Is there anyone who thinks it is in BP's best interest to let the oil continue to flow?

[Stinky The Clown]

Is there anyone who thinks that up to some point in the past, that would have been in BP's best interest?

There is every reason to think BP is the spawn of Satan. The evidence of their wrongdoings are there for anyone who cares to look at it. But I have seen nothing to demonstrate that letting the oil flow would somehow help them. If I am wrong, I'd like to be shown my error.

[uponit7771]

1. Yes, it cost them 25 million to drill the hole and thse stupid bastards prolly though they wouldn't

...have to pay that much to clean it up seeing that it was only 1000 barrels a day gushing out of the well.

[Statistical]

5. BP has spent $800 million on mitigation so far.

Deep water well costs about $100 million to drill maybe $150 million total to bring it into production.

Just the cost so far would pay for 5+ deepwater wells. That doesn't include the fines, damages, and long term cleanup.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Let me restate that ......

.... you're suggesting that, at the beginning, they thought the leak was small, the investment was high, and the cheaper solution was to try to stop the leak but save the wellhead and return it to service, environmental issues be damned. Is that correct?

If so, it is a good point, and follows logic.

[tavalon]

13. That is what I believed and still believe was their plan in the beginning

They wanted to be able to get at the oil later so they used techniques that they thought would mitigate the disaster. But no more. They, our government, everyone is in disaster mode now.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

19. I could buy that but what a lot of people aren't taking into account is..

The relief well they're drilling gives them the avenue to get to the oil later. It is a fully functional well tap. The one that blew can never be functional after it failed. There was no saving it from the beginning. That's just the nature of the business.

[Statistical]

21. Relief well is too small to be production well.

Production well will take about 7-8 months to drill. The rig that sank had been drilling since last year to reach the oil pocket.
To speed up drilling time the bore (width) of well is substantially reduced. That combined with extreme slant drilling and drilling into a damaged well casing makes the relief well nearly useless as a production well.

The larger issue is the relief well will cement the main well and that will seal relief well too. Here is why. You can't cement something while the cement is moving. BP can only force and control fluids DOWN the well.

So when relief well intersects the main well they will pump mud into main well to force oil way down (mile down into the pocket).
They will then pump cement into main well (below the point of relief well juncture. Then to hold cement in place they will pump more mud. The cement will seal the main well BELOW the relief well + main well juncture. At that both both wells will be "blocked" from oil pocket.


Relief wells aren't used for production. They will find a new spot on same lease and start new production well miles from the damaged wells.

[LanternWaste]

25. What specifically leads you to that conclusion?

"was their plan in the beginning..."

What specifically leads you to that conclusion?

[Cresent City Kid]

20. I'm only speculating, but I thought the same thing

Remember when Homer Simpson had his hand stuck in a vending machine for hours because he wouldn't let go of the can of soda? I think this is what BP has been doing, trying to save the oil and face, losing on both counts. After the leak is stopped, I predict that they'll want to make the relief wells replacement wells and return to business as usual.

[MineralMan]

2. I can't think of a single way that a continuing leak would

benefit BP or anyone else. Not one. This entire debacle may end up destroying BP, and probably should. The only thing that will benefit them is a successful end to the spewing.

But, then, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm sure there is a CT that explains it all.

[babylonsister]

3. No. This is a financial and PR nightmare for them. nt

[Xicano]

4. People need to go to prison over this and I don't mean country club prison. I mean the state pen.

All BP's assets should be froze too until they've made good on all the damage they're responsible for.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. I agree with you

I would actually like to see us seize all their US assets and levy criminal charges against all their leadership personally and against the company as a whole.

I am pro death penalty when the "person" found guilty is a corporation.

[Still Sensible]

17. It seems to me there could potentially be criminal

charges for somebody for 11 counts of negligent homicide. They would have to find a paper trail to pin it on any of the folks at the top. I don't know about other potential criminal charges. It appears many instances of violating regulations are in play, but I don't know if those violations can lead to criminal charges.

[csziggy]

12. I would love to see some of the BP top brass go to Angola

There is the place I want my worst enemies to be locked up.

[Kokonoe]

8. If Halliburton is involved, and Dick Cheney is close by.

Then BP should be worried, because they F****d themselves from the BFEE.

[backscatter712]

9. Absolutely not - this is going to cost them billions.

There's the direct damages from the spill, there going to be fines from the government, there's going to be millions spent on lawyers to try to weasel out of this, there's the hundreds of millions they have to pay for mitigation and attempts to plug the leak. Then there's the bad press, the boycotts, the lost reputation.

BP's pure fucking evil, but right now, they're absolutely motivated to stop the leak and end this disaster by any means necessary.

[NNN0LHI]

10. No that is pure craziness

Another honest answer.

Don

[laughingliberal]

11. No. But I sure think covering up the problem & cheaping out on cleanup is. nt

[tavalon]

14. Now, what in the world would make you think that?

Exxon Valdez?

:sarcasm:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

15. I don't. For anyone to even suggest that makes no logical sense.

Like I said here yesterday, if you want to say they're lying about the rate of flow, or used disspersants to hide the damage under the waters of the gulf, that's different. I've been saying that from the beginning as well. Those are things which BP can actually gain something from for lying about and doing. But there's nothing for them to gain, and so very much for them to lose, by letting the oil continue to leak out into the gulf unchecked.

[dems_rightnow]

16. No thinking person believes that

It's a financial, production, and PR disaster.

[jtrockville]

18. Frankly, the well-being of BP hasn't crossed my mind.

I've been too focused on their ill-preparedness and their disregard for safety.

[blindpig]

22. I think it unlikely, but time will tell.

That would be over the top even for capitalist scum.

But....if the Gulf is as badly fucked as I fear and a couple years down the line the oil industry petitions for release from restrictions in the Gulf cause there ain't nothin' worth saving then things start looking very fishy.

For the time being it seems that the entire response has been managed solely as a PR exercise, that is criminal beyond the pall in itself.

Expropriate without compensation.

[L0oniX]

23. Fuck their interests ...bomb that fucker!

[Stinky The Clown]

24. Um ..... no one is concerned about their interests

The point was that to imply they wanted the oil to continue to flow is a stupid thing to say

[troubledamerican]

26. Cui bono? Who benefits?

The right-wing benefits politically.

Especially if Obama doesn't. Especially if the economy doesn't.

When the right-wing benefits politically, then in the long run, the plutocracy benefits, the oligarchy benefits...

... and BP will benefit in the long run.

[Lorien]

27. Shock Doctrine. Never let a "good disaster" go to waste

the only far fetched idea I've heard is that a dead Gulf would offer no reason to limit drilling. I doubt that anything will be better or worse for BP either way. But they are supposed to no longer be in charge, correct?

[moondust]

28. One little conspiracy theory.

The wrong kind of evil bastards from a James Bond movie might threaten to let it bleed until they get immunity from prosecution.

Conceivably adding leverage: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8439213

Surely no real person is that corrupt...

[tekisui]

29. Only if the cost to fix it is higher than the probable fine increase from

future leaking. Otherwise, yeah. They have no reason to let it flow.

[Swamp Rat]

30. No matter what, that oil and the profits from that oil belong to the residents of the Gulf of Mexico

We need every fucking penny they got, from the crude, to the refineries, to their private yachts, mansions, and children's college funds.