Mega Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deflation Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babesagainstmachines Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pent Up Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 More HPC ultra doom-mongering. If BP go under in the short term I'll eat my hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realistbear Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 Who are they supposed to get insurance from for that? Exxon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChumpusRex Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AteMoose Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChumpusRex Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_w_ Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 $10000 worth of washing up liquid and a hurricane will disperse it all and create a froth mountain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pindar Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBPIPWqOziw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pindar Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 Extent of the damage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_w_ Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_w_ Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lander Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledgehead Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theboltonfury Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.