SHORT BP (and go long detergents)

StevieJ

Mat_P wrote: »

Don't suppose you have the faintest idea what the feedstock for most detergents might be ?

I know that one, maybe the mess can clear itself up

1echidna

lvader wrote: »

All the latest info is here.

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/535447/

Some information there but by no means all. There is mention of a riser being crimped early on (not quite clear how this happened) which may be limiting flow. But there are references elsewhere on the Internet to the flow being higher than the max mentioned in the interview with the coastguards 25000bpd rather than 5000bpd. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7664907/Louisiana-oil-spill-may-be-five-times-bigger-than-previously-thought.html

lvader

It's not in the interest of the head of operations (US Gorverment, not BP) to underestimate the scale of the problem. The truth is they don't really know but have stuck to the 1000 - 5000 barrels a day estimate. It should be obvious that if you use huge amounts of dispersant then the slick will become diluted but much bigger in size, it seems likely to me that this is what satelite/airial pictures are showing rather than a big increase in flow that is somehow being covered up by the US goverment.

1echidna

lvader wrote: »

It's not in the interest of the head of operations (US Gorverment, not BP) to underestimate the scale of the problem. The truth is they don't really know but have stuck to the 1000 - 5000 barrels a day estimate. It should be obvious that if you use huge amounts of dispersant then the slick will become diluted but much bigger in size, it seems likely to me that this is what satelite/airial pictures are showing rather than a big increase in flow that is somehow being covered up by the US goverment.

In all probability you underestimate the sophistication of the satellite imaging techniques, but we shall see. Certainly a BP spokesman didn't make great claims about the accuracy of the 5,000bpd claim or dispute that 25000bpd was a possibility.

lvader

The commander of the US coast gaurd said this in the official breifing

and in fact, any exact estimation of what's flowing out of those pipes down there is probably impossible at this time due to the depth of the water and our ability to try and assess that from remotely operated vehicles and video.

lvader

Just been looking at the NOAA forecasts over the last week or so, if anything things have improved

Here is the forecast for next Tuesday

http://www.flickr.com/photos/uscgd8/4570405067/sizes/l

Comapared to the forecast for the Friday just gone.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/uscgd8/4564200030/sizes/l/

purch

So, how much have you shorted them for? You're sure sounding like a de-ramper..

Shorted :eek:

No way.

The Trust considers shorting to be the worst crime in human history !!!!!

1echidna

True, there doesn't seem to be much landfall of oil yet, but the elements are there and getting worse the longer the leak continues.

lvader

Not just beached oil that largely hasn't happened as forcasted but look at the areas of medium to heavy density oil spillage compared to the latest forecast.Most areas have been downgraded to light.

1echidna

lvader wrote: »

Not just beached oil that largely hasn't happened as forcasted but look at the areas of medium to heavy density oil spillage compared to the latest forecast.Most areas have been downgraded to light.

Maybe the efforts with dispersants are having an effect. Seems one hopeful sign.