Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

UPDATE: BP - At the Bottom of the Barrel - and Still Sinking

by ask Sun May 16th, 2010 at 08:23:17 AM EST

Update: CBS 60 minutes segments added below. Absolutely devastating insight to what transpired at the rig before and during the disaster.

How low can the crooked management of British Petroleum go? New lows are reached every day and there appears to be no end in sight. It is stunning to see the tone deafness being demonstrated by the company’s executives. The short sighted denial of responsibility, the obfuscation of facts and the continued reckless behavior will haunt the company for a long time and will hurt its stockholders beyond the immediate impact of the blowout.

The company initially denied that there was any oil escaping the well that they had drilled and only expressed concern related to the oil that was actually on the lost rig. A few days later the company admitted that oil was leaking and provided an estimate of 1,000 bbl/day. Another few days passed and the estimate was adjusted upwards, to 5,000 bbl/day.


But many suspected early on that the company was fudging and that the real volume was considerably higher – by a factor of 10, or more. Here is a statement from NPR :

The amount of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico may be at least 10 times the size of official estimates, according to an exclusive analysis conducted for NPR.


You can also see Shaviv’s diary @ Daily Kos for an extensive discussion.

Yet, BP refuses to take steps to actually measure the spill, a spill that at the end of the day will dwarf that of the Exxon Valdez disaster:

BP has resisted entreaties from scientists that they be allowed to use sophisticated instruments at the ocean floor that would give a far more accurate picture of how much oil is really gushing from the well.

"The answer is no to that," a BP spokesman, Tom Mueller, said on Saturday. "We're not going to take any extra efforts now to calculate flow there at this point. It's not relevant to the response effort, and it might even detract from the response effort."


Sure - not relevant and will detract from the effort, what bullshit!

And that is not the only asinine comment coming from the company.  Its CEO, Tony Hayward,  managed to utter this whopper reported on Friday by the Guardian:

"The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume," he said.


Right; a drop of arsenic in your veins should be OK - after all, you've got a lot of blood pumping around.

And now it turns out that most of the problem appears to be invisible. And that the environmental disaster happening in front of us will be far worse than many anticipated:

Scientists are finding enormous oil plumes in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, including one as large as 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick in spots. The discovery is fresh evidence that the leak from the broken undersea well could be substantially worse than estimates that the government and BP have given.

"There's a shocking amount of oil in the deep water, relative to what you see in the surface water," said Samantha Joye, a researcher at the University of Georgia who is involved in one of the first scientific missions to gather details about what is happening in the gulf. "There's a tremendous amount of oil in multiple layers, three or four or five layers deep in the water column."

(go read the whole article)

Do the troubles with BP end there? Far from it - what prompted me to do an entry today was this headline:

BP's Own Probe Finds Safety Issues on Atlantis Rig

This rig also operates in the Mexican Gulf, in deeper waters and further from the coast - 150 miles south of New Orleans and at a depth of more than 7,000 feet.

Here are some choice quotes from the article - again, you should click over and read the entire piece (4 pages):

[...]

Stanley Sporkin, a former federal judge whose firm served as BP's ombudsman, said that the allegation "was substantiated, and that's it." The firm was hired by BP in 2006 to act as an independent office to receive and investigate employee complaints.

Engineering documents - covering everything from safety shutdown systems to blowout preventers - are meant to be roadmaps for safely starting and halting production on the huge offshore platform.

Running an oil rig with flawed and missing documentation is like cooking a dinner without a complete recipe, said University of California, Berkeley engineering professor Robert Bea, an oil pipeline expert who has been reviewing the whistle-blower allegations and studied the Gulf blowout.

[...]

"BP has reviewed the allegations and found them to be unsubstantiated," said Karen K. Westall, managing attorney for BP.

[...]

The Atlantis subcontractor who lodged the complaint was Kenneth Abbott. He was laid off in February 2009 and said in a written statement a few months later that he believes it was partly in retaliation, which the company denied.

When reached by the AP, Abbott said, "I had complained about BP's problem," but declined to elaborate.

[...]

Sawyer said he found that about 85 percent of the piping and instrument designs "have no final approval" and more than 95 percent of the welding specifications had no approval at all.

[...]


