60 square mile oil slick covers gulf of mexico
Posted 29 April 2010 - 11:17 AM
Posted 29 April 2010 - 11:18 AM
Posted 29 April 2010 - 02:57 PM
THAT is what gets their attention and makes 'em change things.
THAT is a very depressing thing.
The most significant chance of meaningful change in the Oil/Gas industry in the immediate future lies in piss poor financial returns reported to stockholders.
Meanwhile, I hope everybody in the South East likes flash frozen imported seafood as much as I do. Gulf coast shrimp and oyster production as we know it today is dead.
Shares in BP plunged 7% today as investors panicked about speculation that the blowout on a rig in the Gulf of Mexico could create an even bigger environmental disaster than the Exxon Valdez tanker spill.
Fund managers and analysts in the City said they were deeply worried about the financial cost to BP of the kind of legal action that could be taken in the US by those damaged by the accident.
Over £13bn has so far been knocked off the oil company's stock market value since the Transocean Deepwater Horizon rig caught fire and the latest dive in value came after it acknowledged the amount of oil leaking from sub-sea wells could be 5,000 barrels a day – five times more than previously thought.
The City of London was alive with rumours that the spill could even reach 10,000 barrels, according to one oil analyst who asked not to be named: "We have also heard that the state of Louisiana is threatening to sue the company," he added.
A spokesman at BP headquarters in London said the share price fall was "related to the US incident" but it denied any knowledge of any legal cases being prepared at this time or that 10,000 barrels could be pouring from the stricken well.
"There is no way of accurately measuring how much oil is coming out because all the equipment was destroyed on the rig but the 5,000 figure is coming from the NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)," he added.
The incident is particularly damaging for BP because the British group is still recovering from the reputational damage wreaked on it by the Texas City fire, pipeline fractures in Alaska and a previous rig accident in the Gulf.
The financial damage to BP this time round will depend on how quickly it can cap the Macondo well and clean up the spill before it reaches the beaches of the US mainland.
BP is hoping a plan to cover the well with a steel cap and capture the leaking oil might avert an environmental disaster. However, this will take four weeks to put in place, by which stage over 150,000 barrels could have been spilt.
If the steel cap does not work, BP will have to rely on stemming the flow by drilling a relief well, which would take two to three months.
By that stage, the spill could be over 300,000 barrels – larger than the 258,000 barrels leaked in 1989 by the Exxon Valdez in the US's worst oil spill to date.
However, a BP spokesman said the environmental damage from and cost of tackling the leak from the Macondo well would not be in the same range as the Exxon Valdez tragedy, which happened close to shore in the narrow Prince William Sound in Alaska.
Exxon spent $3.5bn cleaning up the Valdez spill and had hundreds of millions of dollars in damages awarded against it.
Posted 29 April 2010 - 03:26 PM
Sorry to go off-topic, but maybe you are describing HHO technology:
It seems to me, there is no need to wish for a better fuel, we swim in it and drink it every day. I would wager there are efficient prototype systems that are being kept from the public eye. I personally witnessed a primitive system that separated the hydrogen and oxygen. It was made in my workshop by some friends. When a flame was introduced to the exhaust, explosions occurred. A flow regulator will allow for a more controlled burn and usable fuel. Water becomes hydrogen and oxygen and they become water. The most perfect scenario one could ever ask for is right in front of us.
One earth. One mother. One does not sell the earth the people walk upon. We are the land. How do we sell our mother? How do we sell the stars? How do we sell the air?
- Shadowlord likes this
Posted 29 April 2010 - 07:27 PM
the oil platform blew up and sank
leaving a hole at the bottom of the sea streaming crude into the sea
best case scenario:
the emergency shut-off works and caps the flow
that apparently can happen at any time (wonder why it didnt work the first time though?)
worst case scenario:
they have to drill another hole to cap the well
that is estimated to take 90 days
they have asked the DoD if they have any 'toys' that
can help in accomplishing this feat any faster
coz of the depths they are dealing with
all the wells in the gulf are being inspected for safety
i think the horse already left
theres still a few years till 2012
they can fuck it up
Posted 29 April 2010 - 07:35 PM
including if military personnel and hardware are deployed
its already looking like a big bill
perhaps the only good consequence of exxon-valdez
Posted 29 April 2010 - 07:52 PM
Haliburton installed it!
If the piece of shit had worked in the first place, the rig would never exploded.
Isn't interesting how these same "usual suspect's" names keep popping up?
Not that I'm conspiracy minded...
- Calaquendi likes this
Posted 30 April 2010 - 09:15 PM
WASHINGTON—The Gulf of Mexico oil spill could be leaking at a rate of 25,000 barrels a day, five times the government's current estimate, industry experts say.
Basing their calculations on government data and standard industry measurement tools, the experts said the Gulf spill may already rival the historic 1969 Santa Barbara, Calif., and 1989 Exxon Valdez disasters.
Ian MacDonald, professor of oceanography at Florida State University who specializes in tracking ocean oil seeps from satellite imagery, said there may already be more than 9 million gallons of oil floating in the Gulf now, based on his estimate of a 25,000 barrel-a-day leak rate. That's compared to 12 million gallons spilled in the Valdez accident.
