It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Elgin North Sea Oil Rig Conspiracy

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:04 PM
The elgin oil rig conspiracy.

If we look at the facts in the elgin oil rig gas leak we have some serious questions that need to to be addressed. For example, why was the flare stack left burning and why was it "kept quiet" for two days according to bbc radio 4.

So I have been looking at what these cost to decommission and was astounded to find that costs run into the £30 Billion area. Because if this they have found it "difficult to get buyers".

So when are these rigs to be decommissioned? I havent been able to find out but according to the following its very expensive.

The prospect of huge costs to retire UK North Sea oil and gas installations is deterring bidders for older fields put up for sale by larger companies, threatening to slow development of the region's remaining resources.

Underlining the inevitable decline of North Sea output, a Shell official said this week the Brent field – in production since 1975 and one of the largest ever found in the UK North Sea – would be decommissioned in the near future, Reuters reported.

The cost of decommissioning, and how liabilities may be slowing down deals, was among the topics addressed during London's IP Week, an annual conference and series of social events for oil executives and traders.

"We don't really have much of a track record of decommissioning yet in the UK," said Andy Brogan of global accountancy firm Ernst & Young. "When you speak to people about how much it's going to cost to do it, you get very wide ranges."

Andrew Moorfield, head of oil and gas at Lloyds Bank – among the biggest lenders to the North Sea oil and gas industry – said North Sea decommissioning costs could reach 30 billion pounds ($47 billion).

Does anyone know when this rig was due to be closed down?

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:33 PM
I see where you are going with this but it wouldn't be cheaper for a disaster to take the rig than decommisioning it properly. If they did have a disaster then using BP and the gulf oil spill as an example, the possible fines and fees would far surpass the cost to decom it properly.

If the judge sides with plaintiffs on the amount of oil spilled and determines BP was grossly negligent, the company conceivably could face up to $52 billion in environmental fines and compensation alone, according to an AP analysis.


posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:55 PM
Perhaps we should be looking to see if there is some kind of goverment guarantees involved?
Should it become a disaster, the gov boys take over rsponsibility?
Or possible insurance fraud?
It is not out of the question...look at Silversteins windfall 9/11 claims....
The corporations of giant size create this sh%&t to make more money somehow....
Witness halliburtons fortunate purchase of Boots and Couts just before the Gulf spill, and the whole corexit scam.....
Halliburton was in a position to supply defective concrete to the gulf they profit on the cleanup, and collect on liability insurance too....
Gotta run the back ground of the well....
See who owns and who operates it...
See where they get their clout from.....
I hope that ATS resources will plot this thing out as it goes down....
I just know it stinks....

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:48 PM
So, if the costs to decommission an offshore rig run into 30 billion POUNDS, and BP "conceivably COULD BE fined UP TO 52 billion DOLLARS...

It's pretty much a wash. So the fines BP MIGHT be facing are a mere drop in the bucket compared to their profits. Cost of doing business. And they can get paid by the govt through things like Halliburton/Boots and Coots on the back end, too! Just like the way they're doing it in Iraq! Woohoo! It's a "free market" extravaganza!

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:07 AM
One thing that I noticed that hasn't been mentioned.
That 30 billion pounds (I can never remember how to get the correct currency symbol in there) is the cost to shut down the entire oil field, not the cost to shut down one platform. Unless this is a very unusual case, there could easily be multiple platforms working a single field, so I'm not sure how the 30 billion relates to the cost of shutting down a single platform.

top topics

log in