RE: Storage tanks11 Nov 2021 20:19
Maybe I am being optimistic, but I am struggling to understand why there is so little media coverage if the Miandoum fire has resulted in a significant disruption to production.
O&W posted that “the Esso Tchad operation isn't simply based around Miandoum, where the fires started. The Kome site runs through a separate export pipeline to Cameroon”. This is true and may be a factor in assessing its impact on production.
When the strike in June had a significant impact on production it was widely reported in Energyvoice, Reuters, Africa news, Africa Intelligence and many others. By comparison I have only seen the Miandoum fire reported in Al Wihda.
In the Al Wihda reports on the 6th and 8th November posted by IZ there were two different images of the same damaged tank but the article stated, “four oil tanks were consumed”. Perhaps I am being cynical, but wouldn’t the natural instinct of a journalist be to use an image that showed the extent of the damage to the site rather than the detailed damage to one tank?
I am also questioning the term “oil tank”, perhaps a generic term but it clearly states on the image of side of the tank “Produced water” i.e. “water that is produced as a by-product during the extraction of oil and natural gas”.
This is not my area of expertise, but my understanding is that the produced water tank is a temporary storage facility prior to the produced water being refined or reused for another purpose. If the reports that there are six tanks on site and 1 to 4 tanks have been damaged are accurate, what impact will that have on production? Were the six tanks constructed to cope with the initial production rates and can the current production levels still be achieved with the remaining undamaged tanks?
As has been stated before the accuracy of the African press needs to be viewed with a high degree of scepticism.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
