Thanks, Titanites, I followed it.
I would thank you to stop putting words in my mouth, though. I did say “you decide” (i.e., for yourself). I said, “I personally favor the view that the cause of the problem was negligent incompetence rather than conspiracy.” You said, “The negligent managers have been relieved of duty.” That sounds like agreement on the cause: negligence.
I never claimed BP left the oil there in March, only that they did spill it because they have not maintained the pipe. If they have reclaimed it and cleaned up, that's great. What would be even greater is if BP operated the pipeline in line with the standard operating procedures of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, scraping & smart-pigged that pipe regularly. They have not for 14 years. You made the point that BP do not own a smart-pig (not an unreasonable precaution when they operate so many pipelines), and you point out that because they don’t own one they have to book one. But they have not done so for 14 years on this pipe.
You also make a good point about metallurgy. I am not a chemist or a metallurgist, but I do know that steel corrodes – especially in the extreme climate of Alaska, let alone with crude pumping through it. I also note that you don’t have any metallurgical analysis either, so that’s a moot point, I guess. But it does not change the fact that the TAP is scraped and smart-pigged regularly and BP haven’t bothered on this pipe.
No matter how good the data might be from the ultrasound, they have had numerous members of their own staff highlighting this very issue and have ignored, silenced and intimidated people to avoid doing anything. Now the bill comes due. As for the lead time on getting pipe to the North Slope, BP has said they now expect to get replacement pipe in the area by the end of the year. My point stands: if this had been dealt with immediately in March, the pipe would be in place now.
Congratulations on attempting to make this about my environmental record. Nice try at diversion. I cannot and do not claim to live an exemplary life with regards to the environment. I don’t have pans slung under my car to catch oil, but I have my car serviced annually or every 10,000 miles (which ever comes first), to ensure that it doesn’t leak, it works efficiently and safely. It’s a regime of checks that ensures smooth function, and I don’t begrudge the expense to maintain a safe, efficient, reliable vehicle.
It is not unreasonable to expect a multi-national company like BP to meet the same standards as its neighbours, competitors or the same standards it applies in other parts of the world (it does smart-pig its North Sea pipes in the UK every 5 years).
Regarding BP’s share price, BP Plc is trading on the London Stock Exchange right now at GBP 70.03. The 52 week high was 76.47 and the low was 63.33. They ARE tracking slap, bang in the middle of their 12 month range. The share price tail-dived through May/June to around 65, climbed to just over 72 and then down to 69 when the latest disaster was announced. I would say that this is causing no major damage to their share price as it is still 7% up on the price 2 months ago. If it drops below the 65 level I will stand corrected. If it manages to fall below 63, I owe you a beer.
BP is the majority owner of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and one of its executives is the president of that organization. It is, in essence, BP that ensures this pipeline is well maintained. As far as BP's pipeline that leaked, if you have years and years and years of smart-pig data and ultra-sound data that demonstrates that smart-pigging is no longer necessary, you don't spend the huge amounts of money to do it. It is prudent business practice, not that you have any experience with that. Where BP got caught is that something suddenly changed the environment in the pipe - fluid velocities decreased to a level that the solids weren't carried away, some water carried over into the pipe, or SRB growth was initiated, etc. As far as standard operating procedures - they don't apply to all pipelines. No pipe system is the same. It is impossible to apply the same standard operating procedure to all pipelines. You should know this with your vast engineering knowlege.
they have not maintained the pipe
This is a flat-out lie. The paper indicates they put a tremendous amount of maintenance into the pipe - including extensive ultra-sound testing and routine application of corrosion inhibitors. For nearly 30-years, their maintenance has proven adequate. Recently, something changed in the environment in the pipe and BP was caught by surprise. Corrosion happens everywhere - you can't stop it, you can just slow it down. Pipelines leak everywhere on a regular basis. Even the perfect Trans-Alaska Pipeline you keep touting has had to shutdown for leaks. Where were you then?
You made the point that BP do not own a smart-pig (not an unreasonable precaution when they operate so many pipelines), and you point out that because they don’t own one they have to book one.
