Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Except from a Blog of BP/USA gov.
#1
This is in reference to the "spill" and also BP's permit to continue in Alaska with a project called "Liberty" which is a new "state of the art" drilling method called horizontial drilling.

I find it very disturbing that BP and the American gov. Have already taken a calculated risk that they lost. It was the willingness of BP to pay small fines because it is a drop in the bucket compared to the 6 billion dollars they make traditionally In one quarter. That is why Federal regulations do not work on the energy industry and that is why BP needs to be held accountable for their unlawful willingness to provide unsafe work enviorments for their employees and more than likely will continue unless the cap on what BP has to pay for restoration is alleviated. Yet again it is not a "spill", a spill is when a 3'year old turns over their milk, this was a calculated risk that through failure to regulate the industry properly by the American gov, has caused an unlawful and volatile act in federal waters.
#2
100% true.


Whats even worse is the use of corexit, when it literally says on the containers "DO NOT USE ON SURFACE WATER"

Thats why they are already beginning plans for a mass evac of Gulf states in fear of a giant chem cloud that is sitting under the water gets pushed inland by a large storm.
#3
Horizontal drilling has been employed commercially for more than 15 years. The excerpt posted above implies that there is something risky or experimental about the method. The opposite is true. Horizontal and slant drilling allows companies to disturb a much smaller surface area to access oil reserves. Multiple wells can be drilled from a common area.
#4
Beetle01 Wrote:100% true.


Whats even worse is the use of corexit, when it literally says on the containers "DO NOT USE ON SURFACE WATER"

Thats why they are already beginning plans for a mass evac of Gulf states in fear of a giant chem cloud that is sitting under the water gets pushed inland by a large storm.

If I was going to guess the US is going to do the same exact thing Russia did a while back....Nuke the hole and seal it up. Sure it will contaminate the water around it for a while but look at what we are facing now.
#5
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Horizontal drilling has been employed commercially for more than 15 years. The excerpt posted above implies that there is something risky or experimental about the method. The opposite is true. Horizontal and slant drilling allows companies to disturb a much smaller surface area to access oil reserves. Multiple wells can be drilled from a common area.


interesting comment...since its not risky I guess that is why George W. and the rest of that admin gave a permit for the drilling site after letting BP write their own environmental review and consultation documents relating to the Endangered Species Act. The documents did not include any plan as to how they would navigate an issue such as what we have in the gulf. There only statements in the documents were that at its worse a "spill" would be 20 thousand barrels a day. Oh and by the way the documents are supposed to contain such information as their plans on oil clean up.

also "[SIZE=2]This is in reference to the "spill" and also BP's permit to continue in Alaska with a project called "Liberty" which is a new "state of the art" drilling method called horizontial drilling." that was me not a part of the excerpt...[/SIZE]
#6
15thRegionSlamaBamma Wrote:

interesting comment...since its not risky I guess that is why George W. and the rest of that admin gave a permit for the drilling site after letting BP write their own environmental review and consultation documents relating to the Endangered Species Act. The documents did not include any plan as to how they would navigate an issue such as what we have in the gulf. There only statements in the documents were that at its worse a "spill" would be 20 thousand barrels a day. Oh and by the way the documents are supposed to contain such information as their plans on oil clean up.

also "[SIZE=2]This is in reference to the "spill" and also BP's permit to continue in Alaska with a project called "Liberty" which is a new "state of the art" drilling method called horizontial drilling." that was me not a part of the excerpt...[/SIZE]
After rereading your post, the following is obvious:
  • It is impossible to distinguish between your mistake and the bloggers' mistakes because you do not identify whose words belong to whom.
  • In your response, you referred to material in the blog that is not in your excerpt. How about including a link next time and putting the excerpt inside a quote element?

My response was merely to correct the implication that horizontal drilling is an experimental method. It's not.

If you want to debate a blogger's opinion, the least you could do is provide a link to the full text.

Thanks.
#7
The information in my response to you were not from the blog it is actually from a New York Times article.

I will post the rest of the blog later this evening for you Hoot. BTW you don't have to be so condescending to everyone who opposes your views. Have you not found out yet that there are no RIGHT answers. LOL

Thats a joke by the way so don't take it personally.
#8
15thRegionSlamaBamma Wrote:The information in my response to you were not from the blog it is actually from a New York Times article.

I will post the rest of the blog later this evening for you Hoot. BTW you don't have to be so condescending to everyone who opposes your views. Have you not found out yet that there are no RIGHT answers. LOL

Thats a joke by the way so don't take it personally.
Read my initial post again. There is nothing in it that is the least bit condescending. It was written as a matter of fact. Now read your response to my post. I admit that my second response had a somewhat condescending tone but it was in response to the tone of your reply to me.

