Slashdot Mirror


BP Permanently Seals Gulf Oil Well

rexjoec writes "BP has finally plugged the Macondo well. This announcement came yesterday after $9.5 billion (through September 17) in expenditures and five months of continuous effort." From the LA Times: "Of the estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil that gushed from the well, 25% was burned, skimmed or piped to tanker ships. A second 25% has evaporated or dissolved, according to government estimates. Another 25%, classified by the government as 'residual oil,' consisted of light sheens on the water, thick goo on the shore and tar balls. The tar balls, though not harmful to humans, are likely to wash up on shore for some time."

20 of 368 comments (clear)

  1. You know what I find hilarious? by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The "potential" for conflict can raise the cost of oil by 5-10 cents in less than a week. The "potential" for supply problsm can raise the cost of oil by as much as 50 cents over the course of a couple of months.

    Millions of gallons leaking into the Gulf, however, seem to have had pretty much zero effect on gas prices. Am I wrong? Please put some numbers up showing that I am...I'd really be pissed off if I'm right about that.

    1. Re:You know what I find hilarious? by east+coast · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Assuming that the 4.9 million barrels of oil number can be believed? That's the US consumption in about 6 hours. Pretty much a drop in the bucket when it comes right down to it.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:You know what I find hilarious? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Millions of gallons leaking into the Gulf, however, seem to have had pretty much zero effect on gas prices. Am I wrong?

      The Maconodo well was in the process of being converted from exploration to production. A non-producing well didn't come into production, not 'a producing well went out of production'. So, the supply wasn't impacted. If demand was level then the price should have stayed mostly level.

      Only if oil futures had figured in the Macondo production already, or speculators thought that BP's costs would somehow drive up the world market costs (why would Exxon increase its prices?, e.g. - they wouldn't) would this have affected oil prices. The biggest supply risk right now is from the US Government, but it seem unlikely they're going to undertake the draconian options at this point.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:You know what I find hilarious? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And the price of oil seems to have very little to do with the price of gasoline anyhow (In Canada at least). I have oil investments and I see them go up and down and nothing much happens to the price of gas. I've watched the price of a barrel of oil drop almost 20% with *zero* change in the price of gas. Years ago it used to be that when the price of oil went up the price of gas went up pretty much in lockstep and *instantly*. Then when the price of oil dropped the price of gas stayed the same for weeks - the gas companies claimed that they still had to use up all the oil in storage that had been bought at the old price. Curiously that logic never held when the price of oil went up.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    4. Re:You know what I find hilarious? by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is actually fuelled by panic trading and has nothing to do with the oil price. Oil isn't taken out of the ground and converted to product by the same company. Oil is taken out of the ground then traded on a public exchange. Companies buy this from the public exchange refine it and sell product back to the public exchange. Retailers then buy the product from the public exchange. The end result is that when you buy petrol at a BP service station you're not necessarily going to get BP petrol. Also because of all this trading the typical trading trends happen when something goes wrong.

      Oil price goes up.
      Traders panic and start hedging bets on the retail market.
      The entire thing turns out to be a non-event and the price of oil starts to fall.
      Traders sit on their retail product they now don't want to move at a loss.
      Dropped oil price results in a drop in retail petrol some 6-10 weeks later (since this is your typical refining and transportation delay).
      Traders either move product through fixed agreements, or realise they screwed up and recover costs elsewhere.

      Your typical oil company is also just a pawn in the same process. If petrol can be bought cheaper from the market than from the local refinery (a not at all uncommon occurrence) then they don't buy from themselves. This is why exploration, refining, and retail sections of these companies are so incredibly segregated.

  2. The last 25% by BostonRob · · Score: 5, Informative

    The last 25%, left out of the summary, is the most concerning. From the article: The final 25% of the oil — the equivalent of four Exxon Valdez spills —- is of greatest concern to scientists. It is drifting 3,000 to 4,300 feet below the gulf's surface, in vast clouds of atomized droplets that could alter links in the chain of life.

