Showing posts with label Spill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spill. Show all posts

Saturday, December 4, 2010

BP Challenge To Oil Spill Size Could Affect Fine

WASHINGTON — BP is mounting a new challenge to the U.S. government's estimates of how much oil flowed from the runaway well deep below the Gulf of Mexico, an argument that could reduce by billions of dollars the federal pollution fines it faces for the largest offshore oil spill in history.

BP's lawyers are arguing that the government overstated the spill by 20 to 50 percent, staffers working for the presidential oil spill commission said Friday. In a 10-page document obtained by The Associated Press, BP says the government's spill estimate of 206 million gallons is "overstated by a significant amount" and the company said any consensus around that number is premature and inaccurate.

The company submitted the document to the commission, the Justice Department and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"They rely on incomplete or inaccurate information, rest in large part on assumptions that have not been validated, and are subject to far greater uncertainties than have been acknowledged," BP wrote. "BP fully intends to present its own estimate as soon as the information is available to get the science right."

In a statement Friday, the company said the government's estimates failed to account for equipment that could obstruct the flow of oil and gas, such as the blowout preventer, making its numbers "highly unreliable."

BP's request could save it as much as $10.5 billion or as little as $1.1 billion, depending on factors such as whether the government concludes that BP acted negligently. For context, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's entire federal budget for 2010 was $10.3 billion. President Barack Obama has said he wants Congress to set aside some of the money BP pays for fines for the Gulf's coastal restoration. Louisiana lawmakers are pushing legislation that would require at least 80 percent of the civil and criminal penalties charged to BP, and possibly other companies, to be returned to the Gulf Coast.

William K. Reilly, co-chairman of the presidential commission, expressed amazement at BP's case Friday. Reilly headed the Environmental Protection Agency under President George H.W. Bush.

"They are going to argue that it is 50 percent less" than the government's total? Reilly asked. "Wow."

Under the Clean Water Act, the oil giant – which owned and operated the well – faces fines of up to $1,100 for each barrel of oil spilled. If BP were found to have committed gross negligence or willful misconduct, the fine could be up to $4,300 per barrel.

That means that based on the government's estimate of 206 million gallons, BP could face civil fines alone of between $5.4 billion and $21.1 billion.

"They are going to argue it was less," said Priya Aiyar, the commission's deputy chief counsel. "BP has not offered its own numbers yet, but BP has told us that it thinks the government's numbers are too high and thinks the actual flow rate can be actually 20 to 50 percent lower."

Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., a member of the House energy panel that is investigating the spill, said in a statement Friday to the AP that BP has done whatever it could to avoid revealing the true flow rate of the spill.

"With billions of dollars at stake, it is no surprise that they are now litigating the very numbers which they sought to impede," Markey said. "The government engaged independent scientists and multiple techniques to arrive at their estimate. Additional independent peer-reviewed studies have corroborated their estimate. BP has a high bar to meet to overturn this estimate."

BP's argument could be bolstered by the federal government's missteps in coming up with a final estimate for the spill's volume. The Obama administration has offered nearly 10 estimates of how much oil flowed from the BP well, coming up with a refined conclusion late last month of 206 million gallons, which is likely its last.

Internal documents released late Friday under the Freedom of Information Act show that the White House was intimately involved in deciding how scientific information was portrayed to the public, particularly when it came to the August 4 release of a document that showed where the spilled oil had gone. The five-page report, which was touted by Carol Browner, the president's energy adviser, on morning talk shows and at White House press briefing showed that half the oil was gone – either from evaporation, burning, skimming or recovery at the well head.

The 3,500 pages of documents reveal that the administration wanted the oil budget to show its efforts to respond to the disaster were working, despite objections from top EPA officials, including Administrator Lisa Jackson, over how some of the data was presented.

An earlier version of the press release issued with the paper said that 33 percent of the oil released was captured or mitigated by recovery efforts.

A final version, changed hours before its release, said "the vast majority" of the spilled oil was addressed by recovery efforts or had naturally dispersed or evaporated.

That morning, Browner appeared on national television saying that an initial assessment by federal scientists showed "more than three-quarters of the oil is gone."

In an e-mail sent later that morning addressed to Browner's assistant, Heather Zichal, NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco finds fault with the White House's interpretation of the report's numbers and attribution of the report solely to NOAA. The report was drafted by several agencies.

"I'm concerned to hear the oil budget report is being portrayed as saying that 75 percent of the oil is gone and that this is a NOAA report," Lubchenco writes. "Please help make sure that both errors are corrected." The White House acknowledged Browner had misspoke.

