Gulf oil spill at Deepwater Horizon threatens $8bn clean-up

[Cees Binkhorst]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Nog een signaal dat we op de een of andere manier niet goed bezig zijn?

Groet / Cees

PS. De nu gespilde 800,000 liter olie is over 10 dagen, het gaat nog
minimaal een maand duren. En BP schijnt geen haast te maken. In
tegendeel, ze hebben gevraagd of het leger het niet kan stoppen met hun
materiaal.

Gulf oil spill at Deepwater Horizon threatens $8bn clean-up and an
ecological oil slick disaster for the US
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/02/bp-oil-spill-costs-impact

This was the catastrophe that BP insisted could never happen. Now they
call it 'unprecedented'

Twelve months ago BP dismissed the possibility that a catastrophic
accident could happen at its offshore rig Deepwater Horizon, it emerged
yesterday. An exploration plan and environmental impact analysis for the
well, produced by the company in 2009, concluded that it was virtually
impossible for there to be a giant crude oil spill from it.

Now City experts say that the accident could cost the company up to $8bn
(£5.23bn) to clear up the slick. The US Coast Guard has estimated that
6m litres of oil has already spilled into the waters of the Gulf of
Mexico since an explosion destroyed the rig on 20 April, killing 11 workers.

A further 800,000 litres is thought to be pouring from the stricken well
every day, threatening to turn the accident into the worst US oil
disaster since the Exxon Valdez in Alaska in 1989.

Yesterday, a slick 130 miles long and 70 miles wide was being swept
towards the ecologically vulnerable coastlines of Louisiana and Mississippi.

Yet BP's plan for the Deepwater Horizon well, filed with the federal
Minerals Management Service, repeatedly said that it was "unlikely that
an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the
proposed activities".

The company conceded that a spill would have an impact on beaches,
wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, but argued that "due to the
distance to shore [48 miles] and the response capabilities that would be
implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected".

The revelation that BP had apparently underestimated the dangers posed
by the rig brought outraged responses from local activists. "If you're
going to be drilling in 5,000ft of water for oil, you should have the
ability to control what you're doing," said Robert Wiygul, an Ocean
Springs, Mississippi-based environmental lawyer.

This point was backed by Chris Frid, professor of marine biology at
Liverpool University. "The way to deal with an accident like this is to
hit the oil with dispersants as soon as it starts bubbling up to the
surface," he said. "Once it has been in the sea for a few days, it
becomes more difficult to break up into small particles that can then be
degraded by bacteria.

"But that has not happened. Either insufficient dispersants were
available or there was a lack of co-ordination among those dealing with
the spillage. Either way, there has been a ludicrous delay."

For its part, BP has claimed that the events leading to the rig's
destruction had no parallel. "The sort of occurrence – a blowout at this
depth – is clearly unprecedented," said a spokesman.

Crews have struggled for days without success to activate the well's
underwater shut-off valve using remotely operated vehicles. They also
are drilling a relief well in hopes of injecting mud and concrete to
seal off the leak, but that could take three months.

The prospect of oil pouring into the gulf for such a period could have
horrifying effects on wildlife, added Frid. "That part of the gulf's
coastline consists of a sedimentary shore with lots of muddy inlets. The
oil will penetrate into the mud, and because it contains no oxygen the
oil will not biodegrade. For generations, any disturbance of the
sediment will bring oil back to the surface and that will happen over a
very large area."

Similar fears were also stressed by Jane Lubchenco, head of the US
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, after she took part in
a conference call with the governors of the gulf states on Friday.
"There is very deep concern about what is happening," she added.

To date, most efforts to deal with the growing slick have failed. Rough
seas and strong winds have blocked efforts to burn off the oil or hold
it in check with inflatable booms strung along the coast. Louisiana
officials have opened gates in the Mississippi river in the hope that a
flood of fresh water would drive oil away from the coast, but the high
winds also thwarted that plan.

Meanwhile the Pentagon has deployed two C-130 cargo planes to spray
chemicals on the oil, while the Louisiana National Guard has been
deployed to help local communities.

The cost of dealing with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill could reach up
to $12.5bn, according to City analysts, with BP's share totalling $8bn.

Neil McMahon of Bernstein Research estimated a total of $7.5bn for the
clean-up and subsequent damages, with another $5bn for losses suffered
by the fishing and tourist industries in the area. BP owns 65% of the
licence, so would pay the bulk of this figure.

BP is currently spending $6m a day on the clean-up but this is likely to
rise to at least $10m a day, according to Bank of America/Merrill Lynch
analysts, and could go on for six months. On top of that, the company is
drilling two intervention wells at a total cost of about $300m.

More news
       Preventive measures being made to keep Gulf oil spill away from
coastlines
       Obama flies in to meet BP chief
       Environmental impact analysis had concluded there were risks to
beaches but oil spill was 'impossible'
       Coast faces disaster as slick threatens wildlife
       BP spends millions lobbying as it drills ever deeper

Related
2 May 2010
Barack Obama flies to Louisiana as BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill spreads

30 Apr 2010
White House U-turn on further offshore drilling after oil spill

30 Apr 2010
Deepwater Horizon: US bans new drilling in Gulf of Mexico

30 Apr 2010
Video: Gulf oil spill: 'This region needs the Mississippi'


       RichardChickenHeart RichardChickenHeart
       2 May 2010, 1:02AM
       BP seems to have a knack for telling the truth.
           BP's plan for the Deepwater Horizon well, filed with the
federal Minerals Management Service, repeatedly said that it was
"unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur
from the proposed activities".

       this is unquestionably true. I am sure they calculated the odds.
Hundreds of underwater oil rigs have operated for decades without such
an accident happening, it is indeed unlikely.

           BP has claimed that the events leading to the rig's
destruction had no parallel. "The sort of occurrence ? a blowout at this
depth ? is clearly unprecedented," said a spokesman.

       An event which has not happened before is certainly unprecedented.

       I do hope those nice smart men at BP do not get blamed for this
event.

       2 May 2010, 1:07AM
       Another triumph for Murphy's law.
       Compare this mess with the worst case scenario for wind and wave
power.

       RudyHaugeneder RudyHaugeneder
       2 May 2010, 1:08AM
       This disaster is no surprise, other than it took so long coming.
We have been warned for decades that catastrophes such as this were
inevitable and unstoppable.
       The Gulf of Mexico offshore oil spill is just one of a series of
significant environmental calamities that have occurred -- take the
China pre-Olympics coastline and lake cleanups, river oil spills since.
And that's just one part of the planet where human eco-disasters
have/are happening.
       And Africa. Eco-disasters are so common they are, like on many
other continents, no longer worthy of but a day or two, at most, coverage.
       Then don't forget the slowly evolving but constant
human-accelerated climate change and how this impact grows daily in
hardly perceptible and constant change that we, as a species, are hard
pressed to keep up with.
       Then there are the new things that are pending -- the deadly
byproduct results of GM, genetic modification of plants, animals,
poultry and other birds, fish, even viruses and bacteria: huge doomsday
disasters only a breath away, but nobody knows which breath.
       The reason: At the time of Columbus, there were 500-700 million
people on the plant; 2.7 billion at the time of the Kennedy
assassination; 7 billion today and 9 billion by 2050 -- a mere four decades.
       Clearly, the worst is yet to come, and probably very soon.

       manandwife manandwife
       2 May 2010, 3:19AM
       First, the issue is not overpopulation of the orb. It only takes
one or two idiots to be so aggressively motivated by greed to do
something like this. The problem is greed. The problem is not population
size or density.

       Second, many people would like to put away their automobiles and
not display a need for the product. Government is so tightly linked to
oil that laws, ordinances and zoning are almost entirely predicated upon
the wishes of the oil industry. Look at how gas and oil companies react
every time a community tries to have biking as a viable transportation form.

       Third, governments are needed to control and regulate issues
which are too large for individuals or singular companies. Would any
government allow Haliburton to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons?
Of course not. Governments realize one nuclear weapon could do so much
damage to the planet that only governments may have the opportunity to
control them. Well, obviously, it appears one popped off shore well can
be just as destructive as an A-bomb.

       Perhaps government should form a special division to manage
operations such as off shore drilling. Nationalize all corporations
related to the drilling platforms. Zero Profit = Zero Greed = Greater
attention paid to environmental and national safety.

       The revenue for this department should be retrieved from the
monarchy and people of Great Britain. They would sue our government if a
state directed company destroyed their coastline.

       Finally, being that the US military is actually one of the
largest consumers of oil and fuel - this is a national security issue.
Perhaps our government needs a tighter hold on the resource.

       OH, PS - I wonder how long it will take to see $5 per gallon at
the pump?

       earthdweller earthdweller
       2 May 2010, 6:08AM
       Action Needed!
       There is one action we can take. We can all pray (to our own
personal God/ Higher Power). If we would begin May 2nd, praying 4 times
a day. Central Standard Time at 9:00am, 12:00pm, 3:00pm, & 6:00pm. Just
try it! Ask for a miracle, a solution to this mess; for the Gulf Coast,
a solution for the oil well still spewing oil into the ocean, a miracle
for the creatures and the lives affected. If you miss one time catch the
next time. Whatever is out there can hear us. Just try it! Get others to
pray. What else can I do besides blog and @#$%.I can't fix it.

       JunkkMale JunkkMale
       2 May 2010, 7:45AM
       Interesting word, 'unprecedented'.
       Not sure it has been used before.
       At least, not since the last time.

       Teacher46 Teacher46
       2 May 2010, 8:40AM
       Note that BP's chief executive recently was awarded a massive 41%
pay rise to £4 million only last March. Quotes below taken from The
Scotsman.
       "The head of BP's remuneration committee, DeAnne Julius, said
Hayward had been rewarded for boosting operational performance. BP's
bonus targets are based around safety, staff and performance indicators,
she said.
       "Nearly all targets were exceeded, some substantially, with
particularly strong performance on cost reduction, exploration success,
production start-ups and refining performance," she said."
       Maybe he will return some of this as a gesture towards the cost
of the clean up?

       SynchronisedDogmas SynchronisedDogmas
       2 May 2010, 8:56AM
           For its part, BP has claimed that the events leading to the
rig's destruction had no parallel. "The sort of occurrence ? a blowout
at this depth ? is clearly unprecedented," said a spokesman.
       Unprecedented does not mean unforseeable, and any honest EIA
would / should have come up with, at the very least, a statement that
contingencies were required.
       But that would, of course, require that EIAs are not directly
funded and / or carried out by the developers themselves. There has been
a long standing argument for the separation of EIA contracting from
direct influence by project developers. But, having been involved in a
number of EIA studies over the past 20 years, I can say with a
reasonable level of confidence that lobbying against such proposals has
been effective.

       toneg toneg
       2 May 2010, 9:01AM
       Unprecedented indeed - due to incompetence and greed. Wonder why
this sort of thing never happens to the rigs on the Norwegian Coast.
Maybe because they have more security measures in place?

       ayupmeduck2 ayupmeduck2
       2 May 2010, 9:37AM
       If I were to go and repeatedly punch that BP spokesman in the
face at his next press conference, this would certainly be
unprecedented, so I guess that would be alright then? If everybody
helped me, that would be extra-unprecedented, which I guess is even better.

       thesnufkin thesnufkin
       2 May 2010, 9:40AM
       BP are lucky this happened the week after their AGM, not before.
       15% of the shaeholders, mainly small share holdings, revolted
over their destruction of wilderness in Canada for tar sands.
       How many would have revolted now that they're about to trash a
huge stretch of southeastern USA?

       jools33 jools33
       2 May 2010, 10:12AM
       This slick is 3500 square miles now according to BBC news. In the
event of a blowout valve failing the only realistic solution is to drill
a secondary well - and this takes a minimum of 91 days - assuming this
has already commenced - how big will the spill be in another 80 days? BP
did not carry out sufficient risk analysis for this platform - one point
of failure should there be an explosion on the platform - and thats the
blowout valve - and now that has failed. Why not have the secondary well
drilled before you start extracting from the primary well - then in a
catastrophe like this - you can react immediately - and not wait 91 days
for a solution...
       This has the potential to significantly raise the cost of oil in
the US and to put BP out of business.

       thesnufkin thesnufkin
       2 May 2010, 10:58AM
           This has the potential to significantly raise the cost of oil
in the US and to put BP out of business.
       Every cloud has a silver lining I suppose.

       thesnufkin thesnufkin
       2 May 2010, 10:59AM
           Unprecedented indeed - due to incompetence and greed.
       Didn't you post this on the thread about the failure of Lehman
Brothers last year?
       Or was it Enron before that?
       Or......

       artlover artlover
       2 May 2010, 11:15AM
       Look on the bright side - it's not a nuclear power disaster!

