes BP made in the week leading up to the explosion.



Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

Obama "What we need is more regulations"



Regulations DO NOTHING
It's same old song and dance, Govt. throwing money at the problem

What did Ronald Raegan Say?
"The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a govt. department, once it's created they never close it"

Regulations do not work, just ask the SEC

BP trying to save a couple million dollars is now costing billions, that is what you get when profit margins are more important than safety.

I want to say something else

EVERY major event, and even minor ones were PREVENTABLE

Yet govt. decides to go hysteric with more and more laws nonetheless when if they just adhered to ones already in place we wouldn't be in this mess!

"Terroists hate us for our freedoms, they hate us for our way of life"

Very true!
They do hate us!
Now the question is.... who are they?

In a previois thread, I made the connection of BP being a founding memeber of USCAP, which strongly lobbies for Cap and Trade regulations, and how BP will profit form this leak.

This leak is resulting to public demand for government help (which is what they wanted), and now Obama will "help" by pushing through this Cap and Trade Bill which he talked about in his latest speech. BP is taking a beating right now, but will profit in the long run with global government regulations (Cap and Trade) by forcing people into using their technology.




www.abovetopsecret.com...

What I don't understand is why Halliburton is not included in the law sues and the investigation when they are part of the problem what cause the oil leak.

Just read that BP dropped out of the USCAP in February, just as the leaks were found. Was this an effort to erase any "Conflict of Interest" views? If BP stayed with USCAP while this (staged?) disaster took place, then people would of made the BP=USCAP=Cap&Trade connection.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I disagree.

Regulations work great when the people who are supposed to enforce the regulations aren't allowed to receive money, gifts, and generally "be in bed" with those they regulate.

reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO


Before I leap out with anyone else saying this is a smoking gun that shows that the well was destined to fail...

How common are these cracks? Do they frequently appear in oil drilling operations? Do they abandon the well if so? Do wells with these cracks have a higher rate of failure than ones that don't?

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
Just read that BP dropped out of the USCAP in February, just as the leaks were found. Was this an effort to erase any "Conflict of Interest" views? If BP stayed with USCAP while this (staged?) disaster took place, then people would of made the BP=USCAP=Cap&Trade connection.

Hello,
I'm pretty sure you just did make that connection, good job!

Now to expose it to the masses.

ETA;
Oops! link for said info?

[edit on (6/17/1010 by loveguy]

reply to post by ThaLoccster


I COMPLETELY agree with you that regulations work great when the people who enforce them are honest and hardworking.. But BP dropping out of the USCAP at the same time when they found the leaks, AND did nithing to stop them, is something that needs to be looked into.

BP HAS connections with USCAP (lobbies Cap and Trade). BP also contributed to Obama's Campiagn, and now Obama is pushing for Cap and Trade... I think that's a great connection.

reply to post by loveguy


Obama and BP connection
www.politico.com...


The pathetic Mining and Mineral Services agency has released documents to Bloomberg that show BP was dealing with major cracks in the Maconda well as early as February

Read more: www.businessinsider.com...
www.businessinsider.com...

BP quite USCAP this past February
www.washingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO

 

Before I leap out with anyone else saying this is a smoking gun that shows that the well was destined to fail...

How common are these cracks? Do they frequently appear in oil drilling operations? Do they abandon the well if so? Do wells with these cracks have a higher rate of failure than ones that don't?

Hello,

Good question(s).

The sea floor at this wells location is not like most land-based wells. It is comprised of a salt-rock kind of stuff, I read somewhere.
I think what happened in this case is that they drilled through a fissure...A pre-existing condition, which I believe was ignored.

I wish I knew more at this juncture...

Here's something;patterico.com...

It does not address what I was conveying, but implicates Halliburton, I think.

[edit on (6/17/1010 by loveguy]

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
reply to post by loveguy

 

Obama and BP connection
www.politico.com...


The pathetic Mining and Mineral Services agency has released documents to Bloomberg that show BP was dealing with major cracks in the Maconda well as early as February

Read more: www.businessinsider.com...
www.businessinsider.com...

BP quite USCAP this past February
www.washingtonpost.com...

Hello,

Please take this as a compliment.

I see how you nail things down pretty good, so in my mind, when I see your avatar, I think to myself; "He's the Hammerhead!"

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
I disagree.

Regulations work great when the people who are supposed to enforce the regulations aren't allowed to receive money, gifts, and generally "be in bed" with those they regulate.

Well i'm pretty sure you do agree

I didn't mean to say regulations don't work completely
I meant to say regulations that are already in place are sufficient

No need to over-regulate is what I should have said

reply to post by ModernAcademia


really? You think allowing a company to continue to drill which such an outrageous safety record compared to every other oil company is an example of sufficient regulations?


Obviously there is one more regulations which should be applied.... when you have 700+ safety violations in the same amount of time that your closest competitor had 8... then you should be forced to stop drilling in US waters.

Period.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


My bad, I guess I just misunderstood your point.

Seems many regulations that would have prevented this current crisis were allowed to be rejected.

The one regulation that would have surely stopped this crisis, making acoustic cut off switches mandatory.

But they are too expensive to implement they say.

From what I have seen, the set up costs about $500,000. The rig costs about $560 million. Not to mention the costs of cleanup and recovery, plus fines and penalties. Together with the decline in stock I think BP financially would have been better off with these switches in place.

I know the world would be better off with mandatory acoustic switches on future oil rigs, cause lets be real. This will not stop off shore oil drilling, even to those depths.

Its like Crusty the Clown said to Bart Simpson:
Bart
"Why did you put your name on that cheap piece of junk?
Crusty
I didn't want to, but they showed up with a dump truck full of money!"
*sigh*