I'm a geologist by trade. In a former life I spent a few years
working oil rigs, a couple of those on offshore rigs. Here's my
analysis and worst fears, based on what I've gleaned from the news
reports.
Analysis:
1. To save time/$, they didn't circulate the mud in the borehole
("bottoms up") before they set the liner. Had they done so, they
would have identified the disasterous conditions before the disaster.
2. To save time/$, they "hung" the liner (ran it only from the bottom
of the previous casing, rather than run it all the way up inside the
previous casing to the BOP).
3. To save time/$, they used only 6 liner centralizers rather than the
"recommended" 21 (recommended by whom I don't know). If the hole
deviated at all from vertical (which I'm sure it did), that'd mean
that in places, the liner would be placed up against the borehole
sidewall rather than through the center of the borehole. That'd make
it very hard to get an adequate cement seal of consistent thickness
and strength along the entire length of the liner.
4. To save time/$, they used an inferior cement mix.
5. To save time/$, they didn't run a "cement bond log". To do this,
they run a special tool on a wire line through the recently cemented
interval, and log the qyaulity of the cement bond between the liner
and the formation.
6. To save time/$, they displaced the drilling mud in the riser (above
the BOP up to the drill rig on the surface) with sea water before the
inferior cement had completely set, and without the normal plug in the
casing below the BOP. This would drastically reduce the pressure head
on the formation, and allow formation fluids to enter the borehole.
Now my "worst case" fear:
The bad cement job outside the liner failed; the gas/oil in the
formation, under intense pressure (could be as high as 50,000 psi!)
blew out and eroded the cement and possibly the liner, allowing it to
flow unimpeded and expand quickly due to the pressure release, into
the annular space outside the liner, and possibly into the liner, and
into the previous casing. THE WORST WORST CASE: if they were to cap
the well at the BOP, the pressure would overwhelm the cement-formation
seal at the previous casing (where they hung the liner), and break
down the higher formations and cement, and flow unimpeded outside the
previous casing and BOP to the seafloor surface (cf: the Santa Barbara
spill). If that was the case, there would be NO WAY to control the
flow until the relief wells are completed (in August). Maybe that's
why they "failed" to cap the well at the BOP.
Joe Barton should be hanged.
Sorry, just my $0.02 worth.
-Zz
On Jun 22, 11:11=A0am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote the following:
>
> >Robatoy wrote:
>
> You two would be much happier if you plonked each other. =A0
Ohw... just a little harmless needlin'. Jack is against same-sex
marriage...as if they would BREED or something.
> Or got a room. ;)
Naaa, that's more Jack's style. I like women too much to even
entertain that idea.
>
> --
> Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the wor=
st.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -- Lin Yutang
Robatoy wrote:
>
> These are people who only care about 'yield'. Now their gold is
> flowing into the Gulf instead of their coffers. They truly don't give
> a rat's ass about the environment other than the fact that it affects
> their 'brand'. Yes, BP would like to stop the negative publicity but
> their true and main concern is to have their cake AND eat it too. They
> want to look good, but keep the oil as well.
> They would like to make that naughty well pay for the clean-up.
>
No argument about their primary motives - they are after all, a for profit
company. What's wrong with that though? Do you really care what they would
rather do, or do you care that they do the right thing(s)? As long as they
do the right thing(s), I really don't care if the motive was so they could
continue to make profits (oil company profits would be a whole different
discussion thread), and I don't expect a for profit company to genuinely
hold motives that would be more reflective of touchy-feeling organizations.
Of course they should want to keep that well - why would anyone think
otherwise?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 05:36:25 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 14, 12:41 am, "<<<__ Bøb __>>>" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "BP engineers planned to shut off pipes that are already funneling
>>> some oil to two ships, to see how the cap handles the pressure of the
>>> crude coming up from the ground. Then they planned to close, one by
>>> one, three valves that let oil pass through the cap."
>>
>>> Got to catch a few more dollars worth of oil, before turning off the
>>> spigot, eh?
>>
>> They have to stop the flow gradually .. if they slam it shut, it will
>> cause the world's largest case of "water hammer" and it could be enough
>> to blow a hole someplace in the earth's crust that could NEVER be repaired.
>
> These are people who only care about 'yield'. Now their gold is
> flowing into the Gulf instead of their coffers. They truly don't give
> a rat's ass about the environment other than the fact that it affects
> their 'brand'. Yes, BP would like to stop the negative publicity but
> their true and main concern is to have their cake AND eat it too. They
> want to look good, but keep the oil as well.
> They would like to make that naughty well pay for the clean-up.
Don't know about the rest of the country or Canada, but there are a lot
of BP stations in the South and in the last 3 weeks the larger BP
logos are disappearing from the stations. The only place the BP logo
is left is on the flourescent signs, I guess it takes longer to replace the
signs.
>
> And as far as that pinprick in the earth's crust is concerned? That's
> like worrying about a hippo's bowels trying to ooze out through a
> mosquito bite. BP uses a well-proven tactic by using fear so that the
> population can applaud them when they finally triumph over this
> leak...but they want to keep the oil too.
Might as well use it now that it is turned loose.
>
> BP has only one motive. ONE only. It is called money. They will say,
> do, promise anything with a straight face to get things their way, and
> considering the political connections those oil people have, they have
> a great pool of PR resources to draw from; the Republicans who have a
> bit of experience in that (Iraq) sort of thing.
I personally don't care if BP survives as a viable company or
not (it will). However, hopefully they can be forced into
supporting those most affected and cleaning up at least part of
the spill.
> I wonder which BP department is busier these days. Public Relations or
> Engineering.
I would bet there is more sweating and hand wringing in the PR
department.
Alabama has more pressing problems than greasy beaches, starving
fishermen and a shut down tourist industry, we have bingo wars.
basilisk
On Jul 15, 8:17=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> BP is a corporation owned by millions of stockholders, many of them
> pensioners and pension funds. =A0Their primary motive is money, but only =
a
> douche-nozzle would think thats their only motive.
>
So you think that's their only motive?
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:23:42 GMT, pete <[email protected]> wrote the
following:
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> Jack Stein wrote:
>>>> Zz Yzx wrote:
>>>>> Joe Barton should be hanged.
>>>> One guy tells the truth and you want him hanged?
