CometII From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 291 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3915 times:
Already the costs all along the gulf coast (cleaning up spill in beaches, environmental, economic, tourism, the actual rig itself, etc), are in the billions.
If as some suggest the oil just keeps gushing, and it gets caught in the gulf stream, it would follow it around Florida and up the east coast. While a lot of it would keep following the current, some of it would ''eddie'' up and down the east coast from Miami to even New York... sending oil to the coasts when the winds blow favorably, which in the summer months is a highy possibility with the tropics.
As it is this will cost BP an arm, I just don't see how they survive if the entire coast of the United States is affected.
nighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4988 posts, RR: 38 Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3855 times:
BP just recently announced profits of $6 billion for the last quarter. I think they can afford it, besides most of the costs will probably be picked up by the insurance companies.
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3018 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3819 times:
Quoting CometII (Thread starter): As it is this will cost BP an arm, I just don't see how they survive if the entire coast of the United States is affected.
To start with BP only own 65% of the oil field in question, secondly the drilling vessel was owned by a 3rd party working on BP's behalf. Thus it is likely that BP will be able to reclaim a significant part of the costs from others.
newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 33 Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3762 times:
Here are some numbers:
"BP, along with its partners, bears the cost of regaining control and cleaning up. The company says daily costs are $6 million and drilling relief wells would cost $150 million each. In terms of potential fines, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 allows for up to $3,000 per barrel leaked.
Assume the highest fine is imposed and the current estimated rate of 5,000 barrels per day holds; with the fix taking 90 days, involving two relief wells. Net to BP's 65% working interest, the estimated cost is $1.4 billion before any potential lawsuit liabilities."
LHR380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3762 times:
Quoting nighthawk (Reply 1): BP just recently announced profits of $6 billion for the last quarter. I think they can afford it, besides most of the costs will probably be picked up by the insurance companies.
I thought I read somewhere that BP don't have insurance for this kind of accident, and will have to pay out of their own funds?
newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 33 Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3712 times:
Quoting baexecutive (Reply 5): BP is the worlds fourth largest company, I hardly think this spill will be causing any sleepless nights in London regarding the companies future.
The executives will be sleepless about their own future, not the company's.
I don't think this should be considered financially, the priority is preventing the natural disaster destroying more and more beautiful natural habitats, not pinching pennies.
nighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4988 posts, RR: 38 Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3509 times:
I don't think this should be considered monetarily, it should be considered
Quoting newark777 (Reply 3): Assume the highest fine is imposed and the current estimated rate of 5,000 barrels per day holds; with the fix taking 90 days, involving two relief wells. Net to BP's 65% working interest, the estimated cost is $1.4 billion before any potential lawsuit liabilities."
90 days is one quarter, BP could therefore leave that well spewing oil permanently and STILL report a profit of $4.6billion each quarter!
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7453 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3415 times:
At first it appeared that BP was giong to get on top of the various problems, but now it looks like their lawyers are influencing their efforts:
Quote: Oil giant BP insists it isn't to blame for the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill, but will pay to clean it up anyway.
"We are responsible, not for the accident, but we are responsible for the oil and for dealing with it and cleaning the situation up," BP CEO Tony Hayward said Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America."
The problems with oil company lawyers in situations like this is that they will be far outnumbered by trial lawyers - many of whom are as good, or better, than the oil company lawyers.
Job One for BP should be addressing the spill - stopping it and cleaning up the mess.
Job Two should be to ensure the people impacted by their floating oil are not impacted financially. A fisherman has his boat taken by the bank because he can't fish and BP is going to loose big time in court. Same for people depending on tourists, or just customers related to seafood.
newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 33 Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3358 times:
Quoting nighthawk (Reply 12):
90 days is one quarter, BP could therefore leave that well spewing oil permanently and STILL report a profit of $4.6billion each quarter!
So no, BP is far from done!
I wasn't trying to prove one side or the other, I just wanted to put some numbers out there instead of just conjecturing without evidence. And yes, the environmental impact is much more important at this point than any costs incurred to try and fix the problem.
okie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2364 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3265 times:
Quoting Glom (Reply 13):
This situation sucks ass! We want to know what went wrong with the well and what went wrong with the BOP.
Three leaks, one at the end of the drill pipe 6 7/8" id, one at the riser, one at a crack in the riser.
In spite of all the media and political hoopla BP has been working on a soultion and a relief well spuded today a second in a few days when the third platform/drillship arrives.
The drill pipe has been cut and ready and a valve will be placed on the end by submersibles to deal with that flow.
A giant coffer dam system is going to be placed over the other two leaks (similar to processes used after Katrina) and will be in place within a week and connected to recovery ships that will ship the oil to the shore and on to the refinery. This should keep the oil at the location and pumped into ships and end the pollution problem except for the immediate area at the riser.
