MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Petrobras admits oil leak off the coast of southern Brazil
Transpetro, a subsidiary of Brazil's state-run energy giant Petrobras, said Thursday it had detected an oil leak off the coast of Rio Grande do Sul state but did not know how much had spilled. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSo the question is the obvious one: are Brasil going to fine Petrobras millions for the spill like they have the foreigners who only did the same thing?
Jan 27th, 2012 - 04:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wouldn't like to bet on it.
I would!
Jan 28th, 2012 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly the question I asked here, after the intention to fine Chevron was published, and I got some very discriminatory (racial even) abuse.
Jan 29th, 2012 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So here we go, the comparisons will be made along the way, especially by Chevron's lawyers.
Naturally I agree with fining infractors-it's just a shame the 'Brazilian prosecutor' doesn't go after corrupt politicians with the same voracity!
I agree with you; just a small point “voracity” is spelt veracity and I suspect it may not be the word you intended: it means truth, such as 'the truth of the story' etc. Perhaps you meant vigour (forceful energy)? :o)
Jan 29th, 2012 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Rogbahia
Jan 29th, 2012 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oil spills happen all over the world. In 2010 alone there were over 50 oil spills throughout the Brazilian coast. The problem isn't the spill, but how Chevron handled it - Chevron abandoned the well, first denied there was an oil spill, and only took action 10 days after the happening. And its actions were much more timid than it advertised - it publicly said it had sent 16 vessels to fight the leak, though goverment officials who visited the area claimed there were only 4. Chevron is also guilty of furnishing edited photographs to the government in order to understate the significance of the leak, and that was the reason the government felt in the need to send officials to supervise the area in the first place. Moreover, and perhaps because of Chevron's dishonesty and lazy handling of the situation, the leak covers an immense area. According to the O Globo jorunal, the Chevron spill alone leaked over half of the oil of all the ~50 spills that occured in 2010. So don't you think there's any equivalence between Chevron's oil spill and random oil spills. For starters, as the article itself noticed it, it was Petrobras who first called attention to the spill, whilst Chevron, in comparison, was trying to divert attention from it own spill (once even said it was a phenomenon of nature). I was the one who shouted you down the other time, and you very much deserved it. I don't know whether there should be fines against Petrobras - but nothing in comparison to what has been imposed on Chevron, since Chevron's incompetent and dishonest handling of its spill was sui generis. I'm sorry it hurts your starts and stripes colored heart.
5 Forgetit87
Jan 29th, 2012 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So that makes it all ok then?
Hypocrite. Come and rant at me instead of Rogbahia who was only making a sensible comment that Chevron's lawyers WILL make comparisons between the two leaks.
So you believe the Petrobras (aka the government) claims in full. Unlike me, you have never worked as an engineer in a sea oil well/ land processing unit system and know nothing of the practical difficulties that arise on a daily basis.
I take it that ”O Globo jorunal (sic)” are oil experts then? No? I didn't think so, just the usual take it off the net and run with it journos' (short for journalists).
You really can be led around by the nose when you get apoplectic can't you?
BTW - what are 'starts and stripes'? Would this be the 'Stars and Stripes', a reference to the American flag?
First off, what? Well, the spill is there, isn't it? But is PBR denying the spill happened? No, it was in fact PBR who called attention to it. Besides, the leaked area is small. Chances are that this oil spill is of the run-of-the-mill sort. Chevron's was much larger, and it didn't deal with it well: it abandoned the well, it lied about it being man-caused and then about the provisions it'd taken to stall it, and it offered but edited pics of the leak to the govt. Sorry, but has PBR done any of that? It hasn't, to my knowledge, nor has any other company, foreign or national, operating in BR. How, then, can these two companies be compared, if the Chevron spill was worse in proportion, and its behavior, nothing short of incompetent, deceitful and harmful? 2 months ago Rogbahia was bitching about the fines imposed on Chevron, saying that PBR could cause a spill too. Well, most companies could. But how many have caused a mega-leak and then lied through their teeth about everything surrounding it? The comparison can only be made by the likes of Rogbahia: American crybabies who want to excuse away the behavior of their ilk by greatly overstating shortcomings elsewhere. Typical American, even today his country's justifying the Iraq War by whining about Saddam Hussein.
Jan 29th, 2012 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“you have never worked as an engineer in a sea oil well/ land processing unit system and know nothing of the practical difficulties that arise on a daily basis.”
I'll pretend I believe you.
”I take it that ”O Globo jorunal (sic)” are oil experts then? No? I didn't think so, just the usual take it off the net and run with it journos' (short for journalists).”
You haven't read the article, so don't accuse me of anything, buffoon. The article was written to point out that spills are common, not to make any criticism againt Chevron. (O Globo is not the sort of newspaper that criticizes big corporations, btw.) And if you really think the procedure is so risky, why your enthusiasm in ranting against Petrobrás?
“BTW - what are 'starts and stripes'? Would this be the 'Stars and Stripes', a reference to the American flag?”
