CRIMINAL: BP's Cover-Up of Blow-Out in Caspian Sea

CanceledB

Banned
Greg Palast: BP Covered Up 2008 Caspian Sea Deepwater Blowout and Already Knew Cap Wouldn't Work


You can understand why the U.S. government was so unhappy with Bradley Manning when we get to connect the dots on information like this:

Days after the Deepwater Horizon blow-out, a message came in to our offices in New York from an industry insider floating on a ship in the Caspian Sea. He stated there had been a blow-out, just like the one in the Gulf, and BP had covered it up.To confirm this shocking accusation, I flew with my team to the Islamic republic of Azerbaijan.

Outside the capital, Baku, near the giant BP terminal, we found workers, though too frightened to give their names, who did confirm that they were evacuated from the BP offshore platform as it filled with explosive methane gas.

Before we could get them on camera, my crew and I were arrested and the witnesses disappeared.

Expelled from Azerbaijan, we still obtained the ultimate corroboration: a secret cable from the U.S. Embassy to the State Department in Washington laying out the whole story of the 2008 Caspian blow-out.

The source of the cable, classified “SECRET,” was a disaffected U.S. soldier, Private Bradley Manning who, throughWikiLeaks.org, provided hot smoking guns to The Guardian.The information found in the U.S. embassy cables is a block-buster. The cables confirmed what BP will not admit to this day: there was a serious blow-out and its cause was the same as in the Gulf disaster two years later—the cement (“mud”) used to cap the well had failed.

Bill Schrader, President of BP-Azerbaijan, revealed the truth to our embassy about the Caspian disaster:

“Schrader said that the September 17shutdown of the Central Azeri (CA) platform…was the largest such emergency evacuation in BP’s history. Given the explosive potential, BP was quite fortunate to have been able to evacuate everyone safely and to prevent any gas ignition. … Due to the blowout of a gas-injection well there was ‘a lot of mud’ on the platform.”

From other sources, we discovered the cement which failed had been mixed with nitrogen as a way to speed up drying, a risky process that was repeated on the Deepwater Horizon.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., president of Waterkeeper Alliance and senior attorney for Natural Resources Defense Council, calls the concealment of this information “criminal. We have laws that make it illegal to hide this.”

The cables also reveal that BP’s oil-company partners knew about the blow-out but they too concealed the information from Congress, regulators and the Securities Exchange Commission. BP’s major U.S. partners in the Caspian Sea drilling operation were Chevron and Exxon.The State Department got involved in the matter because BP’s U.S. partners and the Azerbaijani government were losing more than $50 million per day due to the platform’s shutdown. The Embassy cabled Washington:“BP’s ACG partners are similarly upset with BP’s performance in this episode, as they claim BP has sought to limit information flow about this event even to its ACG partners.”

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/greg-palast-bp-covered-2008-caspian-s
 
British-Pollution-poster-300x300.jpg
 
Tom should get a real thrill out of this.

:corn:

Only in so far as Chevron, Topspin's old company is involved. It is not so easy for him to be so holier than thou about it. I also noticed that it is mainly the left wing loony blogs that are wetting their pants over this! Deep water drilling is an inherently risky business if you don't want to take the risk then ban it and pay the Saudis et al $200 per barrel. It may well go to that very shortly anyway, as the EU is stopping oil imports from Iran on 1st July. This will lead to be a shortfall of around 600,000 barrels per day, which coupled with all the pipeline leaks in Nigeria and Libya not really back on stream could see return to 1973!! Rootbeer will have to walk to school as his mummy won't be able to afford the fuel!!
 
Toppy must love the Chevron/Brazil thing....

I am sure he has kept us all informed about it?

Potential 5 billion loss for Chevron?
 
Only in so far as Chevron, Topspin's old company is involved. It is not so easy for him to be so holier than thou about it. I also noticed that it is mainly the left wing loony blogs that are wetting their pants over this! Deep water drilling is an inherently risky business if you don't want to take the risk then ban it and pay the Saudis et al $200 per barrel. It may well go to that very shortly anyway, as the EU is stopping oil imports from Iran on 1st July. This will lead to be a shortfall of around 600,000 barrels per day, which coupled with all the pipeline leaks in Nigeria and Libya not really back on stream could see return to 1973!! Rootbeer will have to walk to school as his mummy won't be able to afford the fuel!!