Oil companies do not own there own smart-pigs. They are highly specialized tools, requiring high maintenance, and take specially trained personnel to read the data. There are companies who specialize in these services and supply the smart-pigs to the whole industry. Everyone in the industry has to book them. It is standard and accepted industry practice.
I do know that steel corrodes – especially in the extreme climate of Alaska, let alone with crude pumping through it.
Well, you are wrong again. The climate on the North Slope of Alaska is one of the least conducive to corrosion. Rain fall is low, and the North Slope is considered a desert environment. Humidity is low. So, for external corrosion, the problem is going to be much less than say places like Louisiana or Texas. As far as internal corrosion, which is really the concern here, the least corrosive environment you can have is pumping dry crude oil, i.e. with no water present. That is what the pipeline pumped. Your expertise in corrosion is lacking.
I also note that you don’t have any metallurgical analysis either, so that’s a moot point, I guess.
Yes, it is. You shouldn't have even brought it up if you don't have the facts to support your case.
But it does not change the fact that the TAP is scraped and smart-pigged regularly and BP haven’t bothered on this pipe.
This is a lie. They bothered to do it for 15-years. The data obtained indicated it wasn't necessary and that the high cost of smart-pigging was not justified. So they stopped, as all other companies would do if they follow prudent business practices. And they carried on with extensive ultra-sound tesing, according to standard industry practices.
No matter how good the data might be from the ultrasound, they have had numerous members of their own staff highlighting this very issue
Were there complaints specifically about smart-pigging? What were the qualifications of the people complaining? Were they corrosion experts? Unless you know, this is another moot point you're hanging your hat on. All of the reports I've read in the paper are that the people complaining were unionized hourly workers. They complain about everything, all the time, just as every union does. If business jumped to rectify every whim and complaint by the unions, there wouldn't be any more unions - because there wouldn't be any more business.
BP has said they now expect to get replacement pipe in the area by the end of the year. My point stands: if this had been dealt with immediately in March, the pipe would be in place now.
And if they had ordered it last year, it would have been in place at the time of the first leak. Hindsight is 20/20. You should hire yourself out as a consultant. As far as being dealt with in March, no your argument does not stand. I addressed this point above and the reasons for delay. Have you forgotten already?
Congratulations on attempting to make this about my environmental record. Nice try at diversion.
This diversion was started by you. You are the one who claimed BP poured oil into the Arctic. When you spill something it is an accident. Expect it to be addressed if you make untrue and inflammatory comments. When you pour something, it is on purpose.
It is not unreasonable to expect a multi-national company like BP to meet the same standards as its neighbours, competitors
It does meet the same standards. Please point out a single multi-national company like BP who has never had a leak on a major pipeline. Just one.
or the same standards it applies in other parts of the world (it does smart-pig its North Sea pipes in the UK every 5 years).
And BP smart-pigs a significant number of its pipelines on the North Slope of Alaska on a regular basis. As in the UK, it smart-pigs on those lines that the data indicates it is needed, and as frequently as is needed. 15-years of smart-pig data and 15-years of ultra-sound data indicated smart-pigging was no longer necessary on this dry oil pipeline in question. Can you understand that? Can you understand that BP regularly smart-pigs other lines on the Slope, as the data indicates is required? I've told you this elsewhere, but it keeps coming back.
The share price tail-dived through May/June to around 65, climbed to just over 72 and then down to 69 when the latest disaster was announced. I would say that this is causing no major damage to their share price as it is still 7% up on the price 2 months ago. If it drops below the 65 level I will stand corrected
Your original premise, that I addressed, was that BP did this to "maintain" share price. Your own words indicate that is not true since the share price dropped immediately when the pipeline leak was announced. Now you've changed your tune to "that this is causing no major damage to their share price". Neither is the accident maintaining share price. Your business sense is something else. Also, your use of "disaster" is fast and loose. What is the "disaster" you've envisioned?
I owe you a beer
Keep your beer. You're going to need the money with the business expertise you've acquired.