from LRC Blog at Lewrockwell.com. It is not to excuse BP (or Transocean, for that matter), but just to give you some perspective on the spill in numbers. One conclusion from these numbers: Nature is so huge, we are so small. In a way, it is amazing that we even attempt to do something with what surrounds us - be it an ocean or land or air - undaunted.
Some Perspective on the Oil (Lew Rockwell, 6/11/2010 LRC Blog)
Writes Daniel Mahaffey:
Just for fun, I looked at how fast the Gulf of Mexico is filling with oil.
- The Gulf’s volume is approximately 2.5 quadrillion cubic meters, 660 quadrillion gallons (660,000,000,000,000,000 gallons) or 600,000 cubic miles.
- Estimates of the oil released vary from 40 million to 100 million gallons. Let’s use 66 million gallons to make the arithmetic easy.
- The amount of oil released is 1/10,000,000,000 of the volume of the Gulf (one ten billionth).
- If it has taken 53 days to release 66 million gallons, it will take 530,000,000,000 days to fill the Gulf of Mexico. That’s 1.8 trillion years.
- If the earth is 4.54 billion years old, it would take 400,000 earth ages to fill the Gulf.
- If the universe is 13.75 billion years old, it would take 130,000 ages of the universe to fill the Gulf.
Stop! This is not possible. Here’s another view:
- Tiber field (on which the platform was drilling) contains 250,000,000 barrels of oil (at 42 gallons per barrel).
- At 66 million gallons per 53 day period, it would take 8,400 days to drain Tiber field (23 years).
- If emptied, Tiber field would cover the 615,000 square miles of the Gulf surface with 0.00098 (about 1/1000) inch of oil after 23 years.
The point of all this is perspective. We are very small so everything looks big to us. When journalists report massive oil plumes underwater, or foot deep oil collections on shore, we should be aware that things are still very, very small relative to the enormity of the Gulf of Mexico. The plumes may not actually be massive, and the oil may not be 1 foot deep everywhere. None of this is intended to excuse BP—it’s just perspective.
30-Day free trial by following the link.
Tokyo Time
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
4 comments:
Putting the problem into propective. One gallon of Oil can make one million gallons of water toxic.
What is also important is how much money will be required to completely clean up this disaster. I have no doubt that BP will be forced into bankruptcy over this. No matter what amount of money BP provides, its still going to cost taxpayers billions, in lost wages, and in clean up costs, as many coastal communities are forced to start cleaning up since BP is nowhere to be found, and probably are in-eligable to collect re-imbursment because there measures have not been approved by BP or by a federal judge.
How much less oil will be available on the market as now the gov't will surely impose draconian measures. This problem is purely BP's Fault to cut safety costs. Now those cuts will cost its solvency. Penny wise, 20 Billion Pound foolish. If I am right about the draconian new drilling regulations, and blocks, US oil companies may face losses near a Trillion over the next decade or two.
BP continues to make blunder after blunder. Most recently, they failed to bring adquite tanker storage to the site after implemting top-hat. Now the must hold off extracting oil for a couple of days until another tanker arrives on site. BP should change it's name to Three stoges Petroleum. Althought I suspect that the three stoges cast would have done a better job than BP.
BP can't seem to do anything right.
Not just loss for US oil majors. It's a great loss for consumers. BP shouldn't be excused, as you say, for cutting corners for years if not decades.
But as for scarcity of tankers, we can thank Wall Street, at least partially. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup have rented many to store oil that they bought on "contango" play.
I'm curious to know what the other party of this disaster has to say, if any: Transocean. For whatever reason, they relented to the BP corporate weenie who wanted Transocean to drill faster and substitute sea water with mud probably too soon, which caused the blowup. They knew better, but safety went out the door when pressured by BP.
What's interesting to me on a political front is that all these environmental organizations like Sierra Club are strangely muted. Far from criticizing his handling of the oil spill, they are busy praising Obama for his environmental policy. (What policy?)
"Transocean. For whatever reason, they relented to the BP corporate weenie who wanted Transocean to drill faster and substitute sea water with mud probably too soon, which caused the blowup."
What it probably comes down to is job loss. I suspect the Transocean Manager that caved it was probably concerned with getting the boot. If the manager refused to comply with BP's request, surely BP would have demanded to Transocean to have him replaced with a "yes-man".
Personally I would like the BP person that forced Transocean be brought up on criminal charges (preferribly high-treason since this is a crime that will effect then entire nation).
Clearly this is an incident of gross negeliance since BP ordered Transocean to ignore Standard safety protocols. I would be simpathic to BP if they had follow standard procedures, and it was cause a mistake (human or machine), or an error.
What amazes me, that their pension funds that are buying BP, on the small chance the BP will recover. There is no chance BP will survive. It will be liquidated as nobody is going permit them to drill or provide services with such a poor safety record. The lawsuits will also be an enormous burden that forces BP into bankruptcy protection.
Yup. BP is toast. You've read the latest, haven't you? $20 billion escrow demanded by Obama. http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2010/06/bp-may-lose-us-oil-leases-contracts.html
Much as I despise BP, I detest the strong-arm thuggish behavior of the administration over a private business.
Post a Comment