Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (134696)	6/12/2010 1:32:46 PM
From: Bearcatbob	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206199

".. that BP has lied consistently and underestimated the amount of leakage)." What are the specific lies? If someone makes an error in estimate - is that a lie? I agree they have underestimated the leakage - perhaps some have also over estimated it. What are the specific lies?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (134696)	6/12/2010 1:55:10 PM
From: Aggie	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206199

Hi BC I'll answer that question in this way: When a blowout occurs on land, there are specialists who are called in to estimate the flow based on direct observation, experience, and empirical relationships based on well design. It is a highly subjective business. Their margin of error is significant even when they are standing next to the well looking at it. Putting all political / business considerations aside, I would still say that the estimates from bp, as made without knowing how the well is mechanically damaged downhole, or where the flow is coming from, and viewing all this remotely with fuzzy pictures, would carry with it a much greater margin of error by comparison to a conventional blowout on land. Short Answer: I can't see how it would have been possible to estimate the flow of oil within +/- 10,000 bpd (my opinion). I would also guess that collecting the oil has reduced their uncertainty by at least 50%. Now they can measure a large percentage of the flow directly and are better able to guess at the rest, proportionally. I have not seen the proofs of the experts who are now saying "I told you so", so I cannot comment on their thesis. 2. Whether or not the business side of things influenced the number I don't know or care, as the bigger margin of error would lie within the ability to measure (my opinion). An estimated number doesn't change the actual size of the mess, and it would not have changed their strategy for dealing with it. They are already balls out. 3. The negotiation for royalties will come much later and would never be based on bp's estimated flow rate. Regards to all, Aggie