Ms. Karen K. Westall, managing attorney for BP competes with her own CEO - Tony Hayward, as well as the spokesman  - Tom Mueller - for the arrogance award as so vividly demonstrated in their respective statements quoted above.

Meanwhile, wildlife and fisheries are being destroyed at an unprecedented level and there is no end in sight. Time to nationalize this rapacious industry!?


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Display:
Also posted at Booman Tribune and Daily Kos.
by ask on Sun May 16th, 2010 at 08:48:14 AM EST
My guess is that BP is well aware of the situation--almost certainly more aware than anybody else, given their access to all of the instrumentation readings and a huge population of petroleum engineering experts.

It seems pretty obvious that they are doing what they think will protect them best when this gets to court. Did you hear the CEO refusing to clarify what he meant by "legitimate claims" when he said that BP would pay them? Pretty sure that this would mean "legitimate as settled in a court of law."

In the end, the cost will be paid by the public, and as long as the public continues to think that this sort of thing is better than investment in sustainable energy and population control, it's only going to get worse. For example, this accident is pretty close to shore, in a mild climate, right next to the biggest concentration of expertise and equipment in the world. (Maybe comparable to the North Sea? I don't know.) How will company X react when there is a huge leak in a well in the Arctic in January, or 500 miles out into the middle of the Indian Ocean?

by asdf on Sun May 16th, 2010 at 01:48:06 PM EST
It seems pretty obvious that they are doing what they think will protect them best when this gets to court.
Agreed - they're lawyering up.

My guess is that BP is well aware of the situation...
No doubt they have all the first hand information and analysis. But they are terrible communicators as suggested in the examples I gave in the diary.

by ask on Sun May 16th, 2010 at 02:16:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or maybe they're communicating what they want to?
by asdf on Sun May 16th, 2010 at 02:26:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Greg Palast gives some rarely publicized knowledge:
In 1989, I was a fraud investigator hired to dig into the cause of the Exxon Valdez disaster. Despite Exxon's name on that boat, I found the party most to blame for the destruction was ... British Petroleum. That's important to know, because the way BP caused devastation in Alaska is exactly the way BP is now sliming the entire Gulf Coast.

Tankers run aground, wells blow out, pipes burst. It shouldn't happen but it does. And when it does, the name of the game is containment. Both in Alaska, when the Exxon Valdez grounded, and in the Gulf over a week ago, when the Deepwater Horizon platform blew, it was British Petroleum that was charged with carrying out the Oil Spill Response Plans ("OSRP") which the company itself drafted and filed with the government.

What's so insane, when I look over that sickening slick moving toward the Delta, is that containing spilled oil is really quite simple and easy. And from my investigation, BP has figured out a very low cost way to prepare for this task: BP lies. BP prevaricates, BP fabricates and BP obfuscates.

That's because responding to a spill may be easy and simple, but not at all cheap. And BP is cheap. Deadly cheap.

To contain a spill, the main thing you need is a lot of rubber, long skirts of it called "boom." Quickly surround a spill or leak or burst, then pump it out into skimmers or disperse it, sink it or burn it. Simple.

But there's one thing about the rubber skirts: you've got to have lots of it at the ready, with crews on standby in helicopters and on containment barges ready to roll. They have to be in place round the clock, all the time, just like a fire department; even when all is operating A-OK. Because rapid response is the key. In Alaska, that was BP's job, as principal owner of the pipeline consortium Alyeska. It is, as well, BP's job in the Gulf, as principal lessee of the deepwater oil concession.

Before the Exxon Valdez grounding, BP's Alyeska group claimed it had these full-time oil spill response crews. Alyeska had hired Alaskan Natives, trained them to drop from helicopters into the freezing water and set boom in case of emergency. Alyeska also certified in writing that a containment barge with equipment was within five hours sailing of any point in the Prince William Sound. Alyeska also told the state and federal government it had plenty of boom and equipment cached on Bligh Island.

But it was all a lie. On that March night in 1989 when the Exxon Valdez hit Bligh Reef in the Prince William Sound, the BP group had, in fact, not a lick of boom there. And Alyeska had fired the Natives who had manned the full-time response teams, replacing them with phantom crews, lists of untrained employees with no idea how to control a spill. And that containment barge at the ready was, in fact, laid up in a drydock in Cordova, locked under ice, 12 hours away.

by das monde on Mon May 17th, 2010 at 02:36:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought we had established that most of the oil is not on the surface? This can't be contained with rubber.
by generic on Mon May 17th, 2010 at 08:53:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
it would go to the surface, where it could be skimmed.
by wu ming on Mon May 17th, 2010 at 12:21:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
exceedingly toxic dispersants, it should be noted. And apparently more toxic than others available, but used it seems because the manufacturer is related to BP.

