Elsewhere this Friday:
- Gulf dilemma: Take BP’s payout or sue?
- What if today’s CO2-emitting devices were the last?
- For Pelosi and Markey, an oil sands mission
- Green building takes off in real estate slump Read more
- KNOC stands firm on £1.87bn Dana bid – FT
- Iran to lift petrol output as sanctions hit – FT
- Union accuses China of illegal clean energy subsidies – NYT
- US improperly banned oil drilling off Alaska coast, state claims in suit – Bloomberg
- ENRC steps up defence of Congo deal – FT
- UK government told to cut 2020 biofuels target – Reuters
- Warning on target for green energy – FT
- Nomura bulks up in north America – WSJ Read more
Elsewhere this Thursday:
- BP will find National Commission far tougher
- Who is buying Iran’s oil?
- The nearly forgotten Mariner explosion is just as bad as the BP oil spill
- A regenerative feat for solar cells
- Natural gas from shale rock promises energy revolution Read more
- Backlash greets BP’s internal report – FT
- Korea Oil’s hostile $2.6bn Dana bid marks new aggression – Bloomberg
- Dana offers ‘olive branch’ to KNOC – FT
- US offshore drilling agency overwhelmed, says report- WSJ
- Hyundai unveils its first electric car – Reuters
- Ikea buys six German wind farms – FT
- BP shares out thunder for its perfect storm – FT
- Legal battle over spill still wide open – FT Read more
BP’s investigation team includes a series of recommendations based on their key findings. The report notes that “others in the industry may benefit from consideration of these recommendations as well”.
The recommendations themselves are too technical to go into in detail, but broadly cover “drilling and well operations practice” and as well as “contractor and service provider oversight and assurance”. Read more
It just wouldn’t be a proper oil-related disaster if Greenpeace were not involved at every stage of the game. Responding to BP’s report on the oil spill, Jim Footner, head of its energy campaign, said: “This report is a sorry catalogue of the gaffes and failures behind the Deepwater Horizon disaster. And it’s highly likely that a truly independent report would be even more damning for BP.” Read more
It seems that not a lot went right on the Macondo welll on April 20. If you need a step-by-step description of events that led to the accident, here is BP’s more detailed account, helpfully attributing blame at each step (the emphasis is ours).
- The cement and shoe track barriers – and in particular the cement slurry that was used – at the bottom of the Macondo well failed to contain hydrocarbons within the reservoir, as they were designed to do, and allowed gas and liquids to flow up the production casing;
- The results of the negative pressure test were incorrectly accepted by BP and Transocean, although well integrity had not been established;
- Over a 40-minute period, the Transocean rig crew failed to recognise and act on the influx of hydrocarbons into the well until the hydrocarbons were in the riser and rapidly flowing to the surface;
The BP report spreads blame for the explosion and the spill far and wide. The four-month investigation has found that the accident was caused by “a complex and interlinked series of mechanical failures, human judgments, engineering design, operational implementation and team interfaces”. Read more
The eagerly-awaited report from BP has just been released on the company’s website. As was widely expected, BP has concluded that: “The investigation found that no single factor caused the Macondo well tragedy. Rather, a sequence of failures involving a number of different parties led to the explosion and fire which killed 11 people and caused widespread pollution in the Gulf of Mexico earlier this year.” Read more
The Deepwater Horizon accident investigation report prepared by BP’s internal investigation team on the causes of the Gulf of Mexico tragedy, is expected to be published on Wednesday at 1200 BST / 0700 EDT. FT Energy Source will have regular updates on the report during the day. Stay tuned. Read more