• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

OIL- Good business or RAPE?

A

Anonymous

Guest
Is this the true reason, or is it the get away with anything- rape and pillage- windfall profits- PURE GREED- of the oil companies...As long as they and all industry are allowed to run lose without any oversight they can take what they want without putting anything back in to build and maintain the infrasturcture...Take what you can get today and then just move to the next country and rape and pillage :roll: :???: BP is already under Grand Jury investigation for failure to put required maintenance back into the line- which was part of the agreement to allow them to operate it.....

Makes you wonder why the Oil industry is making multi billion profits, while the infrastructure falls apart, and the consumer just keeps getting the shaft.....Who in government positions are profiting???


8/7/2006 7:02:00 PM


Sludge, Lack Of Testing Cited In Alaska Pipeline Failure

WASHINGTON (AP)--The North Slope oil pipelines being shut down because of corrosion were clogged for years by sludge buildup that may have prevented the most sophisticated internal corrosion tests, officials said Monday.

The last time the pipelines were cleaned, using a so-called "scraper pig" - a device pushed through the pipe to clean it out - was in 1992, according to federal regulators and congressional investigators.

They said it was unclear if another device known as a "smart pig" that can detect pipeline abnormalities was used at the time. Such a test was tried in 1998, but not completed, possibly because of sludge problems, the officials said.

Investigators have been told that the Alaska pipeline, which sends oil from the feeder lines to the port of Valdez, conducts operations to clean line sludge every two weeks.

In Anchorage, BP Alaska President Steve Marshall said the company believed that ultrasound tests were an adequate substitute and that the "smart pig" tests weren't necessary.

He acknowledged in hindsight that was not sufficient. After a major spill on one of BP's three North Slope feeder lines last March, federal officials became concerned about inadequate testing and possibly a wider corrosion problem and ordered the company to conduct a "smart pig" test within three months.

But the company said it could not meet the deadline in part because it was responding to a federal grand jury investigation into the March spill and that "it was working to determine the volume of solids likely to be encountered" in the lines, according to federal officials.

In mid-June, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., pressed the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) on why the required pig tests were not being conducted.

Three weeks later, the agency's chief, Thomas Barrett, and two senior officials traveled to the North Slope. "We came away with significant concern about BP's progress" in dealing with the sediment that had built up in the pipelines and were hinder the testing, Barrett recently wrote Dingell.

"The presence of significant volumes of sediment and sludge in the lines poses a risk of further corrosion and interferes with internal inspection operations that are useful in detecting pipe anomalies," Barrett continued.

Then, BP Alaska officials came up with new estimates that lowered the amount of sludge believed in the lines, and told federal officials the material no longer prevents pigging the lines. Last May there was believed to be up to a foot of sludge in some parts of the 30-inch diameter lines.

"It is appalling that BP let this critical pipeline deteriorate to the point that a major production shutdown is necessary," Dingell, the ranking Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, said Monday Bill Hedges, BP's technical expert on corrosion, said in Anchorage on Monday that the company has an extensive anticorrosion program that relied heavily on ultrasound technology. Thousands of points on the 22-mile pipeline system are checked annually.

"My assumption is that we didn't do it in the right spots," Hedges told reporters. The company announced it was replacing 16 miles of the transit system - two of the three lines - and preventing 400,000 barrels of oil a day from moving out of the Prudhoe Bay fields.

"We've learned ... that BP had not cleaned many of its pipelines for years. In contrast, other pipelines up on the North Slope are cleaned every two weeks," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

At a House hearing last April, Stacey Gerard, chief safety officer at PHMSA, the federal pipeline regulator, said he could not say why BP Alaska did not use "this basic technique" of running a scraper pig through the lines to regularly remove sludge which he said is known to be hazardous to the pipelines.

"Is it just basic incompetence on their part?" asked Markey. "We have no single logical reason why they did not use the scraper pigs," Gerard replied. Meanwhile, the Energy Department was in contact with West Coast refineries on Monday to gauge whether they might need oil from the government's emergency stocks because of the disruption of Alaska's crude.

"If there is a request for oil we'll certainly take a serious look at that," said department spokesman Craig Stevens. Most of Alaska's oil goes to West Coast refineries.

