Oil spill question

[AKH]

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.

BP are legally obliged to deal with the initial costs.  When responsibility and liability have been established, they will sue to recover as much as possible.  This is why Transocean are attempting to limit their liability.

[AKH]

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

Most people skip walls o' text.

Who am I?  Do you have any idea how pathetic that sounds?

[321BAR]

Most people skip walls o' text.

Who am I?  Do you have any idea how pathetic that sounds?

i seriously dont know you i'm just trying to figure out who you are man. No offense meant. i never see you in game.

[Babalonian]

Most people skip walls o' text.

Who am I?  Do you have any idea how pathetic that sounds?

And most communications these days are in the form of abreviated txt messages by a generation so lazy I doubt most have ever cleaned their own toilet... it's not a good downward trend.

And look down, I think you dropped a little of your ego on the floor.  Seriously, who are you kid?

[AKH]

Talk about jumping to conclusions 

[321BAR]

ok so obviously you're AKHoopy from your sig, but i've never seen that name and have you flown under other names?

[RTHolmes]

what does this have to do with the oil spill?


edit: back OT

BP are legally obliged to deal with the initial costs.  When responsibility and liability have been established, they will sue to recover as much as possible.  This is why Transocean are attempting to limit their liability.

Is that because of BP's contract for the drilling rights? trying to work out roughly what BP's liability will be all told. pretty sure theres an IMF grant of about $1bn for oil spills too.

[AKH]

ok so obviously you're AKHoopy from your sig, but i've never seen that name and have you flown under other names?

Likewise, no offence intended, but this thread is not the place for such questions.  Use the search facility or PM me if you are really that interested.

Is that because of BP's contract for the drilling rights? trying to work out roughly what BP's liability will be all told. pretty sure theres an IMF grant of about $1bn for oil spills too.

The short answer is yes, since I believe that this is covered by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which states:

§1002(a) Provides that the responsible party for a vessel or facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses a substantial threat of a discharge, is liable for: (1) certain specified damages resulting from the discharged oil; and (2) removal costs incurred in a manner consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).

I would imagine that BPs contract with the Minerals Management Service (MMS) will state that BP is to be the responsible party with respect to the OPA.  However, a further clause of the act states:

§1002(d) Provides that if a responsible party can establish that the removal costs and damages resulting from an incident were caused solely by an act or omission by a third party, the third party will be held liable for such costs and damages.

You will note that BP have accepted responsibility for the initial damages and cleanup, but have always insisted that they are not responsible for the accident.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWJTAkyp46Y

[oakranger]

Just heard that two shore birds where spotted in Kansas cover in oil.  highly dout that they can from the BP oil.

[Flench]

Well , I wounder what the next step is going to be ? Tuesday , will tell I hope . I still think we should blow it . Why can't they screw a cap on it and close a valve ?

BP at work !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AAa0gd7ClM

[FireDrgn]

Is this too simple// Would it really work.


http://www.wimp.com/solutionoil/

[Chalenge]

You just saw it work! 

Cotton works too and so does hemp but the problem is getting hay/cotton/hemp to the site and covering the problem area (and there has to be thousands of square miles of oil) and then pulling it out again. Then you still have to plug the leak.

[curry1]

If the relief wells don't work it could continue spouting for decades just like those natural gas explosions in russia and argentinia.

[Baitman]

A 500 lber would not be strong enough at that depth unless it was very close to the well to be effective and so close at that depth that it would likely create another way for the oil to flow up the same well.

The Russians used a nuke to close a well before in Uzbekistan but it wasnt 5000 feet underwater. A nuke at that depth has almost zero function outside of pressure and there is already enough pressure to overwhelm any device the government would be likely to allow. Also they would have to place the device even further below the surface to pinch the well closed far underground (say 18000 feet). At that depth if they are using a 10-50 ton weapon (like the shoulder-fired nukes... which BTW are no longer in the inventory) it would have to be within 80-160 feet to be effective and even less likely to succeed at that pressure depth. They can go with a larger device and they can aim for less depth all of which increase the possibility of side events and are less likely to succeed without making the situation worse.

They can blame BP all they want but this kind of thing was inevitable the minute some moron listened to an environmentalist and moved these things so far off shore. Stupid. THEY should pay for this mess.

Please provide proof of this nuke blast to close a well in Uzbekistan

Because the only link that I have found with any credibility states that only two nuke were ever detonated in Uzbekistan

Near as I can tell they were on an island used for biological testing too so the chances of a blow out well on the island is VERY low.

[Baitman]

You run it down the pipe , (inside) it will work ...We have hit high presure water drilling for water and have done it with one stick . How thick they say the pipe was ? Just one inch .. Maybe set a bunch of small charges off going  down the pipe like every 100 meters .

What was the formation you were drilling in and what was the pressures?