溫哥華老友記討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: 英國石油公司封堵墨西哥灣洩漏油井 [打印本頁]

作者: soli 時間: 2010-6-1 19:56 標題: 英國石油公司封堵墨西哥灣洩漏油井

英國石油公司封堵墨西哥灣洩漏油井
2010-06-02 中國新聞網

中新網6月2日電據英國媒體報道，英國石油公司1日開始了封堵墨西哥灣洩漏油井的最新努力。該公司表示，最新努力的結果將在未來24小時揭曉。

據悉，英國石油公司計劃切斷漏油的管道，然後給油井安裝一個蓋子。該公司高層對這次行動持謹慎樂觀態度。但媒體擔心，如果這次堵漏失敗可能使洩漏更為嚴重。

美國白宮環境和能源顧問也表示，新方法有風險，移除破損鑽桿時可能會導致更多原油外洩。

白宮官員預計可能要到8月才能有效制止漏油，這意味墨西哥灣未來90天將繼續漏油。

墨西哥灣區6月1日進入氣象學定義的颶風季，而發生漏油的鑽油平台正位于颶風北侵熱門路徑，研究人員擔心颶風會讓原油深入美國南部，對生態環境造成更大破壞。附近地區在施工期間一旦出現颶風，不但海面浮油可能大幅漂移，封堵工程也得視威脅程度而暫停。

氣象學家認為，就算海面累積大量浮油，大概也不足以降低颶風生成機率；但真正令人擔憂的問題是，颶風可能挾帶幾百萬加崙的原油，以“黑色巨波”侵襲美國南部各州。
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
石油風暴﹐再點火既話...

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-6-1 20:02

搞咁耐都搞唔掂, d 海洋生態都知唔知幾時先可以recover 了.
悲...

作者: kits013 時間: 2010-6-1 20:58

feel sorry for BP
wasn't its fault...

作者: daimo 時間: 2010-6-1 21:32

wasn't it's fault??

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-6-1 21:37

fuxking BP
a lot of us don't deserve this

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-6-1 21:46

It's fine if BP gets shorted to death, but add the moron Obama and you have a whole bunch of other GOM players suffering

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-6-1 21:50

feel sorry for BP
wasn't its fault...
kits013 發表於 2010-6-2 12:58

莫非又係社會既錯? 定係天災?...

作者: daimo 時間: 2010-6-1 22:02

Obama was so slow to react to this disaster ... and he let BP to run with it until now ...

now I want to know if he'll have the balls to fight with the republicans about the other off shore drilling projects ....

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-6-1 22:10

now I want to know if he'll have the balls to fight with the republicans about the other off shore drilling projects ....

There's nothing wrong with other offshore projects. What Obama is doing right now is to shut off all airlines when a plane crash caused by human error has happened. I cannot see him getting another term. Republicans need to kick this guy out. The worst president ever.

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-6-1 22:13

And don't joke, North Americans cannot live without oil. Would Americans want another environmental disaster or a 7-year war with the Middle East?

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-6-1 23:07

Oil price probably will sky rocket due to this in the medium term? Any long oil plays you can recommend?

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-6-1 23:41

Oil price probably will sky rocket due to this in the medium term? Any long oil plays you can recomm ...
BiscottiGelato 發表於 2010-6-1 23:07

Petro China is quite good?

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-6-2 00:34

And don't joke, North Americans cannot live without oil. Would Americans want another environmental disaster or a 7-year war with the Middle East?

I am already drown in this Obama fiasco. However, I don't think Obama or the Americans can afford to have oil going much higher. I wouldn't bet on the oil price to go above $80 any time soon. If they are gonna stop drilling completely, I guess there will be turmoil and a double recession.

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-6-2 00:34

Petro China is quite good?
peter236 發表於 2010-6-2 15:41

呢隻股可以長hold.

作者: kits013 時間: 2010-6-2 00:58

fuxking BP
a lot of us don't deserve this
快樂牛郎發表於 2010-6-1 21:37

it was Transocean's fault
bp just ate the "dead cat"

作者: Lik 時間: 2010-6-2 02:04

I am already drown in this Obama fiasco. However, I don't think Obama or the Americans can afford ...
快樂牛郎發表於 2010-6-2 00:34

Sounds to me like someone got greedy, but got burnt instead when his energy stocks took a nose dive.