The reserve, which has about 700 million barrels of oil in a complex of salt domes along the Texas-Louisiana coast, was created to deal with supply disruptions.

It was unclear how West Coast refineries could benefit from oil held on the Gulf Coast, although any oil put into the market to displace Alaska's shipments would tend to ease prices.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Although the incident cited is based on the operational level, the political level has been a total sellout to oversight of this industry. We are in a supply tightening because we haven't been judicious in our ability to create infrastructure in case of supply disruptions and in our inability to build substitutes for oil or increase supply sufficiently.

Much of the oil owed the fed govt. from federal leases was not put in the salt domes and was basically just given to the oil companies as extra profits at the expense of taxpayers.

For this management, we get more oil company commercials on tv and a tightening supply of our major energy source with more and more disruptions and higher profits by the oil companies with higher gas/diesel prices?

Sometimes this sellout of these long time politicians is just too much to swallow.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
LOL. You guys are just too funny. The oil companies are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they take a chance and keep running the pipeline until it's compromised, the liberal enviro-wackos give them hell and say, "I told you so, they don't care about the environment, all they care about is profits." So they shut it down for repairs and the liberal conspiracy theorist politicians give them hell and say, "I told you so, they don't care about the consumer, all they care about is profits."

Do any of you really think that BP wants to miss out on the opportunity to sell North Slope crude at near record prices? Because I have a hard time believing that. Maybe some of you have PROOF that this is just an attempt to manipulate the markets? Instead of being a management decision related to operational maintenance?

To be honest, an article that quotes John Dingell and Ed Markey as authorities on running an energy business stinks like political horseshit to me. Most Congressmen are nothing but welfare recipients with an office and status. If they had enough sense to be running a business, that's what they'd be doing.

Instead, they feed at the government trough and tell everybody else how to do it. Well...that's not quite correct. They always tell everyone else what they're doing wrong. Rarely do they offer any solutions...because they don't have a clue about running a business.

Anyway, I don't see what the big gripe is from Democrats. They're the ones who refuse to allow drilling in ANWR and claim Alaska isn't an important source of energy for us. "It's only a few weeks supply, blah, blah, blah." Why the big deal now over a brief disruption in production from old fields? Too funny... :lol:
 

BBJ

Well-known member
X said:
LOL. You guys are just too funny. The oil companies are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they take a chance and keep running the pipeline until it's compromised, the liberal enviro-wackos give them hell and say, "I told you so, they don't care about the environment, all they care about is profits." So they shut it down for repairs and the liberal conspiracy theorist politicians give them hell and say, "I told you so, they don't care about the consumer, all they care about is profits."

Do any of you really think that BP wants to miss out on the opportunity to sell North Slope crude at near record prices? Because I have a hard time believing that. Maybe some of you have PROOF that this is just an attempt to manipulate the markets? Instead of being a management decision related to operational maintenance?

To be honest, an article that quotes John Dingell and Ed Markey as authorities on running an energy business stinks like political horseshit to me. Most Congressmen are nothing but welfare recipients with an office and status. If they had enough sense to be running a business, that's what they'd be doing.

Instead, they feed at the government trough and tell everybody else how to do it. Well...that's not quite correct. They always tell everyone else what they're doing wrong. Rarely do they offer any solutions...because they don't have a clue about running a business.

Anyway, I don't see what the big gripe is from Democrats. They're the ones who refuse to allow drilling in ANWR and claim Alaska isn't an important source of energy for us. "It's only a few weeks supply, blah, blah, blah." Why the big deal now over a brief disruption in production from old fields? Too funny... :lol:


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: SO TRUE! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Speaking of "ALL" the oil men in govt. today? I'd enjoy seeing those names. :wink:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
They didn't shut down for repairs until they had a little rupture.

There was some talk from BP about not having checked that particular part of the pipeline with their ultrasound. Differences in pressure between pumping stations should have been a clue to a clogged part of the line. They have 11 pumping stations on it, I believe, and this could have been seen as a problem with a little analysis (although the particulars have not made it out to the public yet).

Running pigs through pipelines is not a new thing. They have been doing that ever since pipeline technology had the problem of clogged lines. The pigs are like corks in a corkgun with scrapers on the sides. If there was an extreme buildup in pressure after a pumping station, they would have known that there was some blockage. They should have not skimped on production pipeline management so much but instead they gave investors more money and did not do as much maintenance as they needed.