It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the New York Times articles on environmental issues and left wing blogs - but thank you for providing the URL to the article. It does raise some good questions concerning the record horizontal distance that BP intends to drill.

However, IMO, the writer fails to give BP credit for building an island from which to drill. If there is a leak or other problem, it will undoubtedly be easier to deal with from a point above sea level than from an off shore location. BP did not build the island to circumvent an offshore drilling ban that did not exist until two months ago - a ban that has since been overturned by a federal judge.
#9
Hoot, do you agree or disagree that horizontal drilling is a lot more risky than normally used drilling methods. The drilling technique BP was using in the Gulf was also considered a riskier technique.

Blame lies with both BP and the Govt.
#10
Chesapeake Gas has been drilling horizontial wells through out Eastern Ky. and West Virginia for at least the three years. Some of these wells were drilled around 4000 feet deep and about 4500 feet outward from the well in multiple directions.
#11
15thRegionSlamaBamma Wrote:This is in reference to the "spill" and also BP's permit to continue in Alaska with a project called "Liberty" which is a new "state of the art" drilling method called horizontial drilling.

I find it very disturbing that BP and the American gov. Have already taken a calculated risk that they lost. It was the willingness of BP to pay small fines because it is a drop in the bucket compared to the 6 billion dollars they make traditionally In one quarter. That is why Federal regulations do not work on the energy industry and that is why BP needs to be held accountable for their unlawful willingness to provide unsafe work enviorments for their employees and more than likely will continue unless the cap on what BP has to pay for restoration is alleviated. Yet again it is not a "spill", a spill is when a 3'year old turns over their milk, this was a calculated risk that through failure to regulate the industry properly by the American gov, has caused an unlawful and volatile act in federal waters.

I wonder how much money was spent to make the 6 billion dollars?

What was their rate of retun on their investment? Was it 5%, 15% or more?
#12
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Read my initial post again. There is nothing in it that is the least bit condescending. It was written as a matter of fact. Now read your response to my post. I admit that my second response had a somewhat condescending tone but it was in response to the tone of your reply to me.

It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the New York Times articles on environmental issues and left wing blogs - but thank you for providing the URL to the article. It does raise some good questions concerning the record horizontal distance that BP intends to drill.

However, IMO, the writer fails to give BP credit for building an island from which to drill. If there is a leak or other problem, it will undoubtedly be easier to deal with from a point above sea level than from an off shore location. BP did not build the island to circumvent an offshore drilling ban that did not exist until two months ago - a ban that has since been overturned by a federal judge.

As I said it was a joke...But you are welcome...However the Island they did build for it is so small it has been stated if anything does happen its not really going to help prevent the spill from spreading...
#13
Beetle01 Wrote:Hoot, do you agree or disagree that horizontal drilling is a lot more risky than normally used drilling methods. The drilling technique BP was using in the Gulf was also considered a riskier technique.

Blame lies with both BP and the Govt.
My major was in mining engineering - not petroleum engineering, so I do not profess any special technical knowledge on the subject. I suspect that horizontal drilling from shallow water or from a man made island would be safer than deep water vertical drilling.

I used to work for a company that owned a Canadian subsidiary that was among the pioneers of horizontal drilling (gas wells) and I do not recall any accidents. The results, in terms of gas production were disappointing. The cost of angle drilling and horizontal drilling is much higher than conventional vertical well drilling, so companies tend to avoid the method when vertical drilling is practicable.

It makes no sense to me that non-vertical drilling would be more dangerous in an environmental risk sense than vertical drilling - but like I said, it is not my field of expertise.

People should also understand that the top engineers in the energy field work in the private sector. It would be helpful to know the background and qualifications of the so-called experts who are quoted in articles attacking energy companies. Sometimes, they have no technical background and are nothing but career bureaucrats.
#14
Old School Wrote:I wonder how much money was spent to make the 6 billion dollars?

What was their rate of retun on their investment? Was it 5%, 15% or more?

avg annual return would be 17.9% or based on 4 quarters at 6 billion that would be 24 billion which would mean they make 4.3 billion annualy.
#15
15thRegionSlamaBamma Wrote:As I said it was a joke...But you are welcome...However the Island they did build for it is so small it has been stated if anything does happen its not really going to help prevent the spill from spreading...
30 + acres is not a small man made structure. It is true that the oil from a spill would quickly find its way to the water but it is also true that it is much easier to cap a well head above ground than on the ocean floor, particularly a well drilled under frigid Arctic water and often below ice. Environmentalists should be happy that the well was not drilled from a traditional drilling platform.
#16
Hoot Gibson Wrote:30 + acres is not a small man made structure. It is true that the oil from a spill would quickly find its way to the water but it is also true that it is much easier to cap a well head above ground than on the ocean floor, particularly a well drilled under frigid Arctic water and often below ice. Environmentalists should be happy that the well was not drilled from a traditional drilling platform.

Well i should have reworded it...I was meaning it would still make it to the water. What I am wondering and maybe you can clear this up for me it is made out of gravel and gravel shifts easily is there a chance it could shift enough to cause a breach in the pipe or something????
#17
Here is a link to a large collection of BP financial data: Forbes link

BP's average net profit over the past 5 years has been 7.4 percent.
#18
I got this from USA Today idk how accurate it is I would have to say forbes is more but...for the sake of showing it...

" we see the company generated a strong average annual compound rate of return of 17.9%" full article
#19
15thRegionSlamaBamma Wrote:I got this from USA Today idk how accurate it is I would have to say forbes is more but...for the sake of showing it...

" we see the company generated a strong average annual compound rate of return of 17.9%" full article
There are lots of financial measures used to evaluate businesses but net profits after taxes is the most common one quoted. The mainstream media tends to focus on dollars of profits as opposed to percentage when their goal is to make the companies sound greedy.

The sheer size of a company's profit, in terms of dollars, is one of the least meaningful measures but that is the one most often quoted in articles about coal, oil, or gas companies. Newspapers rarely compare the net profit margins of energy companies to those of other industries because it makes the reported profits of those companies sound much more reasonable.

American taxpayers should be glad that BP has been a profitable large company or else we would be footing the clean-up bill for their spill. $20 billion (or more) will wipe out a lot of BP's past profits.
#20
Hoot Gibson Wrote:There are lots of financial measures used to evaluate businesses but net profits after taxes is the most common one quoted. The mainstream media tends to focus on dollars of profits as opposed to percentage when their goal is to make the companies sound greedy.

The sheer size of a company's profit, in terms of dollars, is one of the least meaningful measures but that is the one most often quoted in articles about coal, oil, or gas companies. Newspapers rarely compare the net profit margins of energy companies to those of other industries because it makes the reported profits of those companies sound much more reasonable.

American taxpayers should be glad that BP has been a profitable large company or else we would be footing the clean-up bill for their spill. $20 billion (or more) will wipe out a lot of BP's past profits.

Touche...I still hate BP though lol
#21
Do you know the answer to my question on post 16?
#22
15thRegionSlamaBamma Wrote:Do you know the answer to my question on post 16?
I have no idea how the "island" was built and whether the description of it being constructed of gravels is accurate - so no, I would have venture a guess as to whether it is possible that the island would shift and rupture the well casing. However, the well casings are pretty substantial and I seriously doubt that the island consists of a pile of loose gravels as the author implies. It was more likely built in thin lifts and compacted with a bulldozer or roller as it was constructed.
#23
Hoot Gibson Wrote:I have no idea how the "island" was built and whether the description of it being constructed of gravels is accurate - so no, I would have venture a guess as to whether it is possible that the island would shift and rupture the well casing. However, the well casings are pretty substantial and I seriously doubt that the island consists of a pile of loose gravels as the author implies. It was more likely built in thin lifts and compacted with a bulldozer or roller as it was constructed.

Fair enough thank ya mate
#24
Hoot Gibson Wrote:There are lots of financial measures used to evaluate businesses but net profits after taxes is the most common one quoted. The mainstream media tends to focus on dollars of profits as opposed to percentage when their goal is to make the companies sound greedy.

The sheer size of a company's profit, in terms of dollars, is one of the least meaningful measures but that is the one most often quoted in articles about coal, oil, or gas companies. Newspapers rarely compare the net profit margins of energy companies to those of other industries because it makes the reported profits of those companies sound much more reasonable.

American taxpayers should be glad that BP has been a profitable large company or else we would be footing the clean-up bill for their spill. $20 billion (or more) will wipe out a lot of BP's past profits.

Thats just a flat out lie, they have even stated they have over 200BIllion in liquid cash just sitting around. They make almost 100million dollars profit a day. Thats 7 months of profits. No matter what the number is, they should pay for their mistake. Thats the business, its risky, they know that, we should not bail them out. Part of the risk of drilling for oil is the environmental disaster that can occur if a spill happens. SO basically BP could still operate at 100%, pay all their bills and employees, and pay for this cleanup in 7 months and be done with it, and move on. But they wont they know our weak govt officials will give them whatever they want, especially Republicans.

Also those figures you show do not include the money BP profits but then reinvests, it is not counted on the profit line.
#25
Beetle01 Wrote:Thats just a flat out lie, they have even stated they have over 200BIllion in liquid cash just sitting around. They make almost 100million dollars profit a day. Thats 7 months of profits. No matter what the number is, they should pay for their mistake. Thats the business, its risky, they know that, we should not bail them out. Part of the risk of drilling for oil is the environmental disaster that can occur if a spill happens. SO basically BP could still operate at 100%, pay all their bills and employees, and pay for this cleanup in 7 months and be done with it, and move on. But they wont they know our weak govt officials will give them whatever they want, especially Republicans.