Interior Department officials said it may take 90 days to cap the leaking well. If the 25,000 barrels a day is accurate and it leaks for 90 days, that's 2.25 million barrels or 94.5 million gallons.
Mr. MacDonald and his colleagues at the Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science Department have worked jointly with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the past on oil spill tracking, and have shared their estimates with NOAA scientists. He said the NOAA scientists didn't dispute the calculations.
A NOAA spokeswoman said the government estimate of 5,000 barrels a day leaking from the BP PLC deep sea well was based on collaborative assessments produced by BP, NOAA and the U.S. Coast Guard. NOAA scientists weren't immediately available to comment.
The 5,000-barrel figure was first announced late Wednesday and marked a five-fold increase from the previous estimate. News of the higher estimate ratcheted up the pressure on officials to take more-aggressive steps to contain the spill and heightened concerns about potential environmental damage and disruption to the Gulf Coast economy.
NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco said in a White House press conference Thursday, "It's quite likely we will continue to pay close attention to what is on the surface ... and there may be estimates—revised estimates down the road."
John Amos, a geologist who has worked as a consultant with companies such as BP, ExxonMobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC on tracking and measuring oil spills from satellite data, said NOAA raised its estimates to 5,000 barrels a day after he and his colleagues published calculations that showed the original figures were far too low based on the NOAA data. Amos has also previously participated in a joint industry-NASA study using satellite imagines to detect and track oil slicks.
Mr. Amos said the 5,000 barrels a day is the "extremely low end" of their estimates. He said, based on NOAA maps, a more realistic figure is 20,000 barrels a day.
John Curry, a spokesman for BP working from their Gulf coast central command operations, said the 5,000 barrel a day was a "guestimate." "There's a range of uncertainty, and it's very difficult to accurately gauge how much there is," he said.
they dont really know how much oil is out there
realistically, they have no clue even how large the underground reserve is
revised estimates and guesstimating is involved they admit
Edited by bbd2, 30 April 2010 - 09:20 PM.
Posted 30 April 2010 - 11:21 PM
Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
How much longer can things go on this way?
Posted 30 April 2010 - 11:24 PM
Posted 01 May 2010 - 11:22 AM
But at least I'm enjoyin' the ride."
Damn. Sucks ass when that's the best I can come up with.
Posted 01 May 2010 - 11:40 AM
.. so I repeat, VERY LITTLE WAS ACTUALLY AWARDED, due to those lawsuits being appealed. Make no mistake about it. Justice was NOT done. And again, more damage will be done here, and without appropriate reparations. Just watch. But do not be fooled by semantics and mainstream propaganda.
.. I wish these oil barons would be forced to reverse damage they've done, being the only ones rich enough to do it, and our military could start being used to force people like this to make reparations, real reparations, not pretend. They will still be the most profitable business this quarter and then they'll pass off the cost to us at the pump.
While our kids will be paying for the Wall Street/ Banking 'Bailout' scheme, Big Oil will be raping mother nature...
...althewhile both thieving Industries convince us that they care most about our best interests and that of our children (while secretly plotting against us in dark rooms).
Awww, sweethearts those Oil and Banking Pirates, arent they?
Posted 02 May 2010 - 03:15 AM
- Shadowlord and DarkLestor like this
Posted 02 May 2010 - 11:37 AM
True but it contains the two most perfectly mated elements. It seems to me, there is no need to wish for a better fuel, we swim in it and drink it every day. I would wager there are efficient prototype systems that are being kept from the public eye. I personally witnessed a primitive system that separated the hydrogen and oxygen. It was made in my workshop by some friends. When a flame was introduced to the exhaust, explosions occurred. A flow regulator will allow for a more controlled burn and usable fuel. Water becomes hydrogen and oxygen and they become water. The most perfect scenario one could ever ask for is right in front of us.
simple fact is, water as in h2o is nonreactive. i wont burn and as such is NOT a fuel. carbon dioxide is basically the same carbon and oxygen vs hydrogen and oxygen. but co2 like h2o puts out fires, they dont burn.
the only way to get "fuel" from water, is you must split the hydrogen from the oxygen. that takes energy. more energy than you can get when they are burned and recombined. the splitting of the hydrogen from the oxygen is a conversion of energy. no conversion of energy is 100% even if it was 100% it would take the same amount of energy to split it as you would get from burning it and the to convert that heat energy in to usefull mechanical energy like motion is another way less the 100% conversion
only way to make this work feasable is to use a lot of solar power to split the hydrogen/oxygen and then burn it later when no solar is available. but that aint cheep
remember, you dont get something for nothing
- Phineas_Carmichael likes this
Posted 02 May 2010 - 12:32 PM
remember, you dont get something for nothing
Also known as the first law of thermodynamics. Good point.
As far as the oil goes - we're potentially soooooo very screwed. If it ends up as big as the Valdez (or even bigger - BP won't say how large the oil field currently gushing actually is) there is a possibility of the spill sliding down the whole west coast of Florida. Right around the tip of Florida is the Gulf Stream current flow that feeds warm water from the Caribbean up the Eastern seaboard of the US.
In a worst case, chicken little, sky is falling scenario - we might be seeing oil from this spill making landfall in the North Carolina barrier islands around October or November.