MBAs at it again!
 

tw can use this thead to talk about BP and not doing maintenance on pipelines.

What are the British doing in Alaska anyway?!

Why spend money on something that you can rake in the bucks off of, then shut it down, driving up the price of your product so that, when you get it fixed, you can rake in even more bucks?

Besides, they *did* maintain it. They just used MBA's to do it. After all, who needs MBA's sitting behind desks, crunching numbers, when you're pulling in gazillions of dollars? Just make the deposits and sit back and smoke big cigars.

They are under contract from the major owners to operate it. Exxon is the big dog.

I was under the impression that all that North Slope oil went to Japan, anyway? :confused:

Apparently seeking revenge for the League of Nations ruining the Empire.;)

edit linky winky

It’s not that simple. According to the engineering, such maintenance is not required. When anomalies were discovered, BP did some unrequited testing and found corrosion where corrosion should not have existed - 70% to 81% of the pipe is missing.

This is a transit pipe. Why corrosion exists where such should not have happened? What about the rest of that main pipeline across Alaska? Remaining are so many unanswered questions. What we do know is that after a second leak, the engineers did some unrequited testing and found a major failure before it could create a massive disaster.

The Alaskan pipeline was designed for 25 years of operation. It has now older than its life expectancy. Many questions are being asked. One should be whether it is time for a new Alaska pipeline. But, for example, many public reports do not even cite where the problem exists.

Alaska is a large place. The pipeline is what - 800 miles? What kind of maintenance does one do on an 800 mile pipeline? Redeposit missing steel inside the pipe? Maybe BP is guilty of not repainting the inside of that pipe every year? So much speculation. So few facts.

We do know that BP has shutdown before a major disaster occurred. Now the question is why that pipe is less than 30% of its original self. Was more regulation required? I don't see that evidence. I do see many engineers caught blindsided. We now need facts that currently do not exist.

What are the British doing in Alaska? Oil is fungible. So are those who dig it out and market it. Any idea that it is 'our oil' is bull for the naive among us. The biggest consumers of Alaskan oil include Japan. Only 20% of CA's oil consumption is from Alaska.

Still waiting for some answers such as why that pipe lost 70+% and what happened to the rest of the Alaskan pipeline? Did BP paint the inside of those other pipes annually? Or is that pipeline also too old - require replacement? Unasked are some far more serious questions - and those first questions are all technical.

Don't refer to the Japanese as slopes. It's not pc.

I got the impression this is the last section of pipe going into Valdez, from the news reports on TV.
Downhill section, salt air, warmer climate, combination...who knows?











The Shadow knows.:unsure:

Galvanic erosion due to the aurorae?

That's the problem with so many reports. They are vague on essential details - too much like a NY Daily News report. But a picture of pipe corrosion shows pipe's corrosion inside - not outside. Again, with so little detail, does rest of this pipeline have same problems?

Another problem. When an oil field is shutdown, damage can result. Pumping capacity of a field may be reduced. So what will happen to the Prudhoe Bay field when pumping stops for months? Just more questions that have not yet been asked.

Long before we can identify where a management mistake occurred, first, technical facts must be obtained.