    --
    Big Dig-ing until the money is gone...
    1. Re:The last 25% by caturday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If my company has a tanker full of gas, and that tanker explodes outside your store due to my company's negligence, cratering the street and making your store unreachable for months. By your logic, my company shouldn't be liable for monetary damage to your store. How would you feel about this? You can say "adapt! change!" all you want, but the bottom line is, there should be no legal justification for this kind of negligence.

    2. Re:The last 25% by danbert8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is BP paying those fishermen for the next 40 years of lost work?

      No, but BP is paying for those fisherman to go out and clean the oil. Also 40 years=number pulled out of your ass. The effects of the Ixtoc 1 oil spill were not that drastic and shrimp industries returned to normal in 2 years.

      Is it paying the hotels for the next 20 years of lost business?

      The hotels are already doing quite well this year as they are hosting all the contractors that have been brought into the region, as are all the restaurants and such with the per diem the contractors are getting paid. And again 20 years=number pulled out of your ass.

      It sure seems like dumping a few gallons of oil can get you arrested, dumping millions though is ok so long as you pretend to do something about it.

      Yes, dumping millions of gallons of oil is ok (if you consider 20 billion dollars to not be a penalty). That works out to about $95 a gallon, not to mention the additional $1.87/gallon in lost oil revenue.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    3. Re:The last 25% by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If my company has a tanker full of gas, and that tanker explodes outside your store due to my company's negligence, cratering the street and making your store unreachable for months. By your logic, my company shouldn't be liable for monetary damage to your store. How would you feel about this? You can say "adapt! change!" all you want, but the bottom line is, there should be no legal justification for this kind of negligence.

      They can reimburse you for your losses, but people shouldn't be on the hook for hypothetical future losses 40 years into the future unless actual deaths were involved (You can estimate earnings, and nothing can reverse death, so the losses are tangible)

      For example, let's say a massive Cat 4 hurricane came in 2 weeks later and literally washed your store away. Would the company that cratered the street and made your store unreachable be liable for your now non-existant store? Is that hypothetical? It sure is, but so are your 'lost' future profits. There was no guarantee of them.

      Remimburse the damage, pay compensation for the inconvenience to establish a new store, and then any associated fines for failing to follow regulations.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    4. Re:The last 25% by Antisyzygy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By your logic, I should be allowed to start a "waste disposal service". What I will do is locate myself in your neighborhood and burn tires, paint thinner, waste paint, and miscellaneous plastics in large heaping piles. You should just have to adapt to it and deserve no compensation down the road when you get cancer or poisoned by the toxic fumes in the air. Its not my fault you live there and use the neighborhood for your own personal enjoyment and living space. After all, this society is capitalist so I should be able to start a business like this cut out my niche in the market.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    5. Re:The last 25% by david_thornley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's fundamentally two ways to make a business responsible for its unsafe actions.

      One is to impose government regulations. These are generally flawed, often tuned to avoid expense to the corporation, often require unnecessary things at extra expense, may not be enforced, and are typically something of a pain.

      The other is to make corporations civilly liable for what they do. This has its own set of problems, including shell corporations that loot and discard operating corporations, and the ability of large enterprises to wage delaying actions through the legal system.

      The worst of both worlds is when bad government regs are used to shield a corporation from well-deserved liability.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:The last 25% by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Deliberately dumping used motor oil is a crime. Having it spill out of your car onto the pavement because a gasket fails is not a crime, though you may still be required to pay clean-up costs.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:The last 25% by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, since they'd about fished out the old one...

      Honestly, I can't stand fishermen who talk about fishing grounds and fish populations as if they were their property.

      I can pretty much guarantee that if they banned gulf fishing for a year, and studied the subsequent catches, they'd find that 5 million barrels of oil is less of a problem for the fish populations than all the commercial fishing.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    8. Re:The last 25% by SleazyRidr · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah vigilantism. Is there any problem it can't solve?

