Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mega

Bp.............its Very Very Bad News & It Could Break Us.

Recommended Posts

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/09/news/companies/simmons_gulf_oil_spill.fortune/index.htm

As i see it, if this "carpet" of black oil (500 foot thick by 1 mile wide) gets to the surface or near the surface the 1st hurracain will spread it all over the Gulf states.

Oh...............Yes BP didn't bother with getting insurance!!!!!!!

If these two statments are true BP is finished & a major tax source for the UK gone!

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BP have €5 billion in cash reserves and are still making huge profits elsewhere. It won't break them.

It could, however make them vulnerable to take-over. Although the share price bounced back a bit on Friday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/09/news/companies/simmons_gulf_oil_spill.fortune/index.htm

As i see it, if this "carpet" of black oil (500 foot thick by 1 mile wide) gets to the surface or near the surface the 1st hurracain will spread it all over the Gulf states.

Oh...............Yes BP didn't bother with getting insurance!!!!!!!

If these two statments are true BP is finished & a major tax source for the UK gone!

Mike

Who are they supposed to get insurance from for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BP have €5 billion in cash reserves and are still making huge profits elsewhere. It won't break them.

It could, however make them vulnerable to take-over. Although the share price bounced back a bit on Friday.

5billion Euro? Didn't I read that is has already cost them something like $46billion?

Or was that million?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there's a very good reason why this isn't happening but why haven't BP got ships with long hose pipes in the ocean sucking up this oil.

Surely having tankers trailing backwards and forwards in the area where this slick is would suck up most of the oil?

How difficult is it to separate crude from sea water?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BP are turning a handsome profit on oil futures. Betting prices will rise as a result of the Gulf catastrophe. When you are big oil there are no long term losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

Who are they supposed to get insurance from for that?

Exxon? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing Simmons has had to say about this fiasco is in the least bit credible. Oil slicks on the ocean floor, hundreds of feet deep and 100 miles long - that's a preposterous idea - there isn't actually that much oil in the reservoir (in fact, it would take 20 years of total world oil production to come close that).

The whole idea of BP 'plugging the wrong leak' is also preposterous. There is not a shred of evidence that the epicentre is anywhere other than at the well being drilled. He's also suggested that the blown-up well is actually a relief well for another ruptured well - but again, not a shred of independent evidence for that.

There is evidence of an 'underwater oil plume' - many miles across. However, 'oil plume' is really the wrong description - and the reason it took so long to discover it is that it took specialised equipment to detect it. This is actually very light contamination of water by microscopic oil droplets - forming a stable emulsion. The total amount of oil in the 'densest' part

of the plume is about 500 parts per billion (or about 1 pint of oil in 1000 tonnes of water).

A hurricane may be a serious problem, if the leak isn't stopped by then. However, storms are very good at cleaning oil spills up - because they disperse the oil naturally. It is undispersed oil that is highly damaging to shore lines - dispersed oil, tends not to contaminate land. The change in currents due to storm force winds would also help spread out the dispersed oil in the gulf, so that natural bidegradation processes can be more effective (one problem with artificial spills like this, is that there is too much oil in one place to be naturally removed before they reach shore - but stir things up and spread it about, and you can use much more of nature's remediation capability).

However, a hurricane while there is still reasonably fresh oil on the surface could be terribly damaging - with thick oil dumped far up river due to storm surges - and flood damaged worsened by oil contamination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The very worst that could happen is BP goes bankrupt, but BP is smaller than lots of other companies that have been bailed (could have gone bankrupt). Lehman brothers was many multiples bigger...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How difficult is it to separate crude from sea water?

It's very easy. However, US law makes it illegal for the separation to be performed at sea.

BP have lots of ships and equipment capable of doing the job - and have been offered numerous ships with this type of equipment from overseas. (The Dutch offered to send 6 ships equipped with massive oil-collecting 'ploughs' and huge oil-water separation machines - but the request was denied by the EPA, as their use is illegal).

The problem is in US law, it is illegal for any ship to release oil into the sea. So, unless the oil-water separators can remove every trace of oil (which they can't they only get between 90-98%), they cannot be used.

edit: Latest news is that the EPA have come up with a workaround (if the 'waste water' is discharged in front of the oil collection scoops, then they will permit the use of these type of ships). Following this announcement, the offer of clean-up ships is being reconsidered, and hopefully, they will now be on their way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

It's very easy. However, US law makes it illegal for the separation to be performed at sea.

BP have lots of ships and equipment capable of doing the job - and have been offered numerous ships with this type of equipment from overseas. (The Dutch offered to send 6 ships equipped with massive oil-collecting 'ploughs' and huge oil-water separation machines - but the request was denied by the EPA, as their use is illegal).

The problem is in US law, it is illegal for any ship to release oil into the sea. So, unless the oil-water separators can remove every trace of oil (which they can't they only get between 90-98%), they cannot be used.

There's also the protectionism, and good old American pride when offered foreign tech :-

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/08/to-save-the-gulf-send-the-jones-act-to-davy-jones%E2%80%99-locker/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the protectionism, and good old American pride when offered foreign tech :-

http://blog.heritage...2%80%99-locker/

Yes, it's worth underlining that. There is plenty of help available from many countries, many specialist ships that could clean everything up rather fast and efficiently but it is all stopped by an old protectionist law.

That this law hasn't been repelled in no time to allow for a proper cleanup is a disgrace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

Yes, it's worth underlining that. There is plenty of help available from many countries, many specialist ships that could clean everything up rather fast and efficiently but it is all stopped by an old protectionist law.

That this law hasn't been repelled in no time to allow for a proper cleanup is a disgrace.