You are right, x, that it was an operational problem and less than a strategic energy policy problem from Congress. Congress has their own strategic energy policy problems and we are all seeing them at the pump.

I never said this was a deliberate attempt to manipulate the markets. That came from you. There is no doubt that anyone with prior knowledge of the impending shutdown would have had insider knowledge and been able to profit off the markets. Whether it was deliberate or not, I tend to not think so just because of self interest problems. The supply disruptions could have been minimized by having all the oil that oil companies are supposed to pay in royalties put in the storage salt domes in Tx and La.

There didn't have to be a real supply disruption at all if they had sufficient reserves to run the refineries the same with this held oil.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
BUT...16 miles of pipe didn't just ' bustout' all at once!! Why weren't they checking or testing or whatever a little bit at a time.

I mean, come on....16 miles of a boo-boo is a whopper to " just come across" one day!!

The timing is bit too well timed. Hey, where all that Iraq oil to make up the difference????

If that's what we went to war for.....where is it?? Gas should be 5 cents a gallon here like in Iraq!!!
 

BBJ

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
BUT...16 miles of pipe didn't just ' bustout' all at once!! Why weren't they checking or testing or whatever a little bit at a time.

I mean, come on....16 miles of a boo-boo is a whopper to " just come across" one day!!

The timing is bit too well timed. Hey, where all that Iraq oil to make up the difference????

If that's what we went to war for.....where is it?? Gas should be 5 cents a gallon here like in Iraq!!!


So are you saying we didn't go to Iraq for oil? :???:
 

BBJ

Well-known member
BBJ said:
kolanuraven said:
BUT...16 miles of pipe didn't just ' bustout' all at once!! Why weren't they checking or testing or whatever a little bit at a time.

I mean, come on....16 miles of a boo-boo is a whopper to " just come across" one day!!

The timing is bit too well timed. Hey, where all that Iraq oil to make up the difference????

If that's what we went to war for.....where is it?? Gas should be 5 cents a gallon here like in Iraq!!!


So are you saying we didn't go to Iraq for oil? :???:


HELLO? :cry:
 

BBJ

Well-known member
BBJ said:
BBJ said:
kolanuraven said:
BUT...16 miles of pipe didn't just ' bustout' all at once!! Why weren't they checking or testing or whatever a little bit at a time.

I mean, come on....16 miles of a boo-boo is a whopper to " just come across" one day!!

The timing is bit too well timed. Hey, where all that Iraq oil to make up the difference????

If that's what we went to war for.....where is it?? Gas should be 5 cents a gallon here like in Iraq!!!


So are you saying we didn't go to Iraq for oil? :???:


HELLO? :cry:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
I'm here.....sorry but ' life' got in the way yesterday. Don't be upset thinking I ignored ya.

Ok...I think we went to war because

#1....the oil ( most of the Bush admin is/was/are in the oil biz)
#2....GW wanted to ' get back' @ Saddam for trying to 'whack' his Daddy
#3....GW listens to the wrong people with the wrong information and won't
admit when there has been a mistake made....it's just plow on
through regardless, just save face no matter what.

Ok...you asked so don't go squirrely!

AND....wasn't it part of the "program" that Iraq would repay us for the war effort by the sale of oil....Rumsfield I think stated that. OK..well now would be a dandy time to start on the repayment schedule!!! I spent $50 on less than 1/2 tank of fuel yesterday for my F350....OUCH!!! That was BEFORE the new shipment of fuel arrived and the prices were bumped up.....would LOVE some of that Iraqi oil now!!!
 

BBJ

Well-known member
OK fair enough life tends to do that but.....

#1...you stated earlier about the oil men in the gov't today, is it your position that only Republicans are tied to the oil industry?

#2...Where is the link proving your theory that W wanted to "get back" @ saddam?

#3...A mistake made in whose opinion?


OOPS :oops: I'm sorry, I just went back to look at your response and these 3 things were what "YOU THINK", not necessarily any truth or proof to them just another persons opinion. :wink:

As for that Iraqi oil you would LOVE to have now, I doubt it would help anything. If we started tomorrow bringing that oil over here you libs would scream "SEE I TOLD YOU SO, THATS WHY WE WENT OVER THERE FOR THE OIL" :twisted: President Bush can't win with you people! :twisted: .
What would the Iraqi people think about that too? You already accuse US of occupying(SP? :cry: ) their country, then they really would be mad at us if we started "stealing" their oil. Is that what you want for our brave men and women? Maybe once things get ironed out we could make some deals then, but now is probably not the best time.