>>>>
>>>> Ali Obama and his corrupt administration (and socialist democrats in
>>>> general) get huge sums of money from BP so they can buy their elections.
>>
>>> And the Bushes and Cheneys never took any oil money?
>>
>> BP gave large dollars to the Obama campaign to get him elected.
>
>Heh, heh. I bet they won't make *that* mistake next time.
I hope nobody else does in the future, either. Can we even survive
this -one- reign of terror?
--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang
Hear the one today - TODAY 60 days in - the big skimming boats were
allowed in the gulf. The President was holding up an emergency order.
At RITA - it took 2 days. This is a major point that the Administration
is allowing the spill to be as nasty as possible (by withholding equipment
and burning the oil) and use it for political gain.
How foul can that be !!!
Shame shame.
Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
"Our Republic and the Press will Rise or Fall Together": Joseph Pulitzer
TSRA: Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/
On 6/18/2010 9:26 AM, dpb wrote:
> Zz Yzx wrote:
> ...
>
>> ... based on what I've gleaned from the news reports.
>>
>> Analysis:
>>
>> 1. To save time/$, they didn't ...
>>
>> 2. To save time/$, they "hung" ...
>>
>> 3. To save time/$, they used only ...
>>
>> 4. To save time/$, they used ...
> ...
> I think we get the drift here.
>
> I find it amazing that after spending multi-millions to bring in a
> helluva a good-producing well, that apparently everyone thinks that at
> that point the said "Since this is such a lucrative well that's going to
> produce thousands of barrels of crude a day at a minimum of $75 or
> $80/bbl, let's risk all that by seeing how shoddily we can now finish
> off the work..."
>
> Yeah, right...sounds like what would have happened to me... :(
>
> --
On Jun 25, 9:33=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robert Haar wrote:
> > On 6/24/10 12:44 PM, "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Tell that to the over 100,000,000 murdered by the socialist bastards
> >> over the past 100 years. =A0They haven't bounced back much.
>
> >>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
>
> > Are you saying that socialism and communism are the same thing?
>
> Well, yeah. They differ only on the margins.
>
> "Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods a=
nd
> services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled =
and
> planned by a centralized organization. Socialism asserts that the
> distribution should take place according to the amount of individuals'
> production efforts, however, while communism asserts that that goods and
> services should be distributed among the populace according to individual=
s'
> needs." [In socialism, a doctor earns more than a common laborer; under
> Communism, they earn the pretty much the same.]
>
> A socialist economy has room for small amounts of capitalism; a Communist
> society does not allow ANY private economic transactions.
Close, though there are differing lines that can be drawn. Socialism
is an economic system where the state owns the means of production.
Under communism there is no private property, even yourself.
On Jun 28, 1:30=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > ...and those 'bond-holders' =A0were asleep at the wheel when they
> > elected the management which was supposed to 'manage' their prized
> > company.
>
> Really? =A0How do the bond-holders go about electing management?
>
They just give away their money without ANY control? Dumb.
On Jun 27, 4:10=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You're wrong. =A0Their bond holders were supposed to have a say in their
> "execution".
>
Forget it. As long as you're pulling your info from your ass, there's
no point in this discussion.
...and those 'bond-holders' were asleep at the wheel when they
elected the management which was supposed to 'manage' their prized
company.
GM was arrogant to believe that they didn't need to listen to the
consumers.
Now, having said that, which administration was in power when the
first batch of loans were extended? (TARP, there, that acronym will
help you Google some facts.)
Also, by my being a Canuckistani gives me an unbiased view of the US
and I have access to the same news sources as you do. The Big Diff, is
that I actually read and retain that information. YOU, however, can't
see a thing as your head is up your ass.
Obama boohoo is all you can come up with..boohoo, he STOLE a huge
automotive company...boohoo. *I* think it was stroke of genius and
your ilk is just jealous.
Robatoy wrote:
> ...and those 'bond-holders' were asleep at the wheel when they
> elected the management which was supposed to 'manage' their prized
> company.
Really? How do the bond-holders go about electing management?
> GM was arrogant to believe that they didn't need to listen to the
> consumers.
You really are dumber than you look. Hard to imagine, really.
> Obama boohoo is all you can come up with..boohoo, he STOLE a huge
> automotive company...boohoo.
Yes, that is exactly what the communist bastard did.
*I* think it was stroke of genius...
Why would a red socialist bastard such as you think anything different?
No one should be surprised.
--
Jack
The Problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of Other Peoples Money!
http://jbstein.com
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 10:59:22 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jun 27, 1:46 pm, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>.
>>
>> Wrong. Wrong, and wrong.
>
>Banging your head against the wall isn't going to make your bad
>information right. (Good thing you feel no pain, eh?)
Obviously your brain isn't functioning. Good thing? I doubt it, but since
you're a Canuckistani, I really don't much care.
>GM went with their tail between their legs looking for a hand-out. The
>lender had some conditions. The rest is history.
>GM was a badly managed company which didn't think it had to adjust to
>the times. Arrogant cocksuckers, really. They got what they deserved
>and so did those who bought into that arrogance by buying shares. Free
>enterprise my friend... a double-edged sword.
No, violation of the Constitution was *not* one of the "conditions", nor could
it have been.
>Oh... and officially there may not have been any need for a proper
>bankruptcy proceeding. GM rolled over on its back willingly, nobody
>forced them to leave the ship like rats.
You're wrong. Their bond holders were supposed to have a say in their
"execution".
>No wonder you and Stein agree. You're both revisionists.
What a fricking pot you are.
On Jun 18, 11:12=A0am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 10:26 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Zz Yzx wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >>> ... based on what I've gleaned from the news reports.
> >>> Analysis:
> >>> 1. To save time/$, they didn't ...
> >>> 2. To save time/$, they "hung" ...
> >>> 3. To save time/$, they used only ...
> >>> 4. To save time/$, they used ...
> >> ...
> >> I think we get the drift here.
>
> >> I find it amazing that after spending multi-millions to bring in a
> >> helluva a good-producing well, that apparently everyone thinks that at
> >> that point the said "Since this is such a lucrative well that's going =
to
> >> produce thousands of barrels of crude a day at a minimum of $75 or
> >> $80/bbl, let's risk all that by seeing how shoddily we can now finish
> >> off the work..."
>
> >> Yeah, right...sounds like what would have happened to me... :(
>
> >> --
>
> > You bring a project in on time and under budget, you get the big
> > bonus. You miss your deadline and you go over budget, you don't get
> > that bonus, you don't get that new car, you do get a harsh review at
> > end of the year.
>
> You lose a multi-million dollar cash cow and cost billions on a
> designed, intended set of operations? =A0Not hardly...
>
> Something went wrong; what, precisely, will only be known when the
> postmortems are complete and maybe not entirely even then.
>
> It's unlikely imo that any decisions were made expressly for the purpose
> of shaving corners; that there may have been poor judgment or even
> engineering mistakes is quite possible but I'd wager there wasn't
> anything the folks involved did that was any different than they did
> routinely and had worked in the past.
>
> "Stuff happens..."
>
> That the end result ended up in a botched operation this time doesn't
> infer intent.
>
> --
>
> --
There's always a faction in the exploration business that wants to get
the new wells on-line as quickly and as cheaply as possible.
The motivation was cost savings, the nod for the cost-savings measures
came from a piss-poor evaluation on an engineering level.
This pressure on the engineers from accounting has been going on
forever.
A friend of mine is the managing head honcho engineer on a platform
off the coast of Africa. He ran exploration wells up in the Arctic in
Russian waters. This guy knows his stuff. I have not talked to him
about this particular incident, be he has shared with me many stories
over the years about the phenomena where pressure from the money-end
dictated safety parameters and engineering short-cuts. This shit
happens all the time.
One whistle-blower is talking about at least 2 more deep wells that
are candidates for similar 'accidents'. Also, BP doesn't have an
exclusive on that reckless behaviour. JUST enough to keep regulators
happy in exchange for campaign donations. The whole system is rotten
to the fucking core.
On 2010-06-17 21:04:43 -0400, Zz Yzx <[email protected]> said:
> Joe Barton should be hanged.
http://joebartonwouldliketoapologize.com/
On 2010-06-17 21:04:43 -0400, Zz Yzx <[email protected]> said:
> Now my "worst case" fear:
Someone else fears the worst, too:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967 (Long, lots of links)
Quoted from The Oil Drum comment:
"What is likely to happen now?
"Well...none of what is likely to happen is good, in fact...it's about
as bad as it gets. I am convinced the erosion and compromising of the
entire system is accelerating and attacking more key structural areas
of the well, the blow out preventer and surrounding strata holding it
all up and together. This is evidenced by the tilt of the blow out
preventer and the erosion which has exposed the well head connection.
What eventually will happen is that the blow out preventer will
literally tip over if they do not run supports to it as the currents
push on it. I suspect they will run those supports as cables tied to
anchors very soon, if they don't, they are inviting disaster that much
sooner.
"Eventually even that will be futile as the well casings cannot support
the weight of the massive system above with out the cement bond to the
earth and that bond is being eroded away. When enough is eroded away
the casings will buckle and the BOP will collapse the well. If and when
you begin to see oil and gas coming up around the well area from under
the BOP? or the area around the well head connection and casing sinking
more and more rapidly? ...it won't be too long after that the entire
system fails. BP must be aware of this, they are mapping the sea floor
sonically and that is not a mere exercise. Our Gov't must be well aware
too, they just are not telling us.
"All of these things lead to only one place, a fully wide open well
bore directly to the oil deposit...after that, it goes into the realm
of "the worst things you can think of" The well may come completely
apart as the inner liners fail. There is still a very long drill string
in the well, that could literally come flying out...as I said...all the
worst things you can think of are a possibility, but the very least
damaging outcome as bad as it is, is that we are stuck with a wide open
gusher blowing out 150,000 barrels a day of raw oil or more. There
isn't any "cap dome" or any other suck fixer device on earth that
exists or could be built that will stop it from gushing out and doing
more and more damage to the gulf. While at the same time also doing
more damage to the well, making the chance of halting it with a kill
from the bottom up less and less likely to work, which as it stands
now?....is the only real chance we have left to stop it all.
"It's a race now...a race to drill the relief wells and take our last
chance at killing this monster before the whole weakened, wore out,
blown out, leaking and failing system gives up it's last gasp in a
horrific crescendo."
On 2010-06-23 09:53:47 -0400, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> said:
> I hope nobody else does in the future, either. Can we even survive
> this -one- reign of terror?
Since we survived two of the Chimpster, I have faith in human resiliency.
On Jun 27, 11:26=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Owning the means of production =3D> owning the people. =A0They are slaves=
to the
> state.
Everybody who works 6 months out of the year to pay for their taxes
(Accumulative taxes, sales, income, property etc) is a fukkin slave.
You want to live here? You suck the government's dick, no matter who
is in power. The big difference is that liberals kill babies, the
right-wing nutbars wait till they're 18.
[email protected] wrote:
>
> How do you justify the taking of the company from its lawful owners
> and giving it to another?
>
It's tought. Eminent domain is prevalent in scalawag-dominated political
divisions. And here's an example of just/unjust use:
Suppose one owns a fried-chicken fast-food shop. The city condemns his land
(along with many other parcels) to build or expand an airport.
So far, so good.
But in the airport exists fast-food outlets, including one that sells fried
chicken.
So, in sum, the city condemned Jack's Fried Chicken Shack ("Where a breast
in the mouth is as good as a thigh in the hand") and established a
competitor.
>> They ran the whole thing into the ground so it had no real value,
>
> A lie. Even so, how do you justify the taking, without due process?
>
Our beloved Constitution provides for it (5th Amendment).
>> Ford didn't get stolen by that
>> bastard Obama now did it? By your position (such as it is) Obama
>> should have 'stolen' Ford, it at least had some value.
>> But welcome to the Revisionist Club, in here there are already a few
>> members.
>
> Clueless.
Yep. By bailing out GM and Chrysler, the government effectively warped the
marketplace, and not in Ford's favor. Sorta like the Mafia: We want part of
your business or we'll use competition to drive you out.
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:09:43 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:17:48 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> A socialist economy has room for small amounts of capitalism; a Communist
>>>>>>> society does not allow ANY private economic transactions.
>>>>>> Close, though there are differing lines that can be drawn. Socialism
>>>>>> is an economic system where the state owns the means of production.
>>>>>> Under communism there is no private property, even yourself.
