i thought the 2nd response below was instructive so i included it. rest of thread here http://www.zerohedge.com/article/internal-bp-document-confirms-matt...

Internal BP Document Confirms Matt Simmons' Worst Case Prediction Of Spill Rate Of 100,000+ Barrels Per Day

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/20/2010 12:47 -0500

An internal BP document released by the chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Ed Markey, discloses what the vast majority already know - that a "worst case" gusher scenario could be as high as 100,000 barrels of oil per day. According to an exhibit discussing flow rate probabilities, BP says that "If BOP and wellhead are removed and if we have incorrectly modeled the restrictions – the rate could be as high as ~ 100,000 barrels per day up the casing or 55,000 barrels per day up the annulus (low probability worst cases)." This is getting very close to the estimate presented previously by Matt Simmons that the flow rate could be as high as 120,000 bpd. As Markey notes, "This number is in sharp contrast to BP’s initial claim that the leak was just 1,000 barrels a day. At the time this document was made available to Congress, BP claimed the leak was 5,000 barrels a day, and told Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the worst case scenario was be 60,000 barrels a day. This document tells a different story." It is stunning to discover that a major multi-national corporation could be so daring as to lie to shareholders, Congress and taxpayers. The next question that Congress may want to look into is why the Obama administration swallowed BP's lies hook line and collapsing GoM floor bed, without using an independent 3rd party verification, and what the liability to the firm would be if the official flow rate is revised to be twice higher than the current worse case scenario. We are confident that as more of the structural integrity of the seabed collapses, that even Simmons' estimate will prove to be conservative.

More from Ed Markey:

“Considering what is now known about BP’s problems with this well prior to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, including cementing issues, leaks in the blowout preventer and gas kicks, BP should have been more honest about the dangerous condition of the well bore,” said Markey, the chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

On Thursday, Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen was asked in his daily briefing about the condition of the well bore. He said there, “So what I would tell you is we don’t know exactly the condition of the well bore. And that’s one of the unknowns that we’re managing around in terms of risks. And that’s the reason we didn’t go, didn’t go to excessive pressures on the top kill and decided that we’d deal with containment and then go for the final relief well.”

According to Admiral Allen: "I think that one thing that nobody knows is the condition of the well bore from below the blowout preventer down to the actual oil field itself. And we don’t know, we don’t know if the well bore has been compromised or not."

What the BP document suggests that if the well bore is compromised or becomes compromised, we now know we could be looking at a flow rate 100 times BP's initial estimate. Even if we can't know for certain the condition of the well bore, we should have known how much oil could flow from it--BP did.

“When the oil spill started, BP said it was only 1,000 barrels a day. Now we know it could end up being 100 times larger than that in a worst-case scenario,” said Markey. “This document raises very troubling questions about what BP knew and when they knew it. It is clear that, from the beginning, BP has not been straightforward with the government or the American people about the true size of this spill. Now the families living and working in the Gulf are suffering from their incompetence.”

“BP needs to tell us what it will do if the well bore is compromised and 100,000 barrels per day of oil spills into the ocean. At this point, we need real contingency planning, not a plan with dead scientists and walruses,” said Markey.



Smoking gun BP exhibits:

* Login or register to post comments
* Printer-friendly version
* Send to friend



by jkruffin
on Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:50
#423774

They don't care, within 2-3 more weeks they will be hiring bankruptcy lawyers to scam out of every claim they would ever have to pay. And any judge should disallow any attempt by them to file bankruptcy until every asset they have is sold off and every claim paid.

* Login or register to post comments

by Gully Foyle
on Sun, 06/20/2010 - 13:02
#423798

jkruffin

Make of this what you will.

http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2010/06/june-19-2010-behind-c...

Ilargi: There are more examples than one can even try to sum up when it comes to painting the picture of the perversity and ineptitude of the US political system. The so-called grilling of Tony Hayward a few days ago was one prime example. The BP CEO started out with a "so sorry" statement that was an almost exact copy of a recent BP mea culpa TV ad.

When responding to the subsequent questions, Hayward mainly repeated the same line over and over: he wasn’t there when it happened, he had no influence on the decision-making process concerning the Macondo well, it was not his personal fault, and moreover, he was the very man who had announced strict safety measures when he took the job. Absolute habberdash, obviously, all of it, but it didn't matter one iota to Tony Hayward.

The reason why, or at least a major one, became clear the day after the "grilling": Tony Hayward was "relieved of his duties" that same day, to be replaced by some American deputy director at the company. Not replaced as CEO, mind you, but as BP's "face" in the US.

Capitol Hill, therefore, looks like the bunch of ass-clowns they are. Any further or follow-up questions will not be answered by the company's CEO anymore. They can now complain, whine and yell at his servant. Obviously, this was a decision that had been made a while ago; let Tony take the flack, he's leaving anyway.

In the past two weeks, despite Obama's moratorium on offshore drilling, the White House (through The Department of Interior's Minerals (Mis)Management Service has signed off on at least five new offshore drilling projects. That all by itself provides a much clearer idea of where the power lies, and where the truth, than all the made-for-media show trials together.

BP has signed off on a $20 billion escrow fund, but it may well be liable for damages totaling over $100 billion. Judging from Tony Hayward's performance, the fourth-largest company on the planet doesn't seem too worried, or at least its directors don’t. It may be wise not to underestimate BP's political clout, in London, Washington and many other capitals around the world.

Possibly even more perverted, and more telling of how Washington works, is this from the Huffington Post:

White House Flip Flops On Reining In CEO Pay

The White House is intervening at the last minute to come to the defense of multinational corporations in the unfolding conference committee negotiations over Wall Street reform. A measure that had been generally agreed to by both the House and Senate, which would have affirmed the SEC's authority to allow investors to have proxy access to the corporate decision-making process, was stripped by the Senate in conference committee votes on Wednesday and Thursday.

Five sources with knowledge of the situation said the White House pushed for the measure to be stripped at the behest of the Business Roundtable. The sources -- congressional aides as well as outside advocates -- requested anonymity for fear of White House reprisal.

The White House move pits the administration against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who told Barney Frank (D-Mass.) to stand strong against the effort. "I met with the Speaker today and she said, 'Don't back down. I'll back you up,'" Frank, the lead House conferee, told HuffPost. "Maxine Waters is very upset, as are CalPERS and others." Advocates said that the corporations fought the issue primarily over executive compensation concerns. Given proxy access, investors could rein in executive salaries. The Business Roundtable is a lobby of corporate CEOs.

Yes, BP would be a natural member of the Business Roundtable. The fishermen and tourist operators on the Gulf Coast would not. If I've said it once, I must have said it a thousand times: there will be no economic recovery in the US, and neither will there be any meaningful reform, whether financial or political, as long as the final say rests with those who have the most money.

They've gotten where they are through, and because of, the system as it is, and they will successfully resist any significant changes that would hurt their interests. That's the light in which to view for instance Obama's bizarrely numb Oval Office speech, and that’s why the White House deems it necessary to intervene on Capitol Hill on behalf of its friends and masters in the Business Roundtable.

It’s not a pretty picture that you get to see when you peer behind the curtain of spin, is it?