(Oh as for #2 and W's daddy..... you me one time if another country "invaded" us would I not stand up to them and fight back? Refering to the insurgents over there. Now I ask you what position would you take if someone tried to "whack" your daddy, as you put it? :wink:
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
This pipeline deal is the latest example of the relationship that comsumers have with the oil companies that can best be described as forced anal sex.
Look its in their best interest to creat shortages. They didnt maintain the pipeline and now look who is paying for it. You and me!
If they would have maintained the pipeline gas prices would have not gone up and they would have had to have payed for the maintanace.
Its the same deal with refinery capability. Its never going to change unless the government gets involved.
This is silly and I cant believe we are putting up with it :mad:
In the summer its the summer drivers creating shortages :lol: then its the hurricane season effecting refineries :lol: then its the home heating oil in the winter creating demand :lol: then its because of political instability someplace else and if everything is perfect in the world and they cant think of any excuses they just cap off wells until the prices go up. Thats why $13 a barrel oil didnt hurt the oil patch in AB. They just kept drilling but then they just capped off the wells until the price went up. Capped wells are money in the bank to them.
I dont know about you guys but im not into this butt loving and im tired of taking it from those oil and gas sons of bitches :mad:
There just asking to get regulated!
My solution isnt to regulate them but to set up a government owned oil company that would compete with them in the free market but you all think thats communism so I guess we will just keep taken it from the oil companies :mad:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
BBJ said:
OK fair enough life tends to do that but.....

#1...you stated earlier about the oil men in the gov't today, is it your position that only Republicans are tied to the oil industry?

#2...Where is the link proving your theory that W wanted to "get back" @ saddam?

#3...A mistake made in whose opinion?


OOPS :oops: I'm sorry, I just went back to look at your response and these 3 things were what "YOU THINK", not necessarily any truth or proof to them just another persons opinion. :wink:

As for that Iraqi oil you would LOVE to have now, I doubt it would help anything. If we started tomorrow bringing that oil over here you libs would scream "SEE I TOLD YOU SO, THATS WHY WE WENT OVER THERE FOR THE OIL" :twisted: President Bush can't win with you people! :twisted: .
What would the Iraqi people think about that too? You already accuse US of occupying(SP? :cry: ) their country, then they really would be mad at us if we started "stealing" their oil. Is that what you want for our brave men and women? Maybe once things get ironed out we could make some deals then, but now is probably not the best time.


(Oh as for #2 and W's daddy..... you me one time if another country "invaded" us would I not stand up to them and fight back? Refering to the insurgents over there. Now I ask you what position would you take if someone tried to "whack" your daddy, as you put it? :wink:

k-- let me play devil's advocate here.

1. No, republicans are not the only ones tied to oil, but they have more oil players now in govt. than previous govts. Do you need some of them listed or do you already know who they are?

2. The link is on your answer, but you have to think. Oh, heck, I will give you a hint:
Now I ask you what position would you take if someone tried to "whack" your daddy, as you put it?

3. Time will tell. There is no sugar coating thick enough to hide the truth on this one.
 

Cowpuncher

Well-known member
Some reactions!!!

The Alaska pipelines were completed in the 1970s. Due to environmental harrassment, the pipe for the pipe lines was stored on site for 5 years before the oil companies got the go ahead. In spite of this, there is no evidence that any material used that wasn't fully in compiance with engineering standards.

In the 1970s, some current technology such as lining the inside of the pipe with pvc pipe was not yet available. That didn't come along until the mid 1980s. Nonetheless, technology to prevengt pipeline corrosion has been available for decades before that. One method called cathodic protection calls for a huge bed to metal such as zinc is connected to the pipeline with electric cables. The two metals will generate some small amount of electricity and the metal more prone to corrosion will eventually be eaten up completely and require replacement. The cathode bed, of course is outside of the pipeline and can be replaced without affecting operations.

When I worked in oil, our company had a very small part of the Prudhoe Bay field and we didn't operate it. It was operated by ARCO, Exxon and Sohio, I believe. BP has since acquired both ARCO and Sohio. I do not know what their plans were to avoid corrosion problems, but having been around similar projects, they didn't just forget it or not do it to save money.

Perhaps some corrosion prevention systems didn't work completely because of the cold temperatures interfering with the cathodic protection - I don't know. Also the Alaskan crude is not a really sweet crude (not much sulfur in it), and the corrosion was more than expected. On the other hand, the crude makeup was well known before they started.

Also, contrary to some of the posts above, there is not a problem with 22 miles of pipeline. They have identified corrosion problems at 16 points in the line and most likely they will repair those points and recheck the rest. The problem was identified when a small leak of 5 barrels was found. They then started a comprehensive review of the 22 miles of line.

Another thing from above. Pigs are generally sent through pipelines to scrape parafin and sediment off the side of the line before they contrict the pipeline flow. They, in themselves, cannot detect rust or corrosion pits in the side of the pipe or sense weak points in the line.

The pipeline in question is vital to the Alsakan North Slope production and shutting it down for something not yet known is a costly proposition. If you lose 400,000 barrels of production now worth about $25 or 30 million dollars, you don't get that back when the line comes back on stream. You will get it back at the end of production of the field.

It might be worth noting that the Trans Alaska Pipe line itself is about 800 miles long and has not experienced similar problems. Very likely, if the whole one would require replacement, it probably would not be worth rebuilding the line. Of course, if ANWR is developed, these facilities would be utilized.

An interesting note. In 1969, there was an experiment using special oil tankers to transport Alsakan crude to the US east coast through the northwest passage. These tanks were to be equipped with icebreaker bows and were to be designed to operate year round. Shucks, if we had known that global warming was coming, the pipelines wouldn't have been necessary.

I don't know if the foregoing is helpful. I do know that it were not for the major oil companies and their engineers, we might all be looking at the back end of a horse on the way to town. Our oil in the lower 48 states has been mostly used up except for the oil shale. Just wait until they try to develop that and the environmentalists come unglued.

Your grandchildren won't be driving gasoline powered cars when they get ready to retire.

An interesting sidelight. We bought some used oil well tubing that had been used in disposal well (used to get rid of bad water produced with oil). It was 2 7/8 OD steel and they had inserted a 2 inch PVC pipe into it and filled the gaps with epoxy. It apparently went bad anyway but it looked like the corrosion was from the outside. Sure raised heck when tring to cut the stuff with a torch,
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Ok..glad you re-read! Saves us a lot of time!!! :lol:

Well...the whole world is accusing us of running in and over Iraq and being occupiers....well...let's make the rumors true then. We've wasted all this money....spilled all the blood of servicemen just to leave empty handed NOW???? Sometimes when put in a bad situation...you gotta live up to the rumors!!

We take all their oil until they settle down and quit bombing!

It is common knowledge that all that info that was broadcast during the hearings in the run up to the war....with Colin Powell & Co....was WRONG!! That's just not me....it was WRONG.

If someone tried to " whack' my father...I'd not involve 130,000 people who had NOTHING to do with it into the fray. Example...I've not asked you nor any other ' ranchers' to to deal with our local thief here, have I?? Much smaller scale...but same situation!

I've always wondered, (and I know there is a so called ' law' against this...but big deal!!) why a ' hit man' was not used to knock off Saddam....have a US friendly replacement ready to step in. All nice and quiet like!
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
<Your grandchildren won't be driving gasoline powered cars when they get ready to retire.>
Haha My Father told me 28 years ago that by the time I was old enough to drive that there would be no such thing as a gasoline powered automobile! :lol: :lol:
Let me tell you something. Nothing is going to change anytime soon and were all going to be using gasoline. Not until the last drop is gone will they ever come out with alternatives and I suspect this will take much longer than what most think it will. None of us will live to see it.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
I listened to some conversation on talk radio yesterday. Sounds like the Saudi's are going to step in and help us out. Why? Because in the past when we had an oil shortage (although we really don't have an oil shortage because of stored oil) it hurts them in the long run, because we start talking 'alternative energy.' They don't want us to think of alternative energy because it will hurt their economy. Also, the prediction was for oil to be in the $40-$50 range before long.
 
Top