Why they lost control of the well will probably be speculation as the personel that would know were most likely the ones who gave their life. Why the BOP did not work would only be speculation on my part but I think maybe if you figure about 18,000ft of drill stem (guessing 700,000lbs) moving out of the hole at velocity of 100mph then would have to stop the drill stem and crush it closed that maybe the BOP got damaged.
newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 33 Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3253 times:
Quoting okie (Reply 16): Why they lost control of the well will probably be speculation as the personel that would know were most likely the ones who gave their life.
Out of curiosity, why do you think the ones that got killed are the ones who know what happened? I really don't know much about the operation of an off shore oil platform.
okie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2364 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3232 times:
Quoting newark777 (Reply 17): Out of curiosity, why do you think the ones that got killed are the ones who know what happened? I really don't know much about the operation of an off shore oil platform
Speculation only but from the pictures I saw of the rig burning, the people in the immediate area of the "drill floor" would be dealing with the blow out when things got out of control. Sort of like ground zero. I would guess they were the ones who received fatal injuries again only a guess.
dxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3145 times:
Quoting CometII (Thread starter): If as some suggest the oil just keeps gushing, and it gets caught in the gulf stream, it would follow it around Florida and up the east coast. While a lot of it would keep following the current, some of it would ''eddie'' up and down the east coast from Miami to even New York... sending oil to the coasts when the winds blow favorably, which in the summer months is a highy possibility with the tropics
That's a long way away and a lot of that oil is going to be pretty well dispersed by the time it gets there.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14): Job One for BP should be addressing the spill - stopping it and cleaning up the mess.
Which they are as described in reply #16
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14): Job Two should be to ensure the people impacted by their floating oil are not impacted financially. A fisherman has his boat taken by the bank because he can't fish and BP is going to loose big time in court.
A lot of fisherman are making money now by placing floating booms in the water.
cws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1167 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3127 times:
Quoting dxing (Reply 19):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
Job One for BP should be addressing the spill - stopping it and cleaning up the mess.
Which they are as described in reply #16
Indeed! This mess could have just as easily happened to another oil company. BP is doing what it needs to do and what it can do. Certainly, it is not enough because they can't stop further leakage with a snap of the fingers, but they are not derelict of their duty in this situation. It is unfortunate all the way around, but they are stepping up to the plate as well as they can be expected to do.
stasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3266 posts, RR: 6 Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3061 times:
The public relations nightmare is going to be BP's biggest nightmare - especially after spending millions on the 'Beyond Petroleum" advertising campaign here in the U.S.. For what little it's worth, I am boycotting BP gasoline as part of a nationwide environmentalist campaign against the firm. I have friends in Louisiana that work for the US Navy and the stories that I am hearing about the incompetence of BP recovery and spill containment efforts is appalling.....
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2803 posts, RR: 10 Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3012 times:
Quoting okie (Reply 16): Why the BOP did not work would only be speculation on my part but I think maybe if you figure about 18,000ft of drill stem (guessing 700,000lbs) moving out of the hole at velocity of 100mph then would have to stop the drill stem and crush it closed that maybe the BOP got damaged.
Quite possibly. This is some of the deepest water. But I would have hoped that for the extra demanding situation of deepwater, we'd have extra robust pressure control equipment.
Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 21): For what little it's worth, I am boycotting BP gasoline as part of a nationwide environmentalist campaign against the firm.
nighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4988 posts, RR: 38 Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2961 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14): Job One for BP should be addressing the spill - stopping it and cleaning up the mess.
Job Two should be to ensure the people impacted by their floating oil are not impacted financially. A fisherman has his boat taken by the bank because he can't fish and BP is going to loose big time in court. Same for people depending on tourists, or just customers related to seafood.
They are! Why cant they do both at the same time, clean up the spill and investigate the legal ramifications? Its not the lawyers doing the cleanup!