>>>>> Close but socialism is an economic system where a strong, centralized
>>>>> government *controls* the means of production, communism is the same
>>>>> except they also *own* the means of production.
>>>> Not buying that distinction. Ownership == control.
>>> Sounds good but not true.
>
>> It certainly is true.
>
>>> For example, you can own a pool room and the
>>> government can regulate and tax you to the point you have little or no
>>> control. They can ban smoking for example, a perfectly legal activity.
>
>> Banning smoking is not an example of *no* control.
>
>
>Having no authority to allow smoking is not an example of having control.
A proposition being true does not make it's converse true.
>Smoking crack is also
>> illegal, BTW. This is a continuum. Yes, we are losing control of our lives,
>> but as we do we're also losing ownership of ourselves as government takes
>> over.
>
>Yes, but controlling the means of production does not mean you own the
>means of production.
Certainly it does. "Ownership" without any control is a lie.
>>> You can own a car company, like I, and my pension fund owned GM at one
>>> time. The government through regulation and taxing policy can control
>>> how it is managed, or, you can have a communist bastard like Obama steal
>>> it from you, and now the government both owns and controls it. Hitler
>>> for example totally controlled the means of production in socialist NAZI
>>> Germany, yet businesses were privately owned.
>
>> You no longer own Government Motors, so my point stands.
>
>The obama regime owning GM is an example of communism, not simply
>socialism, so my point also stands.
Obama doesn't "own" 100% of GM (the unions supposedly have a share), but
controls it 100%, so yes, *my* point is made.
>>> I do understand your point, and socialism and communism are so close to
>>> the same thing it is not worth the argument, like peanut butter and
>>> chunky peanut butter.
>>
>> No, there is a difference, but mostly in magnitude.
>
>Yes, like peanut butter and chunky peanut butter, there is a difference,
>but they are both peanut butter. Communism and socialism are both
>socialism, but communism is socialism with the chunks...
>>
>>> Anyway, every single last one of the 100 million killed by the red
>>> bastards were killed by socialists, of that, there is no debate. I
>>> guess there is a reason the color of socialism is red.
>
>> Socialism is as socialism does. There can be no exceptions.
>
>Yes, socialism is an economic system by which a strong, centralized
>government controls the means of production, communism is socialism that
>also owns the means of production...
Owning the means of production => owning the people. They are slaves to the
state.
>History has clearly shown you don't
>want the red bastards to get their jack boots on your neck, over 100
>million in the past 100 years could attest to that simple fact except
>the red fukkers already killed them....
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 08:01:41 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jun 26, 10:17 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>. They can ban smoking for example, a perfectly legal activity.
>
>Yet cocaine and heroin are illegal. What's up with that?
>
>> You can own a car company, like I, and my pension fund owned GM at one
>> time. The government through regulation and taxing policy can control
>> how it is managed, or, you can have a communist bastard like Obama steal
>> it from you, and now the government both owns and controls it.
>
>GM did soooo much better on their own.
How do you justify the taking of the company from its lawful owners and giving
it to another?
>They ran the whole thing into the ground so it had no real value,
A lie. Even so, how do you justify the taking, without due process?
>Ford didn't get stolen by that
>bastard Obama now did it? By your position (such as it is) Obama
>should have 'stolen' Ford, it at least had some value.
>But welcome to the Revisionist Club, in here there are already a few
>members.
Clueless.
"Robatoy" wrote:
> They truly don't give
a rat's ass about the environment other than the fact that it affects
their 'brand'. Yes, BP would like to stop the negative publicity but
their true and main concern is to have their cake AND eat it too. They
want to look good, but keep the oil as well.
They would like to make that naughty well pay for the clean-up.
------------------------------------
Basic definition of the function of a corporation, any corporation.
Lew
Actually, the three escape holes in the new 'cap' are venting
to the ocean. The other up hoses are long gone. This is a cap it off
exercise. I noticed the flange was unbolted and the top pipe off.
The new hat seats on the flange and uses it to hold pressure so it seems.
I caught that watching the implementation.
Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
"Our Republic and the Press will Rise or Fall Together": Joseph Pulitzer
TSRA: Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/
On 7/13/2010 10:44 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 13, 4:17 am, "Lobby Dosser"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Scritch"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Lobby Dosser"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>> "Zz Yzx"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> What are your thoughts on the Catastrophe possibility put forth: that
>>>> the sea bottom will collapse (due to the BOP falling over) in the
>>>> immediate vicinity of the well and cause a tsunami - among other
>>>> cataclysmic issues?
>>
>>> The well is about 18,000 feet deep below the seabed. It's highly unlikely
>>> that 18,000 feet of rock will suddenly collapse into a previously oil-
>>> filled void. Remember, the oil is being forced out by pressure. This
>>> pressure has to come from somewhere, and is most likely the surrounding
>>> rock slowly compressing the reservoir. As the reservoir empties, the rock
>>> will slowly settle into the available space.
>>
>>> What is maybe more likely, in addition to general poisoning of the Gulf
>>> ecosystem, is that the water temperature in the Gulf will rise to a point
>>> where the methane hydrates thaw out, releasing untold quantities of
>>> methane, a potent greenhouse gas, not to mention toxic to most life,
>>> resulting in mass extinction on a global level. Sounds like fun?
>>
>> Hadn't thought about the hydrates! Ever read "Swarm"?
>
> "BP engineers planned to shut off pipes that are already funneling
> some oil to two ships, to see how the cap handles the pressure of the
> crude coming up from the ground. Then they planned to close, one by
> one, three valves that let oil pass through the cap."
>
> Got to catch a few more dollars worth of oil, before turning off the
> spigot, eh?
On Jun 18, 8:22=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:58:45 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]=
m>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 18, 9:06=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 6/18/2010 7:14 AM, Maxwell Lol wrote:
>
> >> > Zz Yzx<[email protected]> =A0writes:
>
> >> >> 6. To save time/$, they displaced the drilling mud in the riser (ab=
ove
> >> >> the BOP up to the drill rig on the surface) with sea water before t=
he
> >> >> inferior cement had completely set, and without the normal plug in =
the
> >> >> casing below the BOP. =A0This would drastically reduce the pressure=
head
> >> >> on the formation, and allow formation fluids to enter the borehole.
