Congress May Have Found Oil Spill Cause

May 13th, 2010 (4) Posted By Pat Dollard.

captphoto_1273690416670-4-0

Politico:

A leak in a mechanism meant to prevent an oil spill could be the culprit in the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a House committee investigating the incident.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee, holding a hearing Wednesday, seems to have made significant headway in its investigation into the massive BP oil spill.

The hardware, known as a blowout preventer, had a leak, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Wednesday. The blowout preventer, as described by Stupak in the hearing, is similar to pinching the middle of a straw to stop the flow of a liquid. It is a last-ditch measure that is meant to stop a leak in an oil well. BP’s oil well, operated by Transocean, was thousands of feet under water.

Stupak and Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman’s investigation found four faults with the blowout preventer. One is a leak in a hydraulic system that provides emergency power clamps that are meant to seal the well. Their investigation also found there had been modifications to the blowout preventer — a fact raised in Tuesday’s Senate hearings. Transocean executives have maintained that the modification was done at BP’s request and expense.

Further, the blowout preventer may not have been powerful enough to cut through the drill pipe and stop a leak. And the investigation also found that the emergency controls on the blowout preventer may have failed. Also, a “deadman switch” meant to activate the blowout preventer also may not have activated.

Executives from BP, Transocean and Halliburton — all involved with the oil exploration — said they’d look further into the claims.

If true, the revelations could provide a large dose of clarity to a disaster cloaked in mystery. They are the most significant clues in two days of hearings on Capitol Hill on the oil spill that has rocked the Gulf region.

The companies Wednesday were appearing in front of the investigative panel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. There was one new participant: Cameron, the firm that made the blowout preventer.

Thus far, BP has tried to cover the leak with a dome, but ice has formed caused by the mixing of methane and water. Now BP is trying a smaller dome. If that doesn’t work, they’ll load a valve with a “junk shot” — a mixture of rope, golf balls, rubber particles and cement — to plug the leak.

For the past few days lawmakers have been irate with the oil companies, maligning them for not being prepared to respond ,to a leak of this nature, and now raising questions about any adjustments that were made to the blowout preventer before the explosion.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) blasted oil executives Wednesday for their response to the massive leak in the Gulf.

Markey, who chairs the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said BP is “flailing about with no clue about how you’re going to get out of the mess you’ve gotten yourself into.”

Markey, who is against new offshore drilling, said BP’s response should mirror the “Apollo project, not Project Runway.”

“I just wish that you had a little more humility here today,” Markey told the company executives.

Jihadi Killer Radio Hour
Follow Pat on Twitter
  • CPLViper

    Humph … a blowout switch crushes the pipe? Wow … maybe there is another way to crush the pipe to stop the leak … maybe we can move some rock that crushes the pipe … maybe the Russians have successfully accomplished what I have been suggesting for the last 2 weeks … they actually were successful 3 times, I believe …

    Drill a hole a short distance from the pipe, put a small tactical nuclear device in the hole, push the little red button … no more oil flowing through that pipe.

  • Bobby E.

    Congress found???? That’s all I have to say because I’m too busy laughing at that thought.

  • http://www.dirtydozensbunker.com Sanders

    I don’t think Congress had anything to do with finding the cause of that…

  • TerryTate

    I’d like to know why BP would have modified the blowout switch, or rather who required them to do that?

    You don’t do something like that for no reason. It either had to be done for engineering reasons, or regulatory reasons.

    My guess is it was done at the request of regulators, i.e. the government.