       Fomalhaut88 Fomalhaut88
       2 May 2010, 11:58AM
       engagedbrain
       Compare this mess with the worst case scenario for wind and wave
power.
       Yes, when an Atlantic storm has your wave machine strewn all over
the beach, and we are in the middle of brass monkey weather, we'd better
hope the wind doesn't drop, because if it does, older people will freeze
to death.
       Yes, and more than 11 of them will die unless they start burning
oil, or something.

       bawalther bawalther
       2 May 2010, 12:02PM
       Corporations lie, and they lie, and they lie.
       Only if corporations are held to account for the environmental
damage that they cause, will our environment not be destroyed further
and further. BP should pay, and it should be dissolved to send a signal
to other corporations that they cannot get away with murder.
       http://www.thecorporation.com/

       Fomalhaut88 Fomalhaut88
       2 May 2010, 12:04PM
       Jools :
       Why not have the secondary well drilled before you start
extracting from the primary well - then in a catastrophe like this - you
can react immediately - and not wait 91 days for a solution...
       Jools, drilling 2 wells will just about double the risk.
       And what if the secondary well blows out when you are drilling
that one?
       Shall we drill three of them?

       Fomalhaut88 Fomalhaut88
       2 May 2010, 12:07PM
       Bawalther :
       Only if corporations are held to account for the environmental
damage that they cause, will our environment not be destroyed further
and further. BP should pay, and it should be dissolved to send a signal
to other corporations that they cannot get away with murder.
       Planning a wee trip in the car today?
       And that public transport you use, doesn't it use oil?
       Careful man, someone may arrest you as an accessory to murder.

       bawalther bawalther
       2 May 2010, 12:42PM
       Corporations lie, and they lie, and they lie.
       Only if corporations are held to account for the environmental
damage that they cause will our environment not be destroyed further and
further. BP should pay, and it should be dissolved to send a signal to
other corporations that they cannot get away with murder.
       http://www.thecorporation.com/

       TheHuMan TheHuMan
       2 May 2010, 1:02PM
       From a young age, in schools, we are trained to follow, to think
as our peers do, to fit in, not to question or challenge, to accept,
luckily for our elders, that is helped by our genetic need to fit in,
order to protect ourselves.
       The problem is that our teaching has caused us to accept things
and that is now working against us. In this time, more than ever, we
need to question, to find out, to explore what is and what is not the
truth. Not to follow. Not to fit in.
       Teacher46 hit the nail on the head, BP does not tell the public
the truth, it tells them what is in BP's best interest. BP's best
interest is to say that oil exploration is 'safe'.
       They are not alone in that, in fact, all the worst companies do
it. Goldman Sachs's 'mission' statement talks of 'integrity'. That is
probably the funniest and most evil statement ever made. Goldman Sachs
uses it's 'integrity', which it has sold, to do absolutely the reverse.
It is by far the most devious company with absolutely the least
integrity as has been clearly shown over the interviews of last week and
the events and it's conduct over the last decade.
       Back to BP, was this oil spill predictable? No. Are oil spills a
certainty? Yes. BP apparently characterized an oil spill as 'almost
impossible' when the truth was, and they know it, 'oil spills are a
certainty'. If 'safety' was their concern, they would not be drilling at
all. If 'environment' was a concern, they would not be drilling at all.
But they are.
       We all need to open our eyes. It has been a good 30 years since
we knew that we had to move away from oil, gas and coal. We have not. We
have perhaps a decade to do a complete about face and that depends not
on companies or politicians, but people taking responsibility to force
the political will to start down the road of replacing boilers, cars,
planes, power stations and many other things that depend on the release
of CO2, with clean energy. If we do not, sooner or later, we will become
extinct. CO2 is rising at an exponential rate, that is just a fact. Will
that kill us all? Yes. Does the planet care? No. Do we care? Right now, no.
       So, this spill will come and go. We will forget as we watch this
World Cup and then the next. CO2 will rise to 400ppm then 500ppm then
1000ppm. The world will warm. Seas will rise. Ice will melt. Forests
will burn. Methane will be released and before we know it, if that time
has not yet come, we will already be falling down the cliff face with no
chance of avoiding oblivion below. It is not a nice present to be
handing our unknowing children.
       The planet simply does not need us, we do need it, we just don't
realise that yet.

       bawalther bawalther
       2 May 2010, 1:05PM
       Bawalther : Only if corporations are held to account for the
environmental damage that they cause, will our environment not be
destroyed further and further. BP should pay, and it should be dissolved
to send a signal to other corporations that they cannot get away with
murder.
       Fomalhaut88: Planning a wee trip in the car today? And that
public transport you use, doesn't it use oil? Careful man, someone may
arrest you as an accessory to murder.
       @ Fomalhaut88
       This is the same brainless, nonsense argument constantly used
against Al Gore when he needs to travel around to spread the message. So
are all Germans who were alive during 1933-1945 guilty of the Holocaust,
even those that resisted or hid Jews? We are all part of the system,
whether we like it or not. Some resist the destructive system and want
to change it for the better, and some defend the destructive system and
want to keep it (BP and Fomalhaut88). So who is guilty?

       smerv smerv
       2 May 2010, 1:13PM
       Well done Obama - we knew you would be a status quo president -
was it pay back time when you agreed to allow this monstrosity to be
erected? Even Bush refused the application.
       I am just sorry for the poor people living in Louisiana - Bush
forgot them and now Obama who was thought to be the saviour of America -
how everyone was fooled - money rules in the White House and this is
what it brings. As to the wild life - a disaster on a scale never been
known.
       Ah well, old cynic that I am, it is only a matter of time -
humans will destroy the earth with their greed and stupidity if they
keep voting in the greedy politicions.
       BP magnates giving themselves a 41% rise - but they will not have
to pay out of their own pockets, it will be the common little man.

       microhousehold microhousehold
       2 May 2010, 2:33PM
       Nice link I found thanks to the other article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/02/oil-spill-deepwater-horizon-lousiana
       Thanks Tim Webb
       Poor people from the Mikisew Cree First Nation.
       http://www.mikisew.org/who-we-are.html
       Finding a job which doesn't require a drivers license?
       Lets look at a few jobs requiring a car:
       -Energy assessment.(this is supposed to help the air quality)
       -Most construction jobs.
       -Meter reader.
       -Fund raiser.
       -Market research.
       -Most gardening jobs.
       These are all London based jobs,
       why the ****! would you need a car for these jobs in London?
       I used to have a transport-bike, (doesn't fit in my flat and
outside it will be
       robbed or destroyed)
       They had this experiment with freight trams in Amsterdam but that
got stopped.
       Air quality in London?
       Don't get me started...

       KingInYellow KingInYellow
       2 May 2010, 4:13PM
       I hope other deep sea oil drilling projects will amend their EIAs
following this. I also hope the shareholders of such companies amend
their investment policies and voting patterns at AGMs. Oil is required
for our economy, but now that the easy low hanging fruit has been
picked, its time to realise that the harder to get and riskier sources
of oil are going to cost us more and more. Lets start the traqnsition to
a low carbon low oil consumption economy.
       And following on from that...

       Fomalhaut88
           Yes, when an Atlantic storm has your wave machine strewn all
over the beach, and we are in the middle of brass monkey weather, we'd
better hope the wind doesn't drop, because if it does, older people will
freeze to death. Yes, and more than 11 of them will die unless they
start burning oil, or something.
       Utter tosh. A classic example of FUD:
       Fear - the old will die;
       Uncertainty - wind and tide power can't be relied upon;
       Doubt - "unless they start burning oil, or something".
       Firstly, an Atlantic storm won't wipe out any sensible mixed
source renewable energy supply grid for a country.
       Secondly, the wind does not magically drop, across a whole
country at the same time.
       Thirdly, oil is a finite resource, lets get off the dependency on
it now, in a managed way, before anything more goes wrong.

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********