Author Topic: Oil spill question  (Read 2120 times)

Offline oakranger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8380
      • http://www.slybirds.com/
Re: Oil spill question
« Reply #60 on: June 10, 2010, 02:18:24 PM »
News flash just in:


BP stopped the leak!

According to unknown sources, a pair of large metal rings was placed over the leak.  The first gold colored band was fitted with a huge, meticulously cut rock for ballast.  While the installation of the first ring actually increased the flow, the final placement of the second ring, which was also laden with heavy stones, caused the the expected result of immediately ceasing to put out.


See images below:

























(Image removed from quote.)

Dragon, grow up.
Oaktree

56th Fighter group

Offline bj229r

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6735
Re: Oil spill question
« Reply #61 on: June 10, 2010, 03:08:03 PM »
It gets better--amid crashing stock due to the spill/ criticism rumors going around in financial circles that BP might go belly up, declare bankruptcy. (25% of BP is owned by US stockholders, pension funds, etc) China is the most likely candidate to buy up their gulf operations, if that happens 
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers

http://www.flamewarriors.net/forum/

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Re: Oil spill question
« Reply #62 on: June 10, 2010, 03:33:09 PM »
Actually 39% of BP is US owned, 40% is British and the rest is spread around the world.

The field itself is a joint venture between BP (65%), Anadarko, a US oil company (25%) and Mitsui of Japan (10%). As Anadarko is almost wholly US owned, US investors (principally pension funds) own more than half of the field.

Quote
Well . How much more is it going to take to close this thing ? Our sea will be dead pretty fast at this rate .

The last time a catastrophic blowout like this happened it was in 1979. The Ixtoc I well off the coast of Mexico, in 500 ft of water, suffered a blowout. It put out oil at a similar rate but it took 10 months for them to plug the well. The Mexican government claimed immunity and didn't pay any compensation.

BP began drilling 2 relief wells as soon as possible after the accident. The first of those should be completed in early August. The relief wells should allow them to stop the leak completely.

I'd be very surprised if the current spill adds up to more than a third of Ixtoc 1.

Quote
And If you don't blame BP for this mess then you should read up on what originaly caused this blowout and the sinking of the original drilling rig before you choose a side that commited ignorant manslaughter (it'll disgust any man that has worked or can relate to those that work in a dangerous industry where those that don't get their hands dirty make the calls that can lead to life or saving a few pennies).

BP leased a rig from Transocean. Transocean not only owned the rig and BOP, their staff manned the rig. The ultimate authority wasn't BP, it was the senior Transocean man on board. That's what the contract called for.

BP were the customer. They paid Transocean a daily rate. That means it was in Transocean's interests to take as long as possible and BP's to get things finished as quickly as possible. That's bound to lead to disputes, of course, and BP were bound to ask for quicker ways of doing things. But BP could only ask, the operation was under Transocean's control.

A lot of Transocean equipment failed in this disaster. Things like the BOP are supposed to be regularly inspected and fail-safe. BP had nothing to do with the supply or maintenance of that equipment.

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: Oil spill question
« Reply #63 on: June 10, 2010, 04:06:53 PM »
been reading a little about the 1969 Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution, states that the ship's owners are wholly liable for any spills, regardless of cause. makes me wonder if the only reason BP are paying out at the moment is for PR purposes (ie. to protect their valuation). may be too late though, about £60bn has been wiped off BP's capitalisation since this all began. this is turning into a really nasty business onshore as well as offshore ...

personally I'm waiting for BP's price to bottom out, might be worth a punt.
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline Dragon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7055
      • AH JUGS
Re: Oil spill question
« Reply #64 on: June 10, 2010, 07:40:21 PM »
nice dude... that was a jerk move. This is a serious topic that can and will affect alot for years to come

Dragon, grow up.

OMG, lighten up Francis.



I just spent just short of 4 grand to send my daughter to New Orleans  :airplane: to help with the clean-up efforts.  She is leaving in 3 weeks and spending 9 days away from home.  She really wanted to do this because we raised our kids to care.  She will be involved with the oil issue as well as helping rebuild structures destroyed by Katrina.

I believe our investment into these disasters outweighs any kind of crap or opinions you have to offer.

She is 14 years old and is giving her time and effort for absolutely nothing in return except the knowledge that she helped, which it a lot more than anyone on these boards is willing to do.




Have a wonderful day.


Dragon
SWchef  Lieutenant Colonel  Squadron Training Officer  125th Spartan Warriors

Offline 321BAR

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6140
Re: Oil spill question
« Reply #65 on: June 10, 2010, 09:11:18 PM »
Actually 39% of BP is US owned, 40% is British and the rest is spread around the world.

The field itself is a joint venture between BP (65%), Anadarko, a US oil company (25%) and Mitsui of Japan (10%). As Anadarko is almost wholly US owned, US investors (principally pension funds) own more than half of the field.

The last time a catastrophic blowout like this happened it was in 1979. The Ixtoc I well off the coast of Mexico, in 500 ft of water, suffered a blowout. It put out oil at a similar rate but it took 10 months for them to plug the well. The Mexican government claimed immunity and didn't pay any compensation.

