The spill started April 20, 2010, and once the well was first spotted to be leaking the company quickly started trying to fix it. The company failed many times before they finally claimed to have capped the Macondo well on July 15. Only then five months later after the initial spill got out of control did the federal government say that the well was dead. The government had a pressure test confirm that cement had been pumped into the bottom of the well through a relief well making it finally sealed. After this was done the government stated that the Macondo well and two relief wells were to be abandoned. (Gulf of Mexico) “BP said that tests showed there was no cement, oil or gas in the annulus at the interception point, so there was no need to first pump heavy drilling mud into the annulus through the relief well, a procedure known as a bottom kill” (Fountain). So why was this procedure even done?
That procedure done was called bottom kill they then did a procedure called top kill where mud and cement were pumped in to plug the casing pipe. With this procedure done scientist thought that the oil would get trapped in the annuals so work was suspended untill they could figure out if there was in trapped oil or not. Later that week BP states that there was no oil trapped so work was continued. (Fountain)
Though BP was trying their best to stop the leak they did start to point fingers at other companies for being the cause of the leak. They put blame on their “contractors, especially Transocean, which owned the rig, and Halliburton, which performed cement jobs on the well” (Urbina). BP claims that they relied on Halliburton for the well design and the cement work but also claims they should have kept a better watch on the Halliburton workers as they worked. Mr. Bely says “Halliburton should have done more extensive testing and signaling to BP that there were issues to think about and BP should have done a better job of ensuring that that happened” (Urbina). Halliburton retorts back by saying “The well owners is responsible for designing the well program and any testing related to the well…Contractors do not specify well design or make decisions regarding testing procedures as that responsibility lies with the well owner” (Urbina). So now there is the whole problem with exactly whose fault is it that there is this large oil spill in the ocean.
The problem now isn’t whose fault it is or why certain procedures were done its how can oil drilling be safer and what has been taken away from the whole experience. “The American Petroleum Institute and industry task forces have identified specific measures to make operations safer and more environmentally responsible” (Making Oil Drilling). This is really good now companies are working on making oil drilling safer because it is known that our society need oil. There are new regulations for the well that must take place, the well “must be inspected and certified by industry, government and third-party professionals. New rules governing the cementing and casing of wells must be strictly observed. Every stage of the drilling must be monitored and certified by independent engineers” (What). So now we have learned from our mistakes and will try and make it safer for us to still use oil.
Work Cited
Fountain, Henry. "BP Begins Last Step in Sealing Stricken Well in the Gulf". nytimes.com, 17 Sept.2010. web. 7 Oct. 2010
"Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill". nytimes.com, 23 Sept. 2010. web. 7 Oct. 2010
"Making Oil Drilling Safer: A View from the Industry". nytimes.com, 1 Oct. 2010. web. 7 Oct. 2010.
Urbina, Ian. "BP Spill Report Hints at Legal Defense". nytimes.com, 8 Sept. 2010. web.7 Oct. 2010.
"What Have They Learned?". nytimes.com, 5 Oct. 2010. web. 7 Oct. 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment