To judge from coverage in the NYT, a new and potentially devastating blow to the fortunes of BP is represented by the closure of the Alaska pipeline, in which BP has a 47% interest, and which is run by the Alyeska Consortium. But let's look at the real event: a leak developed in a pipe taking oil from a storage tank to the pipeline, and as much as ten barrels of oil leaked into a basement, where is was quickly collected. According to government regulations, the line must be shut until the leak has been "investigated" and repaired, which can take up to 6 days. Officials say it will have no effect on oil prices, nor on supplies of oil to refineries, since they have millions of barrels in storage. But here's how the NYT played it: "a new blow to the reputation and fortunes of the British oil giant BP." And of course, the article spent more time on the Gulf of Mexico blowout than it did on the pipeline.
Furthermore, the article pointed out, almost grudgingly, that there was "minimal or no" environmental damage nor was there likely to be any.
Now, let Ned shine some light on this situation: the pipeline opened in 1977 so it is more than 33 years old. It has dozens of pumping stations along its 720 miles. It needs a lot of maintenance. It operates under some of the most forbidding climatic conditions on earth, and it transports more than 600 thousand barrels a day of oil at around 150 degrees F, which can lead to a bit of corrosion from time to time. It's a complex operation, and just like a nuclear power plant, little things can go wrong which necessitate the closure of the system from time to time as a safety measure.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. Move along.
No comments:
Post a Comment