BP began drilling 2 relief wells as soon as possible after the accident. The first of those should be completed in early August. The relief wells should allow them to stop the leak completely.

I'd be very surprised if the current spill adds up to more than a third of Ixtoc 1.

BP leased a rig from Transocean. Transocean not only owned the rig and BOP, their staff manned the rig. The ultimate authority wasn't BP, it was the senior Transocean man on board. That's what the contract called for.

BP were the customer. They paid Transocean a daily rate. That means it was in Transocean's interests to take as long as possible and BP's to get things finished as quickly as possible. That's bound to lead to disputes, of course, and BP were bound to ask for quicker ways of doing things. But BP could only ask, the operation was under Transocean's control.

A lot of Transocean equipment failed in this disaster. Things like the BOP are supposed to be regularly inspected and fail-safe. BP had nothing to do with the supply or maintenance of that equipment.

Ixtoc I spill pumped out only 3 tenths of what the Deep Water Horizon is pumping out. look at the info i said on June 1st. and READ IT ALL...
Quote
1:
Current estimates of the amount of oil being discharged range from 12,000–100,000 barrels (500,000–4,200,000 US gallons; 1,900,000–16,000,000 litres) per day. The preliminary best estimate that was released on May 27 by the semi-official Flow Rate Technical Group put the volume of oil flowing from the blown-out well at 12,000 to 19,000 barrels (500,000 to 800,000 US gallons; 1,900,000 to 3,000,000 litres) per day, which had amounted to between 440,000 and 700,000 barrels (18,000,000 and 29,000,000 US gallons; 70,000,000 and 111,000,000 litres) as of that date... This discharge rate has hit well above the Flow Rate Tech Group's amount. it is around the 100,000 barrels now in much more accurate tests

compared to the Ixtoc I oil spill

In the initial stages of the spill, an estimated 30,000 barrels of oil per day were flowing from the well. In July 1979, the pumping of mud into the well reduced the flow to 20,000 barrels per day, and early in August the pumping of nearly 100,000 steel, iron, and lead balls into the well reduced the flow to 10,000 barrels per day. Pemex claimed that half of the released oil burned when it reached the surface, a third of it evaporated, and the rest was contained or dispersed.[6] Mexican authorities also drilled two relief wells into the main well to lower the pressure of the blowout, however the oil continued to flow for three months following the completion of the first relief well.

Pemex contracted Conair Aviation to spray the chemical dispersant Corexit 9527 on the oil. A total of 493 aerial missions were flown, treating 1,100 square miles of oil slick. Dispersants were not used in the U.S. area of the spill because of the dispersant's inability to treat weathered oil. Eventually the on-scene coordinator (OSC) requested that Mexico stop using dispersants north of 25°N.

In Texas, an emphasis was placed on coastal countermeasures protecting the bays and lagoons formed by the barrier islands. Impacts of oil to the barrier island beaches were ranked as second in importance to protecting inlets to the bays and lagoons. This was done with the placement of skimmers and booms. Efforts were concentrated on the Brazos-Santiago Pass, Port Mansfield Channel, Aransas Pass, and Cedar Bayou which during the course of the spill was sealed with sand. Economically and environmentally sensitive barrier island beaches were cleaned daily. Laborers used rakes and shovels to clean beaches rather than heavier equipment which removed too much sand. Ultimately, 71,500 barrels of oil impacted 162 miles of U.S. beaches, and over 10,000 cubic yards of oiled material were removed.


Quote from: Dawger on May 30, 2010, 10:19:42 AM
Quote
What about IXTOC?

Nine months at a much higher rate than Deepwater Horizon. 140 Million gallons. A river of oil.

Seas didn't die.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v290/n5803/abs/290235a0.html

where did you find 140 MILLION gallons dawger?

2: Sea life will not die out, it will adapt like it always has...Sadly, this adaptation will cause the death of thousands of sea animals let alone birds and land animals or amphibians on the shore. experts are saying it will impact hundreds of bird species alone...

3: On May 19, scientists monitoring the spill with the European Space Agency Envisat radar satellite stated that oil reached the Loop Current, which flows clockwise around the Gulf of Mexico towards Florida, and may reach Florida within 6 days. The scientists warn that because the Loop Current is a very intense, deep ocean current, its turbulent waters will accelerate the mixing of the oil and water in the coming days. "This might remove the oil film on the surface and prevent us from tracking it with satellites, but the pollution is likely to affect the coral reef marine ecosystem". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration acknowledged, on May 19, that "a small portion of the oil slick has reached the Loop Current in the form of light to very light sheens."

4: BP has not allowed independant scientists to accurately determine the true oil leak amount and has downplayed it from the start of the incident.