So you are surprised, no?

by Mnemosyne on Mon May 17th, 2010 at 09:29:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Absolutely right. From NYT last week:

Less Toxic Dispersants Lose Out in BP Oil Spill Cleanup

BP PLC continues to stockpile and deploy oil-dispersing chemicals manufactured by a company with which it shares close ties, even though other U.S. EPA-approved alternatives have been shown to be far less toxic and, in some cases, nearly twice as effective.
[...]
But according to EPA data, Corexit ranks far above dispersants made by competitors in toxicity and far below them in effectiveness in handling southern Louisiana crude.

Of 18 dispersants whose use EPA has approved, 12 were found to be more effective on southern Louisiana crude than Corexit, EPA data show. Two of the 12 were found to be 100 percent effective on Gulf of Mexico crude, while the two Corexit products rated 56 percent and 63 percent effective, respectively. The toxicity of the 12 was shown to be either comparable to the Corexit line or, in some cases, 10 or 20 times less, according to EPA.

by ask on Tue May 18th, 2010 at 04:00:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Even if Palast is no more quick in realizing the scale of the disaster than us, there is still plenty of surface oil and its environmental hazard. Did we really counted on corporate vigilance for these occasions?
by das monde on Mon May 17th, 2010 at 07:33:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
UPDATE 1-BP ready to pay legitimate oil spill claims-CEO | Reuters
BP Plc (BP.L) is ready to pay all legitimate claims tied to the oil spill caused by the accident at its Gulf of Mexico undersea well, Chief Executive Tony Hayward told National Public Radio on Monday.

...

He said the London-based company fully accepted responsibility for the spill and would pay for the cleanup operation.

...

BP said last week that it and its partners in the well, including Anadarko Petroleum (APC.N), were paying $6 million a day in clean-up efforts but admitted costs would rise sharply when the oil slick hit land, as would claims for damages.

...

"No one understands why [the blowout preventer]'s failed. We have assembled in Houston 160 companies from across the industry to focus on this task," Hayward said.



By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 17th, 2010 at 04:10:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"No one understands why [the blowout preventer]'s failed.

What a lying SOB Tony Hayward is!

Watch the video updates in this diary. There were a number of problems with the BOP of the Deepwater Horizon. Apparently, the annular (seal) on top of the BOP stack was accidentally damaged days before the blowout and was not replaced/repaired.
I could go on explaining the consequences of this, but real work is interfering right now. In any case, everyone is better off seing the video(s) which provide great info and graphics explaining what transpired.

by ask on Mon May 17th, 2010 at 04:47:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Recovery of oil directly from the leak:

Another Snag Hits As Oil Plumes Form Underwater

BP officials say they were on the verge of a breakthrough stemming the gushing oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, but another accident has set them back. Meanwhile, scientists have found huge plumes of oil lurking under the surface of the water.

Officials say they successfully inserted a new pipe into the broken pipe spewing oil into the Gulf. That new pipe started sending oil to a ship on the surface, but, just moments later, two remotely-operated robots crashed into each other and knocked the pipes partially apart. The robots were taking photos of the operation.

BP spokesman Glenn DaGian says engineers estimate it will take about nine hours to fix the problem. Despite the debacle, he says, BP was able to prove that their latest effort to fix the well was working — however briefly.

by ask on Sun May 16th, 2010 at 02:09:19 PM EST
Bad things come in threes
We chose to make some changes to our rig exposure in the period. The shares in Rowan Companies were sold to be replaced by shares in Transocean. After a very pleasant journey with Rowan, we aimed to be more defensively oriented through Transocean's broader and lower priced rig fleet. In retrospect, our timing could hardly have been worse.

Transocean is now in deep water after there was a blowout in one of the company's rigs and it sank in the Gulf of Mexico. The accident cost 11 lives and appears to be doing a great deal of environmental damage to the east coast of the US. Potential costs in the form of liability for damages and cleanup appear to be limited as far as Transocean is concerned since the majority will fall to the operating company BP. A company which is (unfortunately) part of our portfolio (around 0.6 percent).

