Below are a few letters received ar EnergyBiz Insider on topics that appeared in the past few weeks. They capture the essence of how many readers say they feel.
________________________________________
The Offshore Paradox - June 04, 2010
Whether we're smart enough as a people to recognize that the most recent Gulf oil spill should be a wake-up call for providing real safety measures when drilling is yet to be determined. The obvious knee-jerk reaction to the mess was for our president to announce a moratorium on deep-water drilling, followed by even more draconian measures in the process of finding oil. Very little noise is being heard about the over-riding urgency (theoretically) of checking the some 36,000 existing wells continuing to operate in the Gulf to see whether a similar disaster is possible yet again.
Yes, we reacted the same way after the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, although other areas of the modern world went ahead with building bulletproof nuclear plants.
It is a truism that absolutely nothing bad will happen if we just don't go where these problems exist -- oil, gas, coal, nuclear, etc. It is also a truism, I believe, that the greatest majority of us want the lifestyles we're living. A great part of ensuring little or no interruption to this life is to continue using all of the above means of producing energy while at the same time becoming more aware of what needs to be done to stop associated dangers, like Three Mile Island and the Gulf oil spill. It can be done and should be done, while we are continuing to work hard on alternative sources of energy that also need to be brought online, ultimately, with respective safeguards.
Getting energy brought to us safely is simply part of the package we have to not only insist on but must be set up to provide tough oversight over, and especially in the public domain. The fault of this Gulf oil spill belongs somewhere between BP and the folks who were supposed to be responsible for oversight.
Don Griffiths
It is my understanding there are some 3,800 or so platforms operating now in the Gulf of Mexico alone, with a small percentage of them being deepwater installations. That does not count the ones that operated successfully in the past but have been shutdown and removed (or toppled to form artificial reefs). For the administration of President Obama to put a moratorium on all offshore drilling is unjustified and is extremely harmful to the economy of the country and the Gulf coastal states already impacted economically. Oil producers and drilling contractors have pretty rigorous safety procedures in place to protect their very expensive drilling and production rigs and the revenue-producing product of the operations; however, the procedures must be just as rigorously followed.
BP should have gone directly to the riser cut procedure. All the other stuff was just wasted time and spilled oil. Even then, based on watching the video of the operation, they did not execute that properly. It is evident they jumped the gun. It is plainly evident there is a portion of the bent section of the riser still attached to the vertical portion when they attempted the saw cut. That is like trying to saw a long piece of lumber in half without fully supporting both sides of the cut. The shears should have been used to cut the vertical part of the riser between the bend and the planned saw cut. Even then, considering the heavy wall of the riser, one of the ROVs should have been used to provide support for the piece above the cut.
It would be interesting to know the age and experience levels of the people in charge of the work being done. So often now, one sees relatively young people running things -- often they are brilliant but lack the knowledge only experience brings. Sometimes they are just ruthless and full of themselves, in which case they do not know they are ignorant no matter how brilliant. Frequently, such people are not willing to listen to others with the experience and thus compound their errors -- much like the present administration is doing.
Byron Wooldridge
You may want to do some reading on Shell's environmental record in Nigeria and their recent oil spill there. It's also somewhat disingenuous to ignore environmental degradation issues that can be associated with natural gas drilling. I agree that a rational drilling policy is critical for improved energy independence but the industry has not helped itself in terms of persuading the general public that they handle these issues carefully or responsibly.
Linda Leeson
Manager
Quality Assurance
Open Systems International
In my opinion, the industry has gotten what they deserve. It probably should be no surprise with the previous administration's close ties to the oil industry, but it's still unpardonable to not have a failsafe wellhead. Accidents on oil platforms like this are bound to occur. To not have a proven automatic shutoff valve is simply criminally irresponsible. According to the reports in the press, the current system failed 50 percent of the time in tests.
This is an excellent example of why we need government regulations. Industry in an unregulated competitive business environment will not be responsible and act in the interests of society. If Enron, and more recently the banking industry, hasn't taught us that yet -- then we need help.