I guess O'bummer is too busy stomping on peoples' necks to pass exemptions, do everything possible and accept all offers of help and equipment. What a blow hard.

As for Simmons and his wind farms, that's nice, but doesn't even come close to addressing the scale of the US's addiction :-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-nelder/195-californias-or-74-tex_b_596546.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howie-klein/another-wake-up-call-for_b_566301.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very easy. However, US law makes it illegal for the separation to be performed at sea.

BP have lots of ships and equipment capable of doing the job - and have been offered numerous ships with this type of equipment from overseas. (The Dutch offered to send 6 ships equipped with massive oil-collecting 'ploughs' and huge oil-water separation machines - but the request was denied by the EPA, as their use is illegal).

The problem is in US law, it is illegal for any ship to release oil into the sea. So, unless the oil-water separators can remove every trace of oil (which they can't they only get between 90-98%), they cannot be used.

edit: Latest news is that the EPA have come up with a workaround (if the 'waste water' is discharged in front of the oil collection scoops, then they will permit the use of these type of ships). Following this announcement, the offer of clean-up ships is being reconsidered, and hopefully, they will now be on their way.

So the EPA would rather have the water with 100% oil in it?

Doesn't this also helpfully give BP a of defence against the lawsuits that US law itself caused the oil spill to be worse because certain technology couldn't be used?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://money.cnn.com...rtune/index.htm

As i see it, if this "carpet" of black oil (500 foot thick by 1 mile wide) gets to the surface or near the surface the 1st hurracain will spread it all over the Gulf states.

Oh...............Yes BP didn't bother with getting insurance!!!!!!!

If these two statments are true BP is finished & a major tax source for the UK gone!

Mike

The media scaremongering on anything and everything is becoming relentless. No wonder people behave like hysterical nervous wrecks all the time.

What I'd like to know is how a hurricane, even a big one, could lift water levels by 500ft so that this oil can go on land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't this also helpfully give BP a of defence against the lawsuits that US law itself caused the oil spill to be worse because certain technology couldn't be used?

What is of the essence here though.

That the tools that would do the job can't be used, or that because those tools can't be used BP has a good excuse?

The latter may be true as a consequence but it ignores the real problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

So the EPA would rather have the water with 100% oil in it?

Doesn't this also helpfully give BP a of defence against the lawsuits that US law itself caused the oil spill to be worse because certain technology couldn't be used?

Yup, that's what it amounts to, leaving 100% crap in the gulf is fine, but processing 92% of it and returning a potential 8% crap into the sea is a no-no. And everyone blames the current problems on the lack of environmental regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there's a very good reason why this isn't happening but why haven't BP got ships with long hose pipes in the ocean sucking up this oil.

Surely having tankers trailing backwards and forwards in the area where this slick is would suck up most of the oil?

How difficult is it to separate crude from sea water?

Ask the Saudis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite

It's very easy. However, US law makes it illegal for the separation to be performed at sea.

BP have lots of ships and equipment capable of doing the job - and have been offered numerous ships with this type of equipment from overseas. (The Dutch offered to send 6 ships equipped with massive oil-collecting 'ploughs' and huge oil-water separation machines - but the request was denied by the EPA, as their use is illegal).

The problem is in US law, it is illegal for any ship to release oil into the sea. So, unless the oil-water separators can remove every trace of oil (which they can't they only get between 90-98%), they cannot be used.

edit: Latest news is that the EPA have come up with a workaround (if the 'waste water' is discharged in front of the oil collection scoops, then they will permit the use of these type of ships). Following this announcement, the offer of clean-up ships is being reconsidered, and hopefully, they will now be on their way.

Do you have a source for this? I want to ram it down an American's throat somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very easy. However, US law makes it illegal for the separation to be performed at sea.

BP have lots of ships and equipment capable of doing the job - and have been offered numerous ships with this type of equipment from overseas. (The Dutch offered to send 6 ships equipped with massive oil-collecting 'ploughs' and huge oil-water separation machines - but the request was denied by the EPA, as their use is illegal).

The problem is in US law, it is illegal for any ship to release oil into the sea. So, unless the oil-water separators can remove every trace of oil (which they can't they only get between 90-98%), they cannot be used.

edit: Latest news is that the EPA have come up with a workaround (if the 'waste water' is discharged in front of the oil collection scoops, then they will permit the use of these type of ships). Following this announcement, the offer of clean-up ships is being reconsidered, and hopefully, they will now be on their way.

my physics teacher told me, given the chance, oil will spead out on water to one molecule thick. Granted we have very viscous fractions in crude that lead to the "bunching" we are seeing. Nevertheless, the oil fim will still be pretty thin. I have no data but my guess is you'd have to suck water & oil in the proportion of 100 : 1 at least. This mixture will be emulsified in the pumping equipment, meaning it will need time to separate. The storage requirements would be colossal.

I honestly don't think epa would be standing in the way of anything that might stand a chance of averting this disaster. If somedody cares to do the math on what i've said above, I believe you'll end up with figures suggesting we'll need the entire capacity of the worlds oil tanker fleet parked in the gulf settling oil / water emulsions just to stand a chance of pulling this one off. still, would be happy to be proven wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest theboltonfury

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/09/news/companies/simmons_gulf_oil_spill.fortune/index.htm

As i see it, if this "carpet" of black oil (500 foot thick by 1 mile wide) gets to the surface or near the surface the 1st hurracain will spread it all over the Gulf states.

Oh...............Yes BP didn't bother with getting insurance!!!!!!!

If these two statments are true BP is finished & a major tax source for the UK gone!

Mike

Mike, you love all this don't you? Any chance to talk of doom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.