Reply With Quote
32% of federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico now closed to fishing.
http://www.crownweather.com/?page_id=2242
32% of federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico now closed to fishing.
http://www.crownweather.com/?page_id=2242
That is one spiffy gif.
Looks like oil is going to hit every part of the Gulf Coastline. Erk.
I wonder how much of the oil is from the Ocean Saratoga well? It's leaking also.
Floaters / Semisubmersible Rigs in the Gulf of Mexico
They're forecasting more into the loop current eh? Thats just great.
Bzzzt. Wrong answer.
Welcome to the concept of "retreating/vanishing horizons".
This is a concept that was used by an actual oil expert who to describe the wildly optimistic pie-in-the-sky predictions of profitability for tar sands, the same tar sands that big bad envirowhackos are allegedly keeping us from exploiting.
The problem with shale and tar sands is that no small part of the costs of getting energy out of the process is... the energy used in the process.
I will keep this very simple to demonstrate this.
Shale/Tar sands advocate argument goes like this:
This is a failure of honesty/logic because those rosy projections always leave out the detail that their costs are heavily driven by the overall cost of energy. They keep their costs constant, but their revenues at market costs. This is either dishonest or ignorant, or a mix of both.Oil is $50/bbl now. When it gets to $100 or $150, we will be sitting on a gold mine, because it only costs us $48/bbl to make this stuff, so we will be getting $52/bbl or even $102/bbl profits then. Please give us money for shares and we will let you in on this investment. All we need is to overcome the envirowhacko's who keep fighting us on this, and that will take care of itself once oil gets in that range.
When the price of oil gets to $100 or $150 per barrel the costs of producing oil from shale or tar sands will be right there with it still leaving the thin profit margins.
The guys selling this investment are literally cashing in on people like you who seem to think that envirowhackos are behind keeping stuff like this from fruition, and not basic laws of physics, and general principles of economics.
You can't get energy for nuthin', and you should know that. You can reduce the amount of energy that a process takes using tech, but there is only so much you can do for this stuff.
ANWAR is stupid because it would have little overall effect on the price of oil and more ecological damage than it is worth.
That is my real argument and it is a cost-benefit trade off. Virtually no benefit and even that is temporary, versus long lasting damage to an ecosystem that will long outlive any benefits gained from a cent or two in the cost of oil years down the road.
Boutons, would you please remove your NAMBLA material. Sure it's edited, but we don't need to see your pedophilia photo's.
Good.
Their knee-jerk reaction to drilling moratoriums would have killed several thousand jobs.
NOAA confirms underwater plumes.
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06...noaa-confirms/
It's from the Saratoga, or some other well that's leaking. It could be natural, but others are leaking.She added, however, that some oil found 142 miles southeast of the well site had been found in tests to be "not consistent" with the BP oil, explaining that some oil was naturally occurring in the Gulf.
Nambla? WC, I was concentrating on Tony's head and the money bait.
Great catch for noticing the baby's penis. Typical conservative sexual preference. Are you also Catholic with a forsaken vocation for the priesthood?
Anonymous and uncorroborated, but alarming, if true.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=19575Informed emergency planning sources in Florida have informed WMR that the state faces severe fresh water shortages and power blackouts if the thick crude oil from the Deepwater Horizon disaster clogs sea water intakes at the largest seawater desalinisation plant in the United States -- the Tampa Bay Seawater Desalinisation Plant at Apollo Beach in Tampa, Florida.
The plant, which uses seawater reverse osmosis to turn seawater into 16 to 19 million gallons of drinking water daily for residents of the Tampa Bay area, faces the threat of filtration membranes becoming clogged if oil from the Gulf of Mexico enters its intake pipes. Such an event would render the plant unable to process seawater, resulting in a major fresh water shortage for the Tampa Bay.
Similarly, oil clogging the water cooling intakes at the Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant on the Gulf of Mexico coast, some 80 miles north of Tampa, could force the shutdown of the Unit 3 pressurized water nuclear reactor. Such an event would result in power shutdowns in the Florida areas served by the power plant.
How many jobs will be lost due to the Deepwater spill?
Plenty, but will suspending oil operations bring back those jobs?
Since when do two wrongs make a right?
Blood From An Oil Covered Stone
by digby
I've been wondering when this would come up:
The idea that BP might one day file for bankruptcy, particularly as part of a merger that would enable it to cordon off its liabilities from the spill, is starting to percolate on Wall Street. Bankers and lawyers are already sizing up potential deals (and counting their potential fees).
Given the plunge in BP’s share price — the company has lost more than a third of its value since Deepwater Horizon blew — some bankers and analysts say BP is starting to look like takeover bait. The question is, who would buy BP, given its enormous potential liabilities?
S and Exxon Mobil are both said to be licking their chops. And already, flinty legal minds are dreaming up scenarios in which BP would file a prepackaged bankruptcy and separate the costs of the cleanup — and potentially billions of dollars in legal claims — into a separate corporate en y.
That en y will be inadequate, of course. And when the money's gone, the money will be gone.
Some people will lose their jobs in such a deal, but they'll be well compensated. The lawsuits will be tied up in court for years. The wells will belong to someone else and the beat will still go on. Good plan.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
People like you, in advocating for this stuff, always minimized the dangers of catastrophic spills. Catastrophic spills are fairly unlikely events.
BUT
They are inevitable, no matter how good your safety precautions are. That is another truth. The number of them will also go up the more you drill out beyond the continental shelf, simply because you have more rigs ac ulating more risk.
This spill represents an enourmous cost in drilling/using oil, and is costing jobs now.
Many arguments against increasing the costs of oil by raising taxes on it are that "they damage the economy and cost jobs".
If one turns around and uses that money to fund and subsidize renewable energy projects and research, and forms of energy that we don't have to import, then that ends up creating jobs does it not?
Such a deal would have to pass anti-trust muster first.
It will not happen, no matter how much of a drubbing BP's stock takes. Any administration that approved such a deal would find it's party out of power faster than a greased polecat on a hot griddle can skeedaddle under the porch.
Bull . Magic Negro let the Wall St TBTF bankrupt companies offload their debts to US govt and subsidiaries created to eat toxic , and hide their $Ts in debt, and still do. BP could do the same with their blowout liabilities.
A college graduate "person" cannot escape college loans through personal bankruptcy, but any corporate "person" can default into bankruptcy.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-09-2010 at 08:26 AM.
Are there enough stupid liberals to allow that to happen after seeing the current bailout results?
Just to be clear, when I said:
The ac ulation of risk is based on probability theory and normal distributions in a statistical sense.
If the chances of any rig blowing out in any given year are 1 in 1000, but you have 1000 rigs in operation in a year, you have essentially "drawn" one thousand poker hands. The odds of none of those rigs blowing out at that level of probability would get remote really quick. i.e. .999 * (number of rigs/years)
72% chance of at least one blowout in any given year period,
86% chance for at least one blowout in any given two year period,
95% chance for at least one blowout in any given three year period
99% change for at least one blowout in any given four year period, pretty much a near certainty.
Given that there were, as of 2008, 200 deepwater drilling rigs, with about 10 or so being built per year (going up tho')
http://www.epmag.com/Magazine/2008/5/item3599.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/bu...drillship.html
and
that we have been deep water drilling for only, what... 15-30 years?
I would say the odds 1-1000 seem to be not outside the scope of reality.
The longer you go, the more certain there is to be a catastrophic spill. The more rigs you have drilling the shorter that time period is. Very simple probability and iron-clad math.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