In addition to criminal negligence charges, BP and the contractors involved need to bear the total cost of this disaster. If that results in their bankruptcy -- so be it. The message to industry has to be clear. There is no tolerance for this type of irresponsibility.
And, if one is going to argue the impact of that type of response on the price of oil, it might be an excellent opportunity to have the price of oil truly reflective of its cost. I doubt you'd have much argument from the residents of the Gulf.
I applaud the Obama administration's reaction to this disaster. We can't afford to continue "business as usual" when it risks this type of result.
Tim King
The oil industry is caught in a Catch-22. The bureaucrats say, you can't drill shallow, you must drill far off shore. Yet if this incident had happened on a shallow well, we have the technology to deal with it quickly. Working a mile or more down presents technical difficulties.
You also mention Three Mile Island. This spill is similar in one regard, it is a black eye on the oil industry, but unlike TMI, it is dealing real damage to the environment. Nobody died as a result of TMI, and in fact, if the drive-by media had heralded it as "See, the technology works" it could have been a pat on the back. Instead they chose to be fear mongers and listen to the Jane Fonda types rather than technologically literate people. Then they pointed to Chernobyl and said "See, we told you it could happen". Once again, the facts were muddied by people more interested in fear mongering than the truth. What was the truth? 1) The Chernobyl reactor type was reviewed and rejected by the U.S. as too unstable and 2) We told the Soviets that they should use containment systems to prevent spreading contamination should an accident occur, (Which they rejected with, "Containments are for bunglers").
In the U.S., reactors produce clean power on a daily basis with some of them, like Turkey Point's cooling canals, being the largest saltwater crocodile habitat in the world. Clean and green with no pictures of dying Pelicans.
Thomas George Peschke
A Branding Nightmare - June 09, 2010
The best article I have read on the corporate-think behind this disaster. It obviously applies to so many other smaller "disasters" that faceless corporations find themselves in while scrambling to repair the damage.
Too bad there is always time to repair the damage and never enough time to entrench policies of avoidance of disaster early on.
When I worked as a contractor in BP's ROW office, it was easily the best corporate environment I have ever experienced. I am so sorry for that disconnect as applied to its Gulf operations. I felt it was a damn fine company.
Thomas Denney
BP America's catastrophic oil spill is of world significance and will have residual effects on companies who spew out slick messages that ultimately surface as untrue. BP, formerly The British Petroleum Company, is guilty of what I like to call purpose-washing.
A purposeful company guarantees us that they are here for more than profit. They also exist to serve society: indeed to improve the world. But what if you say you are purpose-driven in your communications but don't back up your promise with policies, programs and other actions?
Here is what we know, so far. Eleven people were killed during the explosion, fisheries were virtually wiped out, wildlife sanctuaries destroyed and pristine beaches were marred in the spill's path. To date as many as 400 species are now endangered. Yet, BP has spent more than $100 million on a rebranding effort that positioned them as a source for alternative clean energy and additional millions to explain to the public that they understand the pain of those affected. All the while they continue to spend billions on processing environment hampering fossil fuel and lobbying efforts to continue restrictions that could have prevented or perhaps kept this spill to a minimum. When a company says it is doing the right thing and does something completely different -- I call that purpose-washing.
I know the damage that ensues when a company does not live up to its message. Trust inside and outside an organization disappears. A company on purpose demonstrates a "Be-Do-Say" attitude. That is "Be" true to the company's DNA and purpose. "Do" deeds that reflect that purpose and then "Say" it in your communications.
After BP merged with Amoco in 1998, they adopted the tagline "Beyond Petroleum." Yet, in truth, they are not beyond fueling their image as a benevolent brand while fooling the public. In addition to a 25 percent loss in BP's value less than a week after the spill, the Obama administration is now questioning BP's role in allowing the 2 million gallon leak. Maybe BP should get Beyond Purpose-washing.