BP and the other two contractors involved (one responsible for the fail-safe anti-leak mechanism, and another one whose function I can't remember off the top of my head) all deserve to be slammed big time. In the overall scheme of things, I seem to remember reading that the overall Gulf oil production only accounts for a fairly low percentage of US consumption. Additionally, while the Obama administration has issued an extended (or was it indefinite? can't remember la) ban on any new off shore oil explorations/drilling, I also remember reading that insiders remain hopeful about such bans only being limited to deep sea oil operations, meaning that shallower operations will eventually be allowed.

The real danger is, speculators would love to jump on any opportunities that allows them to jack up the price of oil. But I quite agree with Mr. Cow that given US' still fragile (but recovering) economy, the US government is gonna pull some strings and flex some of its influential muscles to ensure that oil prices won't climb too high.

-Lik

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-6-2 09:31

Imposing a Memotorium does not increase the safety of deep sea drilling. It only kills off hundreds of thousands of jobs and the related industries. The technology BP used was unsafe and outdated, so they deservingly got punished. But there are many other prudent drillers out there who have done nothing wrong and got slammed.

作者: Lik 時間: 2010-6-2 09:56

From a risk assessment's point of view, the BP accident has shown us that when something pops at 5000 feet below sea level, any sort of slip up is extremely difficult to contain, let alone repair. It doesn't matter what kind of technology is being used -- water pressure at 5000 feet below sea level is water pressure at 5000 feet below sea level.

From a logistics point of of view, the Gulf accident was already a most fortunate one. The Gulf is literally in the US's own backyard, and while the weather could get rough and stormy, every resource is readily available. If another deep sea accident were to happen along other US coastline, the accident response would be far slower, with equipments and supplies being far more difficult to transport to the affected areas. Alaska, in particular, would turn into a major disaster area, both because of its location and because of its weather conditions.

What I am saying is, in light of the BP accident, the ban on deep sea drilling make sense because the risks are far too great.

-Lik

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-6-2 12:23

What I am saying is, in light of the BP accident, the ban on deep sea drilling make sense because the risks are far too great.

There's a risk to everything. The fact that we have had this spill probably means that we won't have a similar spill in 20, 30 years. Politicians like to make knee-jerk reactions to accidents without thinking through the various outcomes.

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-6-2 12:39

Interesting analysis on the situation guys. Let's see if the oil price will really be contained despite a drilling ban.

I agree it's knee jerk reaction to ban off shore drilling. Only interested in capitalizing on any medium/long term plays (short term plays you can't beat the pros). It seems that it's a gamble at this point tho. I'll stay out for a little more. Thanks

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-6-2 12:50

Interesting analysis on the situation guys. Let's see if the oil price will really be contained desp ...
BiscottiGelato 發表於 2010/6/2 12:39

Natural Gas could see a turn-around with oil being so unpopular right now

作者: Lik 時間: 2010-6-2 13:14

Yes, there is a risk to everything, and given the extreme difficulty of repair/containment the BP disaster has shown, I'd say the risk is not worthwhile.

A complete ban on all off shore drilling is a knee jerk political decision more than a scientific and rational one. But as long as the ban is only temporary on the low risk / low disaster impact operations (eg. closer, shallower drills, maybe?), then it can be said that the extra caution was well worth it.

-Lik

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-6-2 16:30

But as long as the ban is only temporary on the low risk / low disaster impact operations (eg. closer, shallower drills, maybe?), then it can be said that the extra caution was well worth it.

Nobody says shallow drilling is any safer or more environmental friendlier than deep sea drilling. The oil spill near Mexico in 1980 that dragged on for 10 months was a shallow well.

作者: Lik 時間: 2010-6-2 16:58

I won't pretend that I know anything about the 1980 oil spill in Mexico, but with the BP disaster that we're having now, a lot of the measure failed precisely because the operations had to be done at 5000 ft below sea level. At those levels, water pressure is simply too great, and it both interferes and limits what can be done.

With shallower drills, at least if accidents were to occur, the ease (and therefore success) of repair is much greater. The environment risks at stake is thus much smaller, and the risk-benefit analysis becomes a lot more favourable.

-Lik

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-6-2 17:19

Just as the current oil spill, most shallow spills in history could only be stopped by drilling a relief well. The only relative benefit is that the environmental damage of a shallow spill is more visible and easier to contain. But the whole point is to bring in safety measures to prevent ANY spill. Since deep water has many times more reserve than shallow water, to get the same amount of oil you would probably have to drill 3 shallow water wells instead of 1 deep water well. This alone increases the risk of any explosion.

歡迎光臨溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://loyaukee.com/forum/)