Also those figures you show do not include the money BP profits but then reinvests, it is not counted on the profit line.
Time to put up or shut up, Beetle. You say that BP makes a net profit of $100 million per day, which according to this conservative's math comes to $36.5 billion per year, except for leap year.

Show us where BP is making a daily profit of $100 million as you claimed, please.

As for calling me a liar, are you sure that you are not a closet Obama fanboy? $20 billion is roughly equivalent to one year's net profit for BP (which hopefully you will be able to find through your own research). I know that if I suddenly lost a full year of my net income, I would consider it pretty substantial, whether I made my current salary or ten times as much - a year's worth of income is pretty substantial.

You should do a little bit of homework, Beetle, before you flatly state that somebody's numbers are wrong. And before calling them a liar, you should have an iron clad case to prove that a deliberate mistatement of fact was made. You apparently did no research before shooting off your mouth and throwing out your bogus numbers. Maybe you are making a bid to write speeches for Obama's teleprompter. :lmao:
#26
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Time to put up or shut up, Beetle. You say that BP makes a net profit of $100 million per day, which according to this conservative's math comes to $36.5 billion per year, except for leap year.

Show us where BP is making a daily profit of $100 million as you claimed, please.

As for calling me a liar, are you sure that you are not a closet Obama fanboy? $20 billion is roughly equivalent to one year's net profit for BP (which hopefully you will be able to find through your own research). I know that if I suddenly lost a full year of my net income, I would consider it pretty substantial, whether I made my current salary or ten times as much - a year's worth of income is pretty substantial.

You should do a little bit of homework, Beetle, before you flatly state that somebody's numbers are wrong. And before calling them a liar, you should have an iron clad case to prove that a deliberate mistatement of fact was made. You apparently did no research before shooting off your mouth and throwing out your bogus numbers. Maybe you are making a bid to write speeches for Obama's teleprompter. :lmao:


Replacement Cost Profit was about 5.6 Billion for 1st Q 2010 or a little over 62 Million per day.

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet...esults.pdf
#27
Wildcatk23 Wrote:Replacement Cost Profit was about 5.6 Billion for 1st Q 2010 or a little over 62 Million per day.

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet...esults.pdf
...and the Replacement Cost Profit for 1Q 2009 and 1Q 2010 were about $3.45 billion and $2.4 billion, respectively. BP's 1st quarter was an unusually profitable one and the daily profits still fell far short of the bogus $100 million/day number that Beetle tossed out when he called me a liar.

Did you lie, Beetle, or were you simply mistaken? :biggrin:

A cleanup bill of $20 billion or more will wipe out a lot of BP's profits.
#28
Hoot Gibson Wrote:...and the Replacement Cost Profit for 1Q 2009 and 1Q 2010 were about $3.45 billion and $2.4 billion, respectively. BP's 1st quarter was an unusually profitable one and the daily profits still fell far short of the bogus $100 million/day number that Beetle tossed out when he called me a liar.

Did you lie, Beetle, or were you simply mistaken? :biggrin:

A cleanup bill of $20 billion or more will wipe out a lot of BP's profits.

BP’s first-quarter replacement cost profit was $5,598 million, compared with $2,387 million a year ago, an increase of 135%,

BP is worth $75 billion less on the open market than it was when the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded April 20.
#29
Wildcatk23 Wrote:BP’s first-quarter replacement cost profit was $5,598 million, compared with $2,387 million a year ago, an increase of 135%,

BP is worth $75 billion less on the open market than it was when the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded April 20.
The years listed in my post should have been 2009 and 2008 - instead of 2009 and 2010. My point was that the 1st quarter 2010 was an unusually good one and the profit for that period was still way below the number that Beetle pulled out of ....the air. BP was foolish to cede control over the distribution of $20 billion to the irresponsible regime that Obama runs. The money will not be fairly distributed to victims of the spill and BP will still get the blame.
#30
Hoot Gibson Wrote:The years listed in my post should have been 2009 and 2008 - instead of 2009 and 2010. My point was that the 1st quarter 2010 was an unusually good one and the profit for that period was still way below the number that Beetle pulled out of ....the air. BP was foolish to cede control over the distribution of $20 billion to the irresponsible regime that Obama runs. The money will not be fairly distributed to victims of the spill and BP will still get the blame.

I knew what you meant, i just didnt want to point out a mistake like u would have for anyone else on here. BP holds the blame. Its their Spill.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)