Hardly.

You sound like an apologist for the oil industry. Why else would someone attempt to minimize the effects of BP's 'risk-taking'?
 
Hardly.

You sound like an apologist for the oil industry. Why else would someone attempt to minimize the effects of BP's 'risk-taking'?

What's to apologise about? You will all find out soon enough how day to day living will be massively affected by $200+ crude oil prices. I suspect that you are not old enough to remember 1973 so it looks like it will be graphically demonstrated to you the hard way.

BP has paid over massive compensation whilst the likes of Transocean are still trying to evade liability. Contrast BP's actions with just about any US oil company, Exxon and Occidental are two that spring to mind. It's funny to my mind as it seems to be the further someone lives from the Gulf the more vociferous the protests. I wouldn't mind so much if that area of the Gulf was a pristine environment but Deepwater Horizon was about 50 miles from the Mississippi Delta which is known as the Dead Zone because of all the shit and filth that comes from the river!!
 
Last edited:
What's to apologise about? You will all find out soon enough how day to day living will be massively affected by $200+ crude oil prices. I suspect that you are not old enough to remember 1973 so it looks like it will be graphically demonstrated to you the hard way.

I remember the embargo of '73 quite well. We've known since before then that alternatives to finite energy sources need to be sought, invested in and implemented gradually, but we're a stupid country whose representative leaders are a bunch of whores who allowed themselves to be bought by the oil industry, imagine that.

Your bias is showing. ;)

What's in it for you to minimize oil's destructive effects?
 
I remember the embargo of '73 quite well. We've known since before then that alternatives to finite energy sources need to be sought, invested in and implemented gradually, but we're a stupid country whose representative leaders are a bunch of whores who allowed themselves to be bought by the oil industry, imagine that.

Your bias is showing. ;)

What's in it for you to minimize oil's destructive effects?

If you want to have a rational discussion fair enough otherwise I can't be bothered.
 
Come on Tom. Exactly which part of the post you quoted was irational?

What's funny is that he edited his post. The first was a snide claim that he's chairman of the Sierra Club.

His unwillingness to answer a direct and simple question speaks volumes; his need to project that unwillingness onto me for merely asking him why he minimizes Oil destructiveness is common and predictable for oil industry's apologists.
 
What's funny is that he edited his post. The first was a snide claim that he's chairman of the Sierra Club.

His unwillingness to answer a direct and simple question speaks volumes; his need to project that unwillingness onto me for merely asking him why he minimizes Oil destructiveness is common and predictable for oil industry's apologists.

Yes, I edited the post. You jumped in within seconds of posting before I changed my mind. The fact of the matter is I find your viewpoint to be naive and emotion laden. There is a serious debate to be held about energy issues but that's not happening here.
 
Come on Tom. Exactly which part of the post you quoted was irational?

As I've already pointed out, there is so much shit going on now that $200+ per barrel oil is just over the horizon. If that happens I doubt there will be much bellyaching about evil oil companies and more about how to get that shit out of the ground ASAP. If you think that putting up windmills will save you then you are sadly mistaken, for too long energy policy has been influenced by scientific illiterates. Don Quixote should have warned you of the futility of tilting at windmills!
 
Last edited:
Yes, I edited the post. You jumped in within seconds of posting before I changed my mind. The fact of the matter is I find your viewpoint to be naive and emotion laden. There is a serious debate to be held about energy issues but that's not happening here.

You seem to be confused. This isn't an "energy issue". This is a criminal issue. Or maybe you aren't confused and simply want to AVOID the discussion, which is why you - again - are attempting (and failing) to negatively project that my concern is 'naive and emotion laden'.

Tell you what. When you're ready to have an HONEST discussion, feel free to lay your real cards on the table. No amount of your expertise regarding the oil industry trumps criminal negligence.
 
Back
Top