We also happen to own shares in insurance company Hannover Re, which has an exposure to the wrecked rig.

Doh!

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sun May 16th, 2010 at 02:10:41 PM EST
Poor babies...
by ask on Sun May 16th, 2010 at 02:12:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it's pretty funny, a piece of black humor in this tragedy.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Sun May 16th, 2010 at 02:19:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Heh - I also enjoyed the dry, resigned tone of the release.
Talk of a triple whammy...
by ask on Sun May 16th, 2010 at 02:25:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Skagen are very, very, astute.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun May 16th, 2010 at 04:33:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...but

"We all make mistakes"

.... as the Dalek said getting off the Dustbin...

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun May 16th, 2010 at 04:34:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This disaster-swap reward is fast and fat:

Transocean made $270M profit from insurance payout

Transocean Ltd., the owner of the rig leased by BP PLC which is currently leaking oil into the Gulf of Mexico, made a $270 million profit from insurance payouts after the disaster, the Sunday Times reports.

The amount, revealed during a conference call to analysts, was made because its insurance policy for Deepwater Horizon rig was greater than the value of the rig itself, the paper reports. The Times says Transocean has already received cash payment of $401 million and the rest is due in the coming weeks.

Transocean said the cost of the cleanup from the leaking rig must be covered by BP and two smaller partners, Anadarko Petroleum and Mitsui of Japan, the paper says.

by das monde on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 12:37:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wow, someone at the insurance company must feel really stupid right now.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 09:16:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sure BP will try to take away the excess to pay for cleanup costs.

Sure, the policy covered more than the value of the rig. But did it cover liability?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 09:22:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The short sighted denial of responsibility, the obfuscation of facts and the continued reckless behavior will haunt the company for a long time and will hurt its stockholders beyond the immediate impact of the blowout.

Since you care about the stockholders, do you think BP's market cap of $145bn is enough to cover the cost of this disaster?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 16th, 2010 at 05:34:42 PM EST
Without question. Because of the corrupt US regulations, the cap on oil damage fines is $75 million. Potato money, essentially.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Sun May 16th, 2010 at 08:01:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... net income.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun May 16th, 2010 at 10:02:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the cap disappears if negligence and/or malfeasance is found in the courts.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Mon May 17th, 2010 at 11:16:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Crazy Horse - How You Get Oil
Here's the part about seeing the reality about oil: beyond intellect, beyond politics, beyond power and insanity.  This is how it gets to your tank.


By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 17th, 2010 at 11:22:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Since you care about the stockholders...

Can't really say I that I do, but the various executives that made statements should - and I don't think they did the stockholders any favors with their bone headed replies to the media.

by ask on Mon May 17th, 2010 at 12:35:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Having watched the 60 minutes clip: If BP was aware the BOP had safety issues, and still continued operations, they're done for. No matter if the BOP malfunctioned, or what state the concrete was, the moment BP knew the risks, the responsibility is theirs.

And given BP's track record, this is not too surprising news either...

by Nomad on Mon May 17th, 2010 at 05:35:48 AM EST
The arrogance of their executives will come back to haunt them. Outright lies as quoted in Migeru's comment above is beyond stupid at this point.

They are telling sunshine stories as to how they will clean up and pay damages to those affected, all while lawyering up and low-balling actual amounts paid.

by ask on Mon May 17th, 2010 at 05:50:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]


By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 17th, 2010 at 06:16:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
till this one.

But isn't it the Obama administration that supposedly regulates the oil exploration industry, and through neglect or collusion allowed and will continue to allow BP to get away with as much as environmental abuse as it possibly can? Isn't it the Obama administration that chose Ken Salazar, "a well known shill for the oil and gas industry," as Interior Secretary? ( See http://counterpunch.org/halle05172010.html )

Isn't it the Obama administration that allows BP to get away with hiding how much oil is 'leaking' into the sea? Isn't President Obama the person who approved a massive expansion of offshore drilling just a month or so ago? And isn't Obama the President who sais this on April 2, 2010: "It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills; they are technologically very advanced."