That'll teach you
25 nighthawk: why boycott BP? It was a transocean rig, and it was other 3rd parties that were doing the drilling. If anything BP should be praised for immediately
26 idealstandard: Other oil and chemicals companies out there would wait to see what the cheapest (and usually most morally questionable) method of dealing with the si
27 dxing: Agreed. As mentioned this could have happened to any company that is out there drilling. It appears so far that they were following industry standard
28 newark777: However, BP was lobbying recently against more regulation in the industry, so it certainly looks bad for them, on top of their cost cutting, safety b
29 dxing: Well I guess that would matter where they were arguing against regulation. Was it in production methods? Regulatory control? Enviromental control? Re
30 newark777: "Documents Show BP Opposed New, Stricter Safety Rules By GUY CHAZAN And BEN CASSELMAN As BP PLC defended its handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of
31 Glom: Prescriptive regulation is indeed not nearly as good as knee-jerking would suggest it is. Health and safety regulation in the UK used to be a series o
32 dxing: Looks like they were more concerned with OSHA type problems than with the actual drilling methods. As Glom pointed out you can only pile the regs up
33 L410Turbolet: It will be interesting to watch in the years to come whether BP will show the same degree of "corporate responsibility" the way Exxon did by fighting
34 newark777: I'm not as familiar with this as you are, I'll take your word for it. I'm sure they will fight it. As it stands now, there is a $75 million dollar ca
35 Ken777: Which means that they won't loose their boats over the next few months. If their livelihoods are impacted after the booms are in place then BP needs
36 L410Turbolet: How does it relate to the fact that they totally screwed up with Exxon Valdez and yet they have the nerve to drag the case through courts for decades
37 newark777: It relates because you originally said: "it will be interesting to watch in the years to come whether BP will show the same degree of "corporate resp
38 DfwRevolution: They posted a $5 billion profit in 1989. For a company of their size, that is hardly obscene. Exxon paid the damages claims in the aftermath of the s
39 Ken777: Simple. Change the law to reflect current cost factors. The oil companies certainly change their prices to reflect current cost factors, A drunk capt
40 ltbewr: BP is a major player in the North Slope of Alaska, a significant refiner and distributor of petrolium products in the USA. In the 1970's, they bought
41 cws818: It will be interesting to see. Honestly, I do not know how they will play and/or spin this disaster. What I can observe is that at least on the P.R.
43 offloaded: They also put a nice flower on their logo. According my friend at the University of Seville, BP bought a lot of the patents on solar panels, thus res
44 Pellegrine: These kind of spills are really dumb. If BP and Transocean put a properly working cutoff valve in the well they wouldn't have to worry about these thi
45 Glom: How is anyone supposed to install a downhole safety valve in a well that hasn't been completed? And the term is subsea not undersea.
46 Pellegrine: Who are you, the resident BP apologist? Maybe the same way BP has installed acoustical regulator shut-off valves in their North Sea projects? Maybe a
47 newark777: They had a safety valve, and it didn't function properly. What are you trying to argue?
48 Bongodog1964: Interesting article in the Daily Telegraph today, about Transocean. They have 300 drilling rigs, and a multi billion $ turnover. In addition they have
49 DfwRevolution: It's questionable if an acoustic switch would have made a difference. An acoustic switch is just a method of remotely triggering the BOP is the redun
50 nighthawk: I do believe it was a comment in response to Pellegrine asking why they dont use multiple valves. Once the well is complete a Downhole Safety Valve c
51 okie: When the oil company leases the rig they take control of everything I doubt that BP will have much recourse towards Trans-Ocean. I am sure that if Tr
52 Pellegrine: I'm not a grease monkey on an oil platform (no disrespect), but I have traded oil contracts on a computer terminal. So maybe the terminology I need t
53 Aesma: They contracted the third party, they're responsible. Just like when the Erika broke off France Brittany coast in 1999, it was Total that decided to
54 mt99: Just ask GAP or Nike if they care if their 3rd Party contracts use child labor.
55 Aesma: I don't buy Nike or GAP either, if that's what you mean. I'm not saying BP is worse than the bunch, but they're certainly no better (even if they try
56 mt99: That's what I mean. GAP and NIKE fall on a sword whenever child labor issues are brought up - they make it their business to contract with reputable
57 TheSonntag: The german tabloid Bild has just cited a russian source which proposes to use a Nuke against the whole, saying it helped in russia
58 Baroque: There appears no doubt that BP accept the blame. However, the cause appears to be a faulty cement job. The nature of the contracts for the well compl
59 okie: Maybe, or at least one of the top contenders for the blowout, but again if Halliburton was following BP's directives then it falls right back on BP.
60 newark777: July 8, 2009. Not sure of the reasoning, but clearing nothing to due with the oil spill. The article I read said that Halliburton claims that BP told
61 Glom: If the well was properly cemented, that shouldn't have been an issue. No-one would be stupid enough to clear out mud from a live hole without adequat
62 Baroque: Thanks, certainly suggests the market is not assuming a major problem for Halliburton. Ah. But that does not determine whose fault it was. Once the p
63 newark777: I'm no expert, I'm just repeating what I've heard in the media.
64 Ken777: At the same time the companies leasing the equipment cannot escape eventual liability if they provide defective equipment. BP would have contracted f
65 okie: Replacing the mud with sea water would have been BP's directive to Transocean then Haliburton would come in and cement a plug. Haliburton would care
66 Baroque: Quite so. H. BP in the past were very good in their dealings with locals. And even allowing for upset US citizens, they will have dealt with far more
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 291 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4988 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3018 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7598 posts, 
From France, joined Apr 2009, 353 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