End of my quote------------



----Now you do the math between the oil spill from Ixtoc I and the DWH spill. 3 months of spillage from DWH will create 378,000,000 gallons of spillage to add onto the 29,000,000 that BP stated as a form of cover for the 100,000 gallons flowing.
     that would mean adding in the 36 days since the explosion it would actually amount to approximately 510,000,000 gallons of oil from 4 months of steady flow if it does not end by this August
     compared to 10 months for the Ixtoc I's 30,000 barrels instead of 100,000 and only 378,000,000 gallons of oil from the Ixtoc which most burned off or dissipated or was contained in TEN months. a.k.a. the DWH will pump more oil out in 3 months than the Ixtoc I did in ten months.
     and just because BP says theyll have it contained in August, doesn't mean that they will.
     the Ixtoc was in 500ft of water, the DWH is in 5,000ft. relief wells are a way to slow the leak, they will still need to repair the leak after the two relief wells are in place. that will also take time. by then the oil will hit the Gulf Stream and go up the coast.
     So after 4 months of rigging relief wells and possibly up to another 2-6 to fix the leak...well that would just be too much math for my head. add 510,000,000 to whatever decrease in flow and you could possibly amount over a figure of 1 billion gallons of oil before it stops.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2010, 09:15:46 PM by 321BAR »
I am in need of a new epic quote
Happy Jack's Go Buggy

Offline 321BAR

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6140
Re: Oil spill question
« Reply #66 on: June 10, 2010, 09:13:03 PM »
most of what i stated above is quoted exactly from what i said earlier on June 1st. Read it... its all hard facts i took from everywhere i could
I am in need of a new epic quote
Happy Jack's Go Buggy

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Re: Oil spill question
« Reply #67 on: June 10, 2010, 11:19:37 PM »
there are no hard facts for this spill.  Nothing but press releases and changing numbers.
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Re: Oil spill question
« Reply #68 on: June 11, 2010, 02:57:21 AM »
Quote
This discharge rate has hit well above the Flow Rate Tech Group's amount. it is around the 100,000 barrels now in much more accurate tests

Sorry but I haven't seen any reputable figures that high. The latest estimate from the US Geological Survey is 20,000 - 40,000 barrels a day.

Whilst there's speculation that might have increased since the pipe was cut, the amount being captured is now up to nearly 16,000 barrels a day. BP hope to raise that to 28,000 barrels a day next week.


Offline Flench

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3104
Re: Oil spill question
« Reply #69 on: June 11, 2010, 05:11:07 AM »
And one more thing . If you guy's think that drilling the other hole's to hit that one IS NOT GOING TO WORK ! I think BP is using us just to get another well down to take the place of the one that went bad . They mite hit the same pocket of oil but it's not going to stop the leak .
We need the Army to step in and take over . We are at war !
Army of Muppets-"Failure is impossible"-Death before dishonor
         Lead follow or get out of the way  !!

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Re: Oil spill question
« Reply #70 on: June 11, 2010, 05:19:01 AM »
Quote
And one more thing . If you guy's think that drilling the other hole's to hit that one IS NOT GOING TO WORK ! I think BP is using us just to get another well down to take the place of the one that went bad .

BP is paying for both relief wells, so I don't see how it's using anybody.

Quote
They mite hit the same pocket of oil but it's not going to stop the leak .

It certainly should stop the leak. Bottom killing is the most reliable way to do so.

It should be quicker than Ixtoc 1, too, because modern methods are more accurate they can get the relief wells closer to the original.

Quote
We need the Army to step in and take over . We are at war !

How much experience of drilling for oil does the US army have?

Offline AKH

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 514
Re: Oil spill question
« Reply #71 on: June 11, 2010, 05:48:24 AM »
READ IT ALL...

Caps not good enough! Must SUPERSIZE!!

Why do feel that you have to resort to 30 point text for emphasis?  Get a grip.
AKHoopy Arabian Knights
google koan: "Your assumptions about the lives of others are in direct relation to your naïve pomposity."

Offline AKH

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 514
Re: Oil spill question
« Reply #72 on: June 11, 2010, 05:52:21 AM »
BP leased a rig from Transocean. Transocean not only owned the rig and BOP, their staff manned the rig. The ultimate authority wasn't BP, it was the senior Transocean man on board. That's what the contract called for.

BP were the customer. They paid Transocean a daily rate. That means it was in Transocean's interests to take as long as possible and BP's to get things finished as quickly as possible. That's bound to lead to disputes, of course, and BP were bound to ask for quicker ways of doing things. But BP could only ask, the operation was under Transocean's control.

A lot of Transocean equipment failed in this disaster. Things like the BOP are supposed to be regularly inspected and fail-safe. BP had nothing to do with the supply or maintenance of that equipment.

There you go again Nashwan - spoiling a perfectly good lynching with facts. Damn you!!  :lol
AKHoopy Arabian Knights
google koan: "Your assumptions about the lives of others are in direct relation to your naïve pomposity."

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: Oil spill question
« Reply #73 on: June 11, 2010, 06:00:16 AM »
<< BP shareholder as of this morning. 371p bargain :aok
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline 321BAR

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6140
Re: Oil spill question
« Reply #74 on: June 11, 2010, 06:02:05 AM »
Caps not good enough! Must SUPERSIZE!!

Why do feel that you have to resort to 30 point text for emphasis?  Get a grip.
mainly because mobody ever chooses to read the paragraphs that take more than 30 seconds to read? and akh who are you? i've never seen you before except in the O-Club, not even in the General Discussion or anything
I am in need of a new epic quote
Happy Jack's Go Buggy