Joey Reiman
Thinker, Founder, CEO
BrightHouse, LLC
BP's Spillover Effect - June 11, 2010
I am pleased to see the delay in Climate Change legislation as we can safely say it is an unproven theory and very costly to implement at best. Simply because countless numbers of people believe in the theory, does not make it right. If history has taught nothing else than that it should be revisited and digested in a nonpolitical atmosphere where scientific facts are not confused with financial, political and power-hungry groups pushing their agenda at the expense of humanity.
As for this utter disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, it is a failure of a private industrial firm and the U.S. government to properly execute their duties at the unknown expense of humanity and the environment. It has been said the Russians have used low force nuclear weapons to close wells on land. Perhaps it is time to bring them in with U.S. military explosive experts and scientific authorities in undersea issues and shutter this well in spite of financial loss to BP which embraces all ideas to the extent of saving the drill pipe on this site.
Michael Edwards
Belyea Company Inc.
If the Obama moratorium continues for the full six months, not to mention longer, the offshore figure is going to plummet, and the anticipated growth -- another million barrels/day by the end of the decade -- I believe, won't happen. In fact, the Gulf of Mexico was projected to be the source of the major share of non-OPEC oil supply over the next decade.
I agree with the need for a reexamination of the rules and regulations and the establishment of a response program for seabed blowouts, which we did not have, but a full-scale moratorium on deepwater drilling is poor policy. I don't want to say the president's advisors are morons, but they certainly don't know much about the operating dynamics of the offshore petroleum industry. If those rigs leave the Gulf of Mexico, they won't come back for years.
Barbara Shook
Houston Bureau Chief and Reporter-at-Large
Energy Intelligence Group
The most obvious missing factor is a set of plug or ball valves, incorporated in the original BOP design that can be externally actuated by a remote submersible. When the redundant automatic features incorporated in the BOP fail, as happened here, an ROV should be able to go down and close off the riser.
I find it hard to believe that, despite all the environmental impact studies, HAZOPS, spill prevention plans, contingency plans, drilling and production plans, that no one has provided a solution to shut off a flanged pipe under pressure, and at depth. We can use ROVs to assemble the BOP and riser; surely we should include a couple of taps that can be turned off when all else fails.
This is an engineering problem, and I can guarantee that that the engineers know the solution. It does, however, take time and money to design and develop the tools and equipment to affect the solutions. These tools should be in the bag prior to permits being granted, for both surface and underwater drilling.
Mick Gavrilovic
Executive Director
E3 Consulting LLC
With all of the advocacy against fossil fuel use in the U.S., I was wondering what is stalling out the development of nuclear power here? At over 90 percent efficiency what is the hold-up? The CANDU reactor is very safe and widely used throughout Canada.
Why is it that America seems to get left in the dust when it comes to energy efficiency? Is it because of the prevalent greed in this country by IOUs, energy and oil companies and the greasy politicians they have in their pocket? I know that wind and solar are not going to get us where we need to be due low efficiency with solar PV and the fact that the wind doesn't usually blow when we need the electricity most during hot days, peak usage. So I guess this begs the question where do we go from here?
John Trauger
I read your article this morning "BP's Spillover Effect" with great interest. I won't get into the merits of the offshore debate here but there is one thing that perhaps we should all be clear about. I keep reading the same statement in this discussion and it always seems to be glossed over.
"...would be inconsequential in terms of the impact they would have on foreign oil consumption."
Inconsequential in what way?
Inconsequential in terms of total supply? Perhaps.
Inconsequential in terms of the impact on price? Not hardly.
The balance between supply and demand for energy is a delicate one. That is why energy prices are so volatile. The 3 to 5 percent reduction in domestic oil production we are talking about will eventually have a significant impact on price. Is the difference between $2.75 per gallon of gasoline and $3.50 per gallon inconsequential to the health of our fragile economy?
John Keller
Respond to the editor.