  3. Obviously made up / Wild A*sed Guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That each of these four options accounts for exactly one quarter of the oil is obviously made up or at best a Wild A*sed Guess. They lied from day one about the amount of oil released, and we're supposed to believe this?

  4. why not untar the gulf... by pulse2600 · · Score: 5, Funny

    tar -xvf gulf.tar

  5. Re:But the lawsuits have on ly begun by NevarMore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not saying that the specifics of this case are right, but thats what you have to do if you sue for damages with long term repercussions.

    Lets say I run into you with my car and break your hand. You would need to sue me to recover the following costs:
      - Immediate medical care (ER, ambulance)
      - Surgery to correct your hand
      - Lost wages from the immediate time away from work
      - Cost of physical therapy
    (heres the important part)
      - Cost of long term followup visits
      - Cost of pain meds (even say, Advil) because of long term discomfornt
      - Lost wages from not being able to use your hand 100% ever again
      - Cost of followup visits if your hand flares up again
      - Cost of treating the arthritis that is now likely to develop

    You can only sue me once. You may not come back and sue me again in 15 years when it acts up after feeling fine for a decade.

    Similar thing is going on here. The fishermen just plain don't know whats going to happen in the long term. The legal term is "make me whole". BP did something to harm them and the fisherman isn't made whole again unless all of his costs , short and long term, are recovered. The fisherman doesn't get to go back in 5 years and sue BP again after he finds out his fishing area is a wasteland because the fish are gone.

  6. Re:But the lawsuits have on ly begun by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bullshit. They are going to weasel out of this like all big companies do when something like this occurs. Google "bhopal union carbide", for a great example.

    In a just world they will have to pay every inflation adjusted dime since the fishing industry was damaged to when it fully recovers. In our world they won't.

  7. Re:I make a point not to buy from BP anymore by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You should too.

    A feel good idea. With no, to negative, results.

    1) They're going to change their name in a couple months / years. Guaranteed. Bet you won't notice.

    2) Carried out to the logical conclusion, if everyone shunned BP, our own govt (aka all of us) will have to pay the full costs of cleanup. I'd much rather voluntarily pay my tiny fraction of the costs and in return get a tank of gas in my car, than have the govt forcibly take everyone's money to pay for the full cost of cleanup and we get nothing but a larger national debt...

    3) Gas stations are mostly franchises. So, the only people you're punishing are your local gas station owners whom randomly selected the wrong marketing firm. The guy down the street whom contracts to Exxon for his marketing, will simply buy the excess gas from BP and you'll never be the wiser. Punishing the local station owner is the same bullying mentality as screaming at a supermarket cashier or other McJob personnel, as if they have anything to do with it or as if your actions will have any effect.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  8. Just like in Iraq, the US simply declares victory by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The BP+US statements about this debacle have from the very beginning been utterly fanciful and misleading. Why should anyone suddenly believe this one?

    BP+US has treated the entire disaster as simply a public relations problem. Control the media message, attack and suppress any contrary evidence, and thus define reality. At least until the guilty have escaped any consequences and the gullible are left to pay the real costs.

    And my observation here is to note the similarity to U.S. petro-military operations in Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East). Both were caused by hubris and greed, and the official "solution" to what is clearly a complete and total clusterfuck is just PR "rebranding" - to simply leave and declare victory.

    Without independent observation and analysis, in either the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Mexico, who has any idea of what's really happening?

    But from the similarities I'll bet this disaster will continue exactly like Iraqistan: lots of smiling photo ops of the CEO's of state, the occasional human interest story about the hardships suffered by the little people (carefully avoiding any link to those responsible), and the suffering and environmental devastation and the death will keep going on and on.

    Gulf of Mexico, Persian Gulf.

    Same hydrocarbons, different day.


    "My fellow Americans, major combat operations in the Gulf have ended. In the battle of Macondo, the United States and our oillies have prevailed."

    "Emission Accomplished"