Why obediently play the Obama administration PR game on this matter and make it all about BP? BP and other environment abusers would not do so if they were properly regulated. They will abuse, they always seem to do so, when they're deregulated and/or they own their regulators. Well, they seem to own Obama (read that quote again!). And that's the heart of the current and future deep sea oil spill problem.


fairleft

by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Mon May 17th, 2010 at 11:53:50 PM EST
As I sit sipping my coffee in Saratomato CA,

1. Cheney's BP Spill is ALL GOOD NEWS!!!  That's Right!  I typed that.  Look at the coastal states that will be directly affected ... all southern REPUBLICAN rednect states ... JUST DESERTS as my parents would say.

Or, as a friend of mine used to say:

"EAT SHIT AND DIE, MOTHERFUCKERS!!!"

2. Glad the way the BP execs are handling the thing ... everything including their attitude and the ABSOLUTE HELPLESSNESS of Obama ... HILARIOUS!!

Now let's see if ANYTHING good can come out of it over the next few years.  I hope the oil kills the entire gulf.  A good lesson there, talking as a Californian, of course.

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Tue May 18th, 2010 at 06:54:09 AM EST
I was at an energy and security mini-conference today, and one guy there had spoken with a Russian colleague who wondered why they just didn't cap the well Russian style, ie inserting explosives and blasting it shut.

He speculated that there might be some American rules banning this approach for environmental reasons, which seems kinda hilarious given the current situation.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Tue May 18th, 2010 at 04:43:20 PM EST
BP don't want to have to drill a new well.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue May 18th, 2010 at 04:56:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
but they are drilling. A quick google search learns me that the first relief well is at 4000 feet in the bedrock, and drilling of a second relief well should commence shortly, or may already have begun by now.

Second Macondo relief well to spud Sunday - Upstream Online

Development Driller III has been stalled briefly while crews perform a battery of tests on the rig's blowout preventer (BOP).

The tests follow new protocols developed by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster and apparent failure of the BOP on that rig, Suttles said.

He said the relief well drilling stalled just above 9000 feet, as measured from the surface of the water, which means the well has drilled about 4000 feet into the ground.

by Nomad on Tue May 18th, 2010 at 05:25:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How does a relief well work?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 18th, 2010 at 05:39:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's an euphenism for drilling a second well in a highly pressurized reservoir, which will take pressure off the first well.

In the schemes that have been presented, the second well intercepts the first, the pressure is reduced in the first well and the first well is plugged with cement. The relief well is then used for production. In the figure below it's presented that interception is actually done in the reservoir rocks which strikes me a bit iffy, but the target depth is apparently 18.000 feet, which has been touted as the reservoir depth. I've also seen figures where the first well is intercepted less deep, and prior to reaching the reservoir.

Anyway, if they're already at 4000 feet in the rock, there's 14000 to go. At this rate, though, they would get there sooner than the estimated 90 days. Except it's not for us to take the current rate as constant, as the geology and the trajectory may grow complex the further down they get.

by Nomad on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 04:17:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And they've said they will abandon this well. It's done.  

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Tue May 18th, 2010 at 10:30:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have seen suggestions around the intertubes of using a nuke. Those are countered with references to Crossroads.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 18th, 2010 at 04:59:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah yes, the heady days of Operation Crossroads... I was clearly born a generation or two too late. ;)

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Tue May 18th, 2010 at 06:37:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or even better, Operation Plowshare. ;)

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Tue May 18th, 2010 at 06:38:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's interesting that we care so much about this leak, equivalent to a few hours of global oil usage, but not to the continuous leakage that comes from all the oil being moved and used around the world which surely over a year, no I don't have numbers, dwarfs this leak.
by njh on Tue May 18th, 2010 at 08:37:23 PM EST
But the total volume of the oceans dwarfs the Gulf of Mexico, and a year's duration dwarfs the month this thing's been leaking. Also the depth is unusual. If the reports of oxygen depletion are true, the Gulf of Mexico might turn into a dead sea by the time BP is done plugging the hole.

But see

Ixtoc I was an exploratory oil well in the Bay of Campeche of the Gulf of Mexico, about 100 km (62 mi) northwest of Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche in waters 50 m (160 ft) deep. On 3 June 1979, the well suffered a blowout and is recognized as the second largest oil spill and the largest accidental spill in history.[1][2]

This is not yet among the largest oil spills but it's getting there.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 02:14:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]