Why BP Won't Measure the Oil Spill

[n2doc]

MAY 18 2010, 11:16 AM ET | Comment

In the latest sci-fi development from the Gulf oil spill, scientists have found enormous oil "plumes" beneath the ocean's surface. With this, and last week's underwater footage of oil and natural gas gushing out of the ruptured well, it's apparent that BP's estimate of the amount of oil entering the Gulf each day is at once laughably and horrifyingly low.

Weeks ago, not long after the spill was first verified, BP, the Coast Guard, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated that the well was leaking 5,000 barrels of oil a day. They based this estimate on analysis of the oil slick at the water's surface. Independent scientists analyzing the slick set the estimate at 25,000 barrels a day, and once BP released the underwater video, they calculated flow rates as high as 80,000 barrels a day.


Scientists have come down hard on BP for refusing to take advantage of methods available to measure the oil. The New York Times reported Thursday that BP was planning to fly scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute to Louisiana to conduct volume measurements. The oceanographers were poised to use underwater ultrasound equipment to measure the flow of oil and gas from the ocean floor when BP canceled the trip.

BP officials have portrayed measurement efforts as a distraction from the real work of plugging the leak. Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts challenged BP's estimated flow rate in a letter to the company's leadership last week, but BP is so far standing by its 5,000 barrel a day figure. Scientists and environmentalists worry that underestimating the flow rate will skew development of oil spill response capabilities as well as the debate over offshore drilling.

Why BP is digging in its heels on this issue is unclear, given that at this point the company has little to lose -- CEO Tony Hayward has already admitted the spill may well cost him his job. The company has all available forms of technology at its feet, and, thanks to government oil-spill bailout funds, does not have to worry too much -- for now, at least -- about the cost of the clean-up.

more

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/05/why-bp-wont-measure-the-oil-spill/56848/

[Vincardog]

1. Did you ever think that they are just like the GOP and lie out of HABIT?

[Blackhatjack]

2. It's like an insurance adjuster once said about a house fire ....

"It's a *&#^ shame it didn't burn to the ground. Would have been a lot easier to deal with the owner."

BP knows the truth, and they know what heroic measures cost, and the likelihood that those measures will have no effective influence on the ultimate outcome. This will be a decades length problem.

So you limit the heroic efforts, and the huge sums of $$ that would entail, because you know it comes down to paying damages in the end --and the money saved in not pursuing the ultimate heroic efforts will be available to BP to finance their defense against suits, attempts to limit damages, and paying claims.

So BP will eventually say "We, like everyone else, had no idea it was this bad."

[lostnfound]

3. According to the EPA website, they are liable for $1000 civil fine per barrel

http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/lawsregs/opaover.htm#info
§4301(b) Civil penalties are authorized at $25,000 for each day of violation or $1,000 per barrel of oil discharged. Failure to comply with a Federal removal order can result in civil penalties of up to $25,000 for each day of violation.

The same document also says that the $75 Million cap does not apply in the case of gross negligence.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc33.wais&start=4683182&SIZE=13816&TYPE=TEXT
(c) Exceptions

(1) Acts of responsible party

Subsection (a) of this section does not apply if the incident
was proximately caused by--
(A) gross negligence or willful misconduct of, or

<[Page 648>]

(B) the violation of an applicable Federal safety,
construction, or operating regulation by,

the responsible party, an agent or employee of the responsible
party, or a person acting pursuant to a contractual relationship
with the responsible party (except where the sole contractual
arrangement arises in connection with carriage by a common carrier
by rail).

[truedelphi]

5. This is all so interesting and so sad. n/t

[damntexdem]

4. It's not that they won't measure it -- it's that the won't tell.

And they do all they can to prevent others from measuring it.

[northernlights]

6. worried about your job, Tony?

Maybe you should be worried about your freedom, not to mention your wardrobe. Because frankly you and the rest of your pals -- including those in the MMS -- should lose your freedom, and spend a long time dressed in orange with chain jewelry :(.