BP Permanently Seals Gulf Oil Well

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BP Permanently Seals Gulf Oil Well

Posted by Soulskill on Monday September 20, 2010 @07:30AM from the for-sufficiently-termporary-values-of-permanent dept.

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."

6 of 368 comments (clear)

The last 25% by BostonRob · 2010-09-20 07:34 · 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 · 2010-09-20 07:46 · 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 · 2010-09-20 08:03 · 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?
Re:You know what I find hilarious? by bill_mcgonigle · 2010-09-20 07:45 · 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)
why not untar the gulf... by pulse2600 · 2010-09-20 07:47 · Score: 5, Funny

tar -xvf gulf.tar
Re:You know what I find hilarious? by thegarbz · 2010-09-20 10:05 · 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.