well this interesting, not only are BP using the lower bound of the estimate, but this ammount is not reduced by the captured oil
Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget concluded that the total amount of oil discharged during the spill was 4,928,100 barrels (± 10%, which gives a range of 4,435,290 to 5,420,910 total barrels). a number not reduced by the amount of oil captured at the wellhead ... Crone and Tolstoy estimate the total release to be 5,174,887 barrels (± 20%).80 Their calculations assume that oil represents 40% of the total flux from the well and do not include oil that was released from the kink leak prior to the riser cut on June 3, 2010.81 If the kink leak were taken into account, and the oil ratio was increased to the 43.7% figure generated by the Woods Hole team, this estimate would be on the high end of the government‟s current estimate for the total release. 5.89mb
All those fishermen who claimed loss of earnings, and yet were being paid a fortune to assist in the cleanup. All those strip bars who supposedly earned less due to said fisherman's also supposedly loss of earnings. The crooked thief who handled claims again BP for thousands of people, when those people never wanted to bring a claim.
And now we have Dick Cheney and Halliburton's dodgy connection from when he was CEO. Does anybody really think that all the top oil companies and their relatives, are not 100% in bed with every single Government for which they operate? Please.
Exactly. The Feds claimed 4.9 million barrels. BP have already agreed to have 800000 knocked off that for oil which was captured before it entered the water, leaving 4.1 million barrels.
The second half of the case will be all about reducing that number further, and since 4.1 million is the MAX number, that will be subject to some reduction. Its almost certain.
Should BP get some leeway for oil is skimmed, burned, dispersed, or otherwise cleaned up? I think so personally yes. Sure, not all of the oil that they got rid of, as it still entered the environment, but some of it, certainly. Otherwise, what was the point in spending billions to clean up the mess, if they are going to pay a heavy price for all of it anyway?
By the time this is all said and done, BP could end up paying for only 2 million barrels or so. At non GN, that's only 2 billion dollars in fines under the CWA, or 8 billion with GN. Both numbers are pretty safe to handle eh?
Down 1% today. 0.5% due to general market falls, and 0.5% due to the £ gaining on the $. No dramas. Still nice and steady in her comfy range of round abouts 450p.
No mate, the spills original size was 4.9 million. Can you show me anything to suggest that it was 5.7?
And Peak, yes indeed. So Tom Roth, the man who ran the cementing operations has said that no one told him that the cement job was unstable. He learned of the tests SIX MONTHS after the failed cement job. Crikey.
Multiple failures, by multiple parties. Just like the Feds also agreed in their report of 2 years ago. Non GN. $1000 on 4 million barrels
A Halliburton executive who was in charge of the cementing operations testified Tuesday in the BP oil spill trial in New Orleans the "cement slurry" used to seal the BP Macondo well "had a low probability of success."
According to The Times-Picayune, Thomas Roth, now the global operations manager for Halliburton's Boots & Coots pressure control subsidiary, testified the cement slurry was not designed to the standards for optimal success.
BP oversaw the work of both Halliburton and Transocean, which leased and manned the drilling rig to BP. Halliburton was hired by BP to supply the cement for the project.
According to the report, BP attorney Matt Regan asked Roth about tests conducted on the cement slurry prior to the spill. The results of three of the four tests showed the mixture was unstable. He asked Roth whether "those tests, to you, would be relevant to the question of what happened to that cement on the Macondo well?" Roth said it would be.
"There was testing done before the slurry was pumped, and it showed instability. Did anybody say that to you?" Regan asked.
"No, sir, nobody said that to me," Roth testified. He said he first learned of the tests in October 2010, six months after the fatal blowout.
Still all pointing to multiple causes and multiple parties I think
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.