|
|
|
18 Months of Death - Reward :"Drill Baby Drill."
(October
27, 2011) -
As
difficult as it is to digest, without much fan
fare, the British Petroleum Oil Spill of April
2010 is being rewarded with more Deepwater
Drilling and More business for the Oil Company
giant which was one of the largest supporters of
the election of Barack Obama to the White House.
The Interior Department has given them a permit
to do it again.
CLICK HERE for story: |
|
Video above by Sheryl Atkinson of CBS news about evidence that BP took the cheapest route and that the well was a loser, too many problems. |
Quote
from an email to ATS- alleged to be
from BP employee:
Nearly everyone here is of the
belief that the blowout was planned
as a way to destroy a well that had
too many problems to be ultimately
profitable, and get two new wells
drilled (the relief wells) that will
be wildly profitable and the only
way to do that was destroy this one.
We calculated that even with paying
cleanup costs the profit on two
wells in this reserve will far
outweigh the costs in less than a
year.
(http://www.abovetopsecret.com/)
Tony Smith bio:
Tony Smith is
a 69-year old lawyer in
Cartersville, Georgia.
He received his J. D.
degree from
Emory University in
1966 and he received an A.B.
in math (summa cum laude)
from
Princeton University
in 1963.
http://valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/TShome.html |
|
Discussion
with Tony Smith about the financial angle of British
Petroleum and the
Gulf Oil
Spill. The failure of the
Blowout Preventer on Deepwater Horizon's rig
which resulted in its sinking and tens of millions of
barrels of oil leaking into the Gulf. As you have seen
above by the CBS report and the Above Top Secret
posting, money could indeed have been the reason for
this event. Could it have been a plan that went bad,
just trying to get rid of a bad rig and well without any
thought of the consequences of what actually happened.
Read this information as compiled by Attorney Smith and
make up your own mind.
John Baez diary said "...
June 10, 2010 ...
Marcia
McNutt, head of a group of scientists called the
Flow Rate
Technical Group, listed several estimates in the
range of 20,000 to 40,000 barrels a day ... On Wednesday
this pipe siphoned 15,800 barrels of oil to the surface
...".
Bloomberg Business Week (by Mark Shenk on 14 June 2010) said: "... Crude oil rose above $75 a barrel ...". Edmonton Sun (by Erica Lepan on 12 June 2010) said: "... today’s prime rate ... very low (2.50 %) ...". Given those facts, FOLLOW THE MONEY: BP is capturing $75 x 15,000 x 365 = $400 million per year from its Gulf Disaster Well. Even if BP has to borrow money at prime (instead of getting a BIG COMPANY discount, the $400 million per year would give BP the capital amount of $400 / 0.025 = $16 billion. Of course, BP capture amount may average more over the coming year, and BP may quite likely get to borrow money at less than prime, so the quoted figure of a $20 billion escrow (to be held by BP) for claims will really be net zero-cost to BP.
Jerry: Unnamed
Geologist questions what you just said Tony,
He writes: "Why in the world would we assume the
oil collection will go on for 365 days? Claiming
that this is an economic incentive to BP is beyond
juvenile theory. Who in the world would spend 20
billion to make a few hundred million? ...We should
have demolished the well? With sufficient charge
that we may have caused nearby platforms to sink or
seeps to open? ...".
Tony
Smith: The "geologist" is correct that I calculated
the gross value of the collected oil and not the
net profit from the collected oil, as in
considering cash flow / gross receipts instead of
net profit, and that I did not try to calculate tax
consequences, subsidies, etc that might be involved.
As to why assume that the oil collection will go on for 365 days, it has gone on for months and might (or might not) go for a year, but I just used a year as rough benchmark for calculations to be consistent with using the period of a year for the annual (prime) interest rate of 2.5 % per year."
Jerry: Please note that Smith is not suggesting BP
did it on purpose. This is my suggestion and I feel
as we have stated on this web site on my radio
programs that it is just as likely something to do
with the oil business people themselves, either
spinning off assets with a forced sale of them to
avoid damage awards and eliminating BP, the fourth
largest corporation in the world as competition or
some other financial reason which is now becoming
apparent with the CBS news reports and the email
sent to ATS by the employee.
Tony Smith: "although BP may have been
extremely grossly negligent), I was just
discussing that they may be acting to make
the most money they can out of a bad
situation.
It is certainly true that BP (and everybody) would have been happier had the blowout not occurred, and that if it had not occurred, BP would have made much more money.
As to the
cost to BP of handling claims,
baldwincountynow.com
(by Curt Chapman on 13 June 2010) said: "...
Alabama National Guardsmen ... are out in
the field to assist residents and business
owners who wish to file claims with BP ...
Eligibility and determination of payment of a claim will still be made by BP. ...", so the taxpayers funding the National Guard (NOT BP) will pay the bill for the bureaucracy of filing and processing claims, and BP will not pay anything unless it wants to make a payment (possibly only paying a few high-visibility claims to get favorable PR). AND - since 15,000 barrels is about half of the 20,000-40,000 barrel flow rate, THE OIL SPILL WILL CONTINUE TO GROW, BUT THANKS TO OBAMA LOOKING OUT FOR HIS BIG MONEY FRIENDS (just as he did in the bank bailout and in funding the defense industry in the idiotic Afghan war) BP IS A WINNER AND THE PEOPLE (AND THE GULF ITSELF) ARE THE SCHMUCKS WHO TAKE THE LOSS. Tony Jerry : I personally think we could have used a low intensity tactical nuclear weapon to seal off the well in the first few days. Some said the risk was too great to other wells in the area, here is what Smith has to say about that:
As to the possibility that a Russian nuke-type sealing
of the well might have "caused nearby platforms to sink
or seeps to open," it seems that the
Russians
have not had such problems in their experience.
telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com
(by Charles W. Moore on 10 June 2010)
also said: "... the U.S.S.R. developed special nuclear devices explicitly for closing blown-out gas wells, theorizing that the blast from a nuclear detonation would plug any hole within 25 to 50 meters, depending on the device's power. ... With no air present in underground or underwater nuclear explosions, energy released overheats and melts acres of surrounding rock into a glass-like, form-fitting plug, blocking the flow. Russian media reports also note that other subterranean nuclear blasts were used as many as 169 times in the Soviet Union for fairly mundane tasks like creating underground storage spaces for gas or building canals. ...". If the USA military does not have a comparable inventory of specialized nukes, then a couple of questions arise: 1 - Why has the USA not developed such useful devices ? 2 - Why not get some from the Russians ? Jerry: Thanks to Tony Smith for his detailed in depth presentation. For more information on the Deepwater Horizon incident go to our oil spill index page at http://www.jerrypippin.com/Hole_into_Hell.htm |