>
> >> > =A0 7. To save time/$ - they did not use an acoustic switch as a bac=
kup
> >> > =A0 system to shut off the valve.
>
> >> What part of "valve is broken" are you having trouble with? =A0You can=
put
> >> a billion switches on a light and if the bulb is burnt out none of the=
m
> >> are going to make it turn on.
>
> >> The problem with the valve is not that it did not get the signal to
> >> close, the problem is that something is preventing it from closing.
>
> >> > This safety mechanism is required by
> >> > =A0 law in other countries (e.g. Norway, Brazil). It is not a requir=
ement
> >> > =A0 in the US.
>
> >> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870442350457521203141793=
...
>
> >> Irrelevant. =A0The thing that the switch is supposed to control is bro=
ken.
> >> =A0 More switches aren't going to make any difference.
>
> >There was no point putting brakes on a car, the thing crashed anyway.
> >Do you have ANY idea how flawed your logic is? (*fasten your
> >seatbelts, here comes a bus full of straw men*)
>
> You have it exactly backwards. =A0The brakes *were* applied. =A0The brake
> cylinders seized.
Exactly.
On Jun 18, 9:06=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/18/2010 7:14 AM, Maxwell Lol wrote:
>
> > Zz Yzx<[email protected]> =A0writes:
>
> >> 6. To save time/$, they displaced the drilling mud in the riser (above
> >> the BOP up to the drill rig on the surface) with sea water before the
> >> inferior cement had completely set, and without the normal plug in the
> >> casing below the BOP. =A0This would drastically reduce the pressure he=
ad
> >> on the formation, and allow formation fluids to enter the borehole.
>
> > =A0 7. To save time/$ - they did not use an acoustic switch as a backup
> > =A0 system to shut off the valve.
>
> What part of "valve is broken" are you having trouble with? =A0You can pu=
t
> a billion switches on a light and if the bulb is burnt out none of them
> are going to make it turn on.
>
> The problem with the valve is not that it did not get the signal to
> close, the problem is that something is preventing it from closing.
>
> > This safety mechanism is required by
> > =A0 law in other countries (e.g. Norway, Brazil). It is not a requireme=
nt
> > =A0 in the US.
>
> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870442350457521203141793...
>
> Irrelevant. =A0The thing that the switch is supposed to control is broken=
.
> =A0 More switches aren't going to make any difference.
There was no point putting brakes on a car, the thing crashed anyway.
Do you have ANY idea how flawed your logic is? (*fasten your
seatbelts, here comes a bus full of straw men*)
On Jul 15, 8:22=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > So, the headline being written, just in time for elections: " Obama's
> > skillful handling of the situation allowed BP to save the day and
> > humanity."
>
> Yeah, thats the headline alright....
>
When are you going to grow a sense of humour?
Zz Yzx <[email protected]> writes:
> 6. To save time/$, they displaced the drilling mud in the riser (above
> the BOP up to the drill rig on the surface) with sea water before the
> inferior cement had completely set, and without the normal plug in the
> casing below the BOP. This would drastically reduce the pressure head
> on the formation, and allow formation fluids to enter the borehole.
7. To save time/$ - they did not use an acoustic switch as a backup
system to shut off the valve. This safety mechanism is required by
law in other countries (e.g. Norway, Brazil). It is not a requirement
in the US.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:50:34 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote the following:
>ChairMan wrote:
>> In news:[email protected],
>> Jack Stein <[email protected]>spewed forth:
>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>> On Jun 22, 11:11 am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack Stein
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>>> You two would be much happier if you plonked each other.
>>>> Ohw... just a little harmless needlin'. Jack is against same-sex
>>>> marriage...as if they would BREED or something.
>>> Non-breeders don't need no stinkin marriage!
>
>> Sure they do, they deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us<g>
>
>That's just plain mean!:-)
Mean, and not politically correct, but absolutely true.
LJ--always happily single while misery is all around me.
--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang
On Jun 18, 10:26=A0am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zz Yzx wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > ... based on what I've gleaned from the news reports.
>
> > Analysis:
>
> > 1. To save time/$, they didn't ...
>
> > 2. To save time/$, they "hung" ...
>
> > 3. To save time/$, they used only ...
>
> > 4. To save time/$, they used ...
>
> ...
> I think we get the drift here.
>
> I find it amazing that after spending multi-millions to bring in a
> helluva a good-producing well, that apparently everyone thinks that at
> that point the said "Since this is such a lucrative well that's going to
> produce thousands of barrels of crude a day at a minimum of $75 or
> $80/bbl, let's risk all that by seeing how shoddily we can now finish
> off the work..."
>
> Yeah, right...sounds like what would have happened to me... :(
>
> --
You bring a project in on time and under budget, you get the big
bonus. You miss your deadline and you go over budget, you don't get
that bonus, you don't get that new car, you do get a harsh review at
end of the year.
On Jul 14, 12:41=A0am, "<<<__ B=F8b __>>>" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "BP engineers planned to shut off pipes that are already funneling
> > some oil to two ships, to see how the cap handles the pressure of the
> > crude coming up from the ground. Then they planned to close, one by
> > one, three valves that let oil pass through the cap."
>
> > Got to catch a few more dollars worth of oil, before turning off the
> > spigot, eh?
>
> They have to stop the flow gradually .. if they slam it shut, it will
> cause the world's largest case of "water hammer" and it could be enough
> to blow a hole someplace in the earth's crust that could NEVER be repaire=
d.
These are people who only care about 'yield'. Now their gold is
flowing into the Gulf instead of their coffers. They truly don't give
a rat's ass about the environment other than the fact that it affects
their 'brand'. Yes, BP would like to stop the negative publicity but
their true and main concern is to have their cake AND eat it too. They
want to look good, but keep the oil as well.
They would like to make that naughty well pay for the clean-up.
And as far as that pinprick in the earth's crust is concerned? That's
like worrying about a hippo's bowels trying to ooze out through a
mosquito bite. BP uses a well-proven tactic by using fear so that the
population can applaud them when they finally triumph over this
leak...but they want to keep the oil too.
BP has only one motive. ONE only. It is called money. They will say,
do, promise anything with a straight face to get things their way, and
considering the political connections those oil people have, they have
a great pool of PR resources to draw from; the Republicans who have a
bit of experience in that (Iraq) sort of thing.