Lubchenco explains it was only accurate to say half the oil was gone.

___

Associated Press writers Seth Borenstein and Matthew Daly in Washington and Harry R. Weber in New Orleans contributed to this report.

___

Online:

National Oil Spill Commission: http://www.oilspillcommission.gov

Get HuffPost Green On Twitter and Facebook!

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.


View the original article here

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Admission of the Gulf of Halliburton oil spills: critical test ignored deep horizon before BP Oil Spill

WASHINGTON - Halliburton co. recognized ignored a critical test on the final wording of the cement to seal before BP oil wells he blew in the Gulf of the Mexico disabling.

Society, which was entrepreneur cementation of BP, came under increased scrutiny when President oil spill commission investigators revealed Thursday that tests conducted by the company before the fatal eruption had shown the cement is unstable.

Halliburton in a statement issued late Thursday night said that he has not taken a test of stability on the final mixture of cement after modifying a last minute by BP has added more than some a prior statements by the company ingrédient.Les told tests showed cement is stable.

Failure of mixing cement to prevent oil and gas from entering the pit was identified by BP and others as one of the causes of the accident, the largest oil spill in the history of the United States.

BP and Halliburton decided to use a foam created by injection of nitrogen in cement grout to secure the bottom of the well, an outside expert decision criticized.

The Panel said Thursday that four tests conducted in February and April by Halliburton, only - last - had shown tiendrait.Mais mixing this unique success test results were shared with BP and perhaps not reached Halliburton, until the cement is pumped, according to a letter sent Thursday by Chief Fred h. Bartlit. investigative counsel Commissioners.

Halliburton said Thursday that success criterion was made on a different mixture of used subsequently.While some tests were conducted on the new wording requested by BP, these tests did not include a test of stability of foam, the company said.

According to the Commission, BP at the time of the eruption had only one test - results an analysis of sent February BP by Halliburton in March 8 that cement could échouer.Le tested slurry email in this case was a slightly different mix and requires a slightly different design, but there was no evidence that Halliburton reported the problem to BP or BP had concerns, said in the letter.

"Halliburton (and perhaps BP) should take account redesign of foam slurry before it pumping wells Macondo," wrote Bartlit.

Independent tests carried out for the commission by Chevron on an almost identical mixture jeudi.Les results have been published have concluded that the mixing of cement was unstable, raising questions about the validity of the test of Halliburton, showing that nearly final mixing was stable.The company said "differences" between its internal tests and the commission was caused by the use of different materials.

BP in the internal survey also conducted independent tests showed the cement mixture was wrong, but his analysis too has been criticized by Halliburton, who said that he is not formula correcte.Rapport PMO also mention testing cement Halliburton mid-April, but it seems BP the results obtained after the accident and considered its imperfect methods.

However, the commission obtained proprietary additives the Halliburton as well as a recipe to recreate the mud used on the shaft.Litres and a half of the real mixture used on the rig remain, but he is detained as evidence in criminal and civil investigations.

Halliburton has rejected requests for the commission that the February tests were conducted on a cement which was similar to that used.

"Contrary to the letter... tested in February manure does was not 'a design very similar to foam slurry actually pumped'", bed déclaration.La society has also said there are significant differences in the way in which the cement has been tested.

Actions Halliburton has dropped nearly $ 34 to below $ 30 in New York in the half-hour after the commission has published its conclusions.Les shares recovered a little and closed at $31.68 $2.74 or 8 percent.BP shares rose $ 40.38 to $41.28, and then quickly reversed course and fell to $40.28 .the shares finished trading with a gain of $49 cents to 40.59.

Independent researchers do not deal with other decisions that could have helped cement failure and possible rash, such as BP decision to use less centralizers recommended by Halliburton.Centreurs SID.Please you as well pipe is centered within the well cement bond properly.

BP has also been criticized for not bind cement for a long time, a test that checks after the cement is pumped down if sécurisé.Il are also questions about whether pumped down BP enough cement to complete the bottom of the well, which was more than three miles under the sea level.

___

Associated Press writer Harry r. Weber in Atlanta has contributed to this report.

___

Online:

Presidential Committee on oil spills: http://www.oilspillcommission.gov

Halliburton Co.: http://www.halliburton.com

Get green HuffPost on Twitter, Facebook and Google Buzz!

This entry transmitted via the service for full-text RSS - if this is your content and you read on someone to another site, please read our FAQ page fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Article five filters features: After Hiroshima - non-rapport Cancer Catastrophe of Fallujah.


View the original article here