Jan 29th, 2012 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're such a genius, ChrisR.
In any event, here's an article of interest. I doubt you can read it, but it says the government's animal protections agency will fine Transpetro. I hope that will silence the ignoramuses commenting on here and their “poor Chevron” jeremiads.
http://g1.globo.com/rs/rio-grande-do-sul/noticia/2012/01/transpetro-sera-multada-por-vazamento-de-oleo-diz-ibama.html
8 Forgetit87 & 86 (any more while we are at it?)
Jan 30th, 2012 - 07:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hit a nerve, did I?
Shell Q'Ebo Terminal, NW of Delta 1, Nigeria. Engineer with Seaweld Engineering.
I do not read crap like O Globo when discussing petro-chemical technical matters: there are far better sources.
It is just the hypocritical stance of you Argies when it suits you. A spill is a spill. I suspect (but do not condone) that Chevron did what they did (alledgedly) because they knew Petrobras would wind the government up and hey! They were right.
Keep throwing the insults: it shows you are out of control and have lost the argument.
You didn't hit anything, ChrisR. I'm the one who's easily shocked by arrogant displays of stupidity. And since when can you read Portuguese? How can you know what “O Globo” releases or how good are its peaces on “petro-chemical technical matters”?
Jan 30th, 2012 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“because they knew Petrobras would wind the government up and hey!”
I'm in the dark as to what this is supposed to mean. Petrobrás was a partner of Chevron's in operating that well. As such, even though Chevron was clearly the spiller, government agencies are required by law to investigate Petrobrás and also a third operator of the well, a Japanese consortium. Petrobrás has gained nothing from Chevron's faux pas, and it can still be subjected to fines just on account of the partnership. Furthermore, it was Petrobrás who warned Chevron of the oil spill the Americans pretended they didn't know existed, and it was Petrobrás who lent them the equipment so they could investigate the leak. Chevron is where it is nowadays because of its own incompetence and deceptions. But please, don't let that interfere with your misinformed accusations against Petrobrás and pathetic expressions of pity towards the poor dear Chevron.
“Keep throwing the insults: it shows you are out of control and have lost the argument.”
I've lost nothing. All of my arguments are still there, and you haven't questioned them. I'll repeat them for you. Environmental damage is minimal compared to November's spill. And unlike according to IBAMA, the animal protection agency, Petrobrás - very unlike Chevron! - took all the required measures to deal with the leak, including, but not limited to, warning the government of its existence. Ergo, the two companies should, and are going to, be treated differently.
10 Forgetit87
Jan 30th, 2012 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'Petrobrás was a partner of Chevron's in operating that well. As such, even though Chevron was clearly the spiller,' I have no idea what the legal situation with 'Partner' is in Brasil, but in International Law' it is jointly and severally. This means Petrobras is just as guilty as Chevron. I am pleased to see their response: that is what they should have done as a partner in the operation. Still haven't been fined millions though have they? Or for the other spill?
In real terms I have answered the argument, you don't need pages and pages to do this. Petrobras were partners in one well with Chevron, there was a spill, they were sole operators on anothe installation, there was a splill. It seems to the outsider like me that Brasil fine outsiders. I have yet to see ANY evidence they fine Petrobras. OK?
Petrobrás and Inpex (the Japanese consortium) were being investigated -- even the ANP, the national oil agency, was targeted by Congressional inspections. I'm not following the case closely, but last time I read anything on the matter, it was still being decided whether the junior partners (Chevron had majority rights over the well) and the ANP would have to bear the costs of the fines, as their responsibility for the leak thing was still being ascentained (whilst Chevron's, by contrast, was quite clear). And, ChrisR, you know nothing about my country or my government. Petrobrás was fined 100 million Reais back in 2001 over a leak: as far as a I know, that's far more than any of the individual penalties imposed on Chevron. So don't question our ability to watch over our companies - and Petrobrás is a public company - and impose penalties on them in response to mishandling on their part. Brazil isn't a ruled by one-party system. We have a vigorous opposition with large congressional presence whose attitude towards public companies is far from supportive. As for the “latest” leak, Ibama had already guaranteed that Petrobrás would be fined, even if it took satisfactory measures to fight the leak. You'd know that if you could the link I posted above. The costs were still under analysis - after all the leak happened 2, 3 days ago. But FYI, an IBAMA spokesperson said the fine would cost Petrobrás anything from 5 thousand to 50 million Reais. As for evidence that Petrobrás is held accountable for its actions: well, you don't know what happens in here, you don't read our newspapers, and you don't follow news about the country. So shut up. Instead of spouting misinformed criticism, go read about the subject (if you can), and try and follow the case closely, instead of saying nonsense based on your ignorance of Brazilian affairs.
Jan 30th, 2012 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 011 ChrisR (#) Thanx, yes “vigour” is what I meant. Interesting exchange with the “Fogetit's”.
Jan 30th, 2012 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 013 Rogbahia
Jan 30th, 2012 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My pleasure! :o)
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!