I wonder which BP department is busier these days. Public Relations or
Engineering.
On Jun 22, 8:11=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > Jack Stein wrote:
> >> Zz Yzx wrote:
> >>> Joe Barton should be hanged.
> >> One guy tells the truth and you want him hanged?
>
> >> Ali Obama and his corrupt administration (and socialist democrats in
> >> general) get huge sums of money from BP so they can buy their election=
s.
> > And the Bushes and Cheneys never took any oil money?
>
> BP gave large dollars to the Obama campaign to get him elected. =A0Bush
> and Cheney were not even in the running, two term limit for Bush, you
> idiot.
>
> > Do you have ANY idea how stupid you look?
>
> No, you seem to be the one stuck on stupid!
>
> Bush is NOT in the picture, they received no money to run for election
> because they were NOT in the running. =A0It was the Obama regime that
> issued the wavers to BP, not Bush. =A0It is the Obama regime that threw
> road blocks at early efforts to minimize the disastrous effects of their
> wavers.
>
> --
> Jack
> Got Change: Democratic Republic =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> Banana Republic!http:=
//jbstein.com
Poor.
On 6/24/10 12:44 PM, "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Tell that to the over 100,000,000 murdered by the socialist bastards
> over the past 100 years. They haven't bounced back much.
>
> http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
>
Are you saying that socialism and communism are the same thing?
On Jun 27, 1:46=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
.
>
> Wrong. Wrong, and wrong.
Banging your head against the wall isn't going to make your bad
information right. (Good thing you feel no pain, eh?)
GM went with their tail between their legs looking for a hand-out. The
lender had some conditions. The rest is history.
GM was a badly managed company which didn't think it had to adjust to
the times. Arrogant cocksuckers, really. They got what they deserved
and so did those who bought into that arrogance by buying shares. Free
enterprise my friend... a double-edged sword.
Oh... and officially there may not have been any need for a proper
bankruptcy proceeding. GM rolled over on its back willingly, nobody
forced them to leave the ship like rats.
No wonder you and Stein agree. You're both revisionists.
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 12:34:23 -0500, Douglas Johnson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>How do you justify the taking of the company from its lawful owners and giving
>>it to another?
>>
>>>They ran the whole thing into the ground so it had no real value,
>>
>>A lie. Even so, how do you justify the taking, without due process?
>
>There was due process. It's called bankruptcy.
Wrong. It was an executive action. There was no bankruptcy proceeding.
>The lawful owners lose their
>ownership of the company and the company is broken up and sold off or the
>creditors get ownership of the company in place of their loans to the company.
>It happens every day.
Except that it was *NOT* a bankruptcy. There was no due process.
>The case of GM is politically hot because the major creditors were the US
>government and the UAW. The UAW was a major creditor through the health care
>restructuring that was done in 2006 or so. The government was a major creditor
>because GM came, hat in hand, via private jet, to get a bail out loan late in
>2008.
So, the fact that they used a "private jet" was reason enough, for you, to
throw away the Constitution. Got it.
>GM was unable to meet the terms of those loans and so was forced into
>bankruptcy. They had a net worth of minus $82.29 billion dollars according to
>their March 31, 2009 SEC filing. See
>http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40730/000119312509105365/d10q.htm#toc85756_4
Wrong. There was no bankruptcy proceeding.
>You can also see a discussion of the government loan terms and GM's bankruptcy
>plans in anticipation of their failure to meet those terms. I'd be a little
>slower with the term "lie" . The company was less than worthless.
Wrong. Wrong, and wrong.
On 6/25/10 10:33 AM, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robert Haar wrote:
>> On 6/24/10 12:44 PM, "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Tell that to the over 100,000,000 murdered by the socialist bastards
>>> over the past 100 years. They haven't bounced back much.
>>>
>>> http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
>>>
>>
>> Are you saying that socialism and communism are the same thing?
>
> Well, yeah. They differ only on the margins.
That depends on whether you are talking theory or practice. There is
significant difference between the theory of communism and how has been
practiced in the USSR and China.
>
> A socialist economy has room for small amounts of capitalism; a Communist
> society does not allow ANY private economic transactions.
Marxist communism is more about exerting control over people.
Jack Stein wrote:
> Zz Yzx wrote:
>
>> Joe Barton should be hanged.
>
> One guy tells the truth and you want him hanged?
>
Bottom line: there is no (zero, zip, zilch) constitutional authority for
Obama to have done what he did in this instance. Yes, it was a shakedown,
he had his Attorney General in the meeting essentially browbeating the CEO
of BP into submission (BP CEO deserved it, he poured huge amounts of money
into getting PBHO elected, so there is some karmic justice there). A sane
legislative branch would be howling over this. PBHO acted as all three
branches of government in this instance, providing the BP CEO with no legal
recourse. Obama declared guilt, Obama assessed a fine, Obama directed how
that fine would be paid, and who would oversee the disbursement of the fine
(one of his non-congressionally approved czars). This is not even close to
constitutional. Barton may have been somewhat clumsy in how he brought out
the facts, but the fundamental issue of this event is not the fact that
someone apologized for government overreach to a corporate executive, but
that the president of the US is being given a pass for exercising power not
vested in the office.
>
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Robert Haar wrote:
> On 6/24/10 12:44 PM, "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Tell that to the over 100,000,000 murdered by the socialist bastards
>> over the past 100 years. They haven't bounced back much.
>>
>> http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
>>
>
> Are you saying that socialism and communism are the same thing?
Well, yeah. They differ only on the margins.
"Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and
services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and
planned by a centralized organization. Socialism asserts that the
distribution should take place according to the amount of individuals'
production efforts, however, while communism asserts that that goods and
services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals'
needs." [In socialism, a doctor earns more than a common laborer; under
Communism, they earn the pretty much the same.]
A socialist economy has room for small amounts of capitalism; a Communist
society does not allow ANY private economic transactions.
On Jun 27, 12:03=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]=
m>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 27, 11:26 am, "[email protected]"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Owning the means of production =3D> owning the people. They are slaves=
to the
> >> state.
>
> >Everybody who works 6 months out of the year to pay for their taxes
> >(Accumulative taxes, sales, income, property etc) is a fukkin slave.
>
> At least you admit that you're in favor of enslaving others for your gain=
.
>
> >You want to live here? You suck the government's dick, no matter who
> >is in power. The big difference is that liberals kill babies, the
> >right-wing nutbars wait till they're 18.
>
> Spoken like the clueless jerk you are.
Ouch! Coming from that means...well....nothing.
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jun 27, 11:26 am, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Owning the means of production => owning the people. They are slaves to the
>> state.
>
>Everybody who works 6 months out of the year to pay for their taxes
>(Accumulative taxes, sales, income, property etc) is a fukkin slave.
At least you admit that you're in favor of enslaving others for your gain.
>You want to live here? You suck the government's dick, no matter who
>is in power. The big difference is that liberals kill babies, the
>right-wing nutbars wait till they're 18.
Spoken like the clueless jerk you are.
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:36:57 -0500, Douglas Johnson wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Except that it was *NOT* a bankruptcy. There was no due process.
>
> Oh, my God. What is this?
> http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/gmpetition60012009.pdf
>
> It is a copy of GM's bankruptcy filing in the South District of
> Manhattan.
>
There you go! Injecting facts into a totally nonsensical rant :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Except that it was *NOT* a bankruptcy. There was no due process.
Oh, my God. What is this?
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/gmpetition60012009.pdf
It is a copy of GM's bankruptcy filing in the South District of Manhattan.
>
>So, the fact that they used a "private jet" was reason enough, for you, to
>throw away the Constitution. Got it.
No. The private jet comment was just a dig at GM's PR skills.
>Wrong. There was no bankruptcy proceeding.
What do you base that on? I'm providing references. Primary sources, in fact.
What are your sources?
>>You can also see a discussion of the government loan terms and GM's bankruptcy
>>plans in anticipation of their failure to meet those terms. I'd be a little
>>slower with the term "lie" . The company was less than worthless.
>
>Wrong. Wrong, and wrong.
What parts of what I said are wrong? All of those things are in the reference
I provided in my previous post.. It's the March 31, 2009 10-Q, a legal document
filed by GM with the SEC. Look in the balance sheet for the net worth and the
management's discussion for the other items.
-- Doug
They have two intercept pipes that will carry off the oil once
working. They should be there next week from what I heard.
Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
"Our Republic and the Press will Rise or Fall Together": Joseph Pulitzer
TSRA: Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/
On 7/14/2010 6:59 AM, Jack Stein wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
>> "BP engineers planned to shut off pipes that are already funneling
>> some oil to two ships, to see how the cap handles the pressure of the
>> crude coming up from the ground. Then they planned to close, one by
>> one, three valves that let oil pass through the cap."
>
>> Got to catch a few more dollars worth of oil, before turning off the
>> spigot, eh?
>
> Why should they turn off the spigot?
>
> So you fascist Canadians can control more of the oil market?
>
Nice complement for Canadians.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:cd806d2b-b222-457e-a3a2-
Idiot!
[email protected]...
On Jul 14, 7:59 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> So you fascist Canadians can control more of the oil market?
>
In news:[email protected],
Jack Stein <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 11:11 am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack Stein
>>> <[email protected]> wrote the following:
>>>
>>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> You two would be much happier if you plonked each other.
>>
>> Ohw... just a little harmless needlin'. Jack is against same-sex
>> marriage...as if they would BREED or something.
>
> Non-breeders don't need no stinkin marriage!
>
Sure they do, they deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us<g>
> "BP engineers planned to shut off pipes that are already funneling
> some oil to two ships, to see how the cap handles the pressure of the
> crude coming up from the ground. Then they planned to close, one by
> one, three valves that let oil pass through the cap."
>
> Got to catch a few more dollars worth of oil, before turning off the
> spigot, eh?
>
They have to stop the flow gradually .. if they slam it shut, it will
cause the world's largest case of "water hammer" and it could be enough
to blow a hole someplace in the earth's crust that could NEVER be repaired.
Zz Yzx <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:04:43 -0700, Zz Yzx <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> I aplogize for forgetting the "OT" leader.
>
> -Zz
The subject says it all, no need for an OT, IMNSHO.
I agree, (as an expert biochemist <grin>) that capping this firing canon
will be difficult if not impossible, and we'll have to eat oil until well
after the relief wells are finished and used to inject cement at the bottom
of the well. BPs only hope is that they can catch more of the oil fired
out of the hole by the subsurface pressure.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> "Zz Yzx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> What are your thoughts on the Catastrophe possibility put forth: that
> the sea bottom will collapse (due to the BOP falling over) in the
> immediate vicinity of the well and cause a tsunami - among other
> cataclysmic issues?
>
The well is about 18,000 feet deep below the seabed. It's highly unlikely
that 18,000 feet of rock will suddenly collapse into a previously oil-
filled void. Remember, the oil is being forced out by pressure. This
pressure has to come from somewhere, and is most likely the surrounding
rock slowly compressing the reservoir. As the reservoir empties, the rock
will slowly settle into the available space.
What is maybe more likely, in addition to general poisoning of the Gulf
ecosystem, is that the water temperature in the Gulf will rise to a point
where the methane hydrates thaw out, releasing untold quantities of
methane, a potent greenhouse gas, not to mention toxic to most life,
resulting in mass extinction on a global level. Sounds like fun?
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:04:43 -0700, Zz Yzx <[email protected]>
wrote:
I aplogize for forgetting the "OT" leader.
-Zz
On Jun 21, 1:08=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zz Yzx wrote:
> > Joe Barton should be hanged.
>
> One guy tells the truth and you want him hanged?
>
> Ali Obama and his corrupt administration (and socialist democrats in
> general) get huge sums of money from BP so they can buy their elections.
>
And the Bushes and Cheneys never took any oil money? Never bought
elections?
Do you have ANY idea how stupid you look?
On Jun 27, 10:50=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jun 26, 10:17 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> . =A0They can ban smoking for example, a perfectly legal activity.
> > Yet cocaine and heroin are illegal. What's up with that?
>
> I dunno, what's up with it?
>
Your paper-thin ethics are situational, Douche-nozzle.
Give that some thought before you run off the mouth again.
GM, as a car company, had no future. They squandered their position by
making product they tried to dictate to the buying public as opposed
to building product the public wanted. "We are the Big Company, you
will buy what we offer!!"
Obama had the vision to see their demise. He did all GM stockholders a
favour, same with the pensioners.
Besides, Obama wanted to keep some manufacturing ability on tap in
case the defense department needed some stuff.
So... who owns GM now?
On Jun 26, 10:17=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>. =A0They can ban smoking for example, a perfectly legal activity.
Yet cocaine and heroin are illegal. What's up with that?
> =A0 You can own a car company, like I, and my pension fund owned GM at on=
e
> time. =A0The government through regulation and taxing policy can control
> how it is managed, or, you can have a communist bastard like Obama steal
> it from you, and now the government both owns and controls it. =A0
GM did soooo much better on their own. They ran the whole thing into
the ground so it had no real value, Ford didn't get stolen by that
bastard Obama now did it? By your position (such as it is) Obama
should have 'stolen' Ford, it at least had some value.
But welcome to the Revisionist Club, in here there are already a few
members.
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:21:56 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Jun 25, 9:33 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Robert Haar wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/10 12:44 PM, "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Tell that to the over 100,000,000 murdered by the socialist bastards
>>>>> over the past 100 years. They haven't bounced back much.
>>>>> http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
>>>> Are you saying that socialism and communism are the same thing?
>>> Well, yeah. They differ only on the margins.
>>>
>>> "Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and
>>> services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and
>>> planned by a centralized organization. Socialism asserts that the
>>> distribution should take place according to the amount of individuals'
>>> production efforts, however, while communism asserts that that goods and
>>> services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals'
>>> needs." [In socialism, a doctor earns more than a common laborer; under
>>> Communism, they earn the pretty much the same.]
>>>
>>> A socialist economy has room for small amounts of capitalism; a Communist
>>> society does not allow ANY private economic transactions.
>>
>> Close, though there are differing lines that can be drawn. Socialism
>> is an economic system where the state owns the means of production.
>> Under communism there is no private property, even yourself.
>
>Close but socialism is an economic system where a strong, centralized
>government *controls* the means of production, communism is the same
>except they also *own* the means of production.
Not buying that distinction. Ownership == control.
>Other than that, they
>are identical, and always fall on there collective faces compared to an
>economic system where the individual rules, and owns and controls the
>means of production.
>
>Whilst falling on their collective faces, they have murdered 100's of
>millions of people that seem to get in the way of their quest for
>absolute power.
Socialism is as socialism does.
>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
[email protected] wrote:
>>>> A socialist economy has room for small amounts of capitalism; a Communist
>>>> society does not allow ANY private economic transactions.
>>> Close, though there are differing lines that can be drawn. Socialism
>>> is an economic system where the state owns the means of production.
>>> Under communism there is no private property, even yourself.
>> Close but socialism is an economic system where a strong, centralized
>> government *controls* the means of production, communism is the same
>> except they also *own* the means of production.
> Not buying that distinction. Ownership == control.
Sounds good but not true. For example, you can own a pool room and the
government can regulate and tax you to the point you have little or no
control. They can ban smoking for example, a perfectly legal activity.
You can own a car company, like I, and my pension fund owned GM at one
time. The government through regulation and taxing policy can control
how it is managed, or, you can have a communist bastard like Obama steal
it from you, and now the government both owns and controls it. Hitler
for example totally controlled the means of production in socialist NAZI
Germany, yet businesses were privately owned.
I do understand your point, and socialism and communism are so close to
the same thing it is not worth the argument, like peanut butter and
chunky peanut butter.
Anyway, every single last one of the 100 million killed by the red
bastards were killed by socialists, of that, there is no debate. I
guess there is a reason the color of socialism is red.
>> Other than that, they
>> are identical, and always fall on there collective faces compared to an
>> economic system where the individual rules, and owns and controls the
>> means of production.
>>
>> Whilst falling on their collective faces, they have murdered 100's of
>> millions of people that seem to get in the way of their quest for
>> absolute power.
>
> Socialism is as socialism does.
>
>> http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
--
Jack
Got Change: General Motors =====> Government Motors!
http://jbstein.com
On Jun 29, 11:27=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
=A0
>
> Bankruptcy in a free market capitalist economy makes things stronger.
Sure it does. It is really helpful to those suppliers who are left
holding the bag when their customer decides not to pay them.
Douglas Johnson wrote:
> Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Obama boohoo is all you can come up with..boohoo, he STOLE a huge
>>> automotive company...boohoo.
>> Yes, that is exactly what the communist bastard did.
> Company borrows money, company can't pay it back, company goes bankrupt,
> creditors own the company. Happens everyday, nobody stole anything.
It doesn't happen everyday in the US. The US government does not loan
money to private business and immediately turn around and take ownership
of the company. Never happens, never supposed to happen in a free
market, capitalist nation.
> Even if they did, they didn't get much.
The owners (millions of pensioners) of the company got nothing, the US
taxpayer got fucked, make that fukked, not just in cash but mainly and
most importantly in that their once great economic system was
"fundamentally changed" from capitalist where the private individual
owned and controlled things to a socialist/communist government where a
few government mother fukkers own and control things...
According to GM's bankruptcy filing,
> they had assets of $82 billion and liabilities of $172 billion for a negative
> net worth of $90 billion.
Bankruptcy in a free market capitalist economy makes things stronger.
Bankruptcy in a communist economy just sits around stinking up the
place. The longer the stink, the more the smell of death begins to waft
through the valleys.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
--
Jack
I'm not as dumb as you look.
http://jbstein.com
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 10:00:20 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jun 27, 12:14 pm, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:09:34 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 27, 12:03 pm, "[email protected]"
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Jun 27, 11:26 am, "[email protected]"
>> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Owning the means of production => owning the people. They are slaves to the
>> >> >> state.
>>
>> >> >Everybody who works 6 months out of the year to pay for their taxes
>> >> >(Accumulative taxes, sales, income, property etc) is a fukkin slave.
>>
>> >> At least you admit that you're in favor of enslaving others for your gain.
>>
>> >> >You want to live here? You suck the government's dick, no matter who
>> >> >is in power. The big difference is that liberals kill babies, the
>> >> >right-wing nutbars wait till they're 18.
>>
>> >> Spoken like the clueless jerk you are.
>>
>> >Ouch! Coming from that means...well....nothing.
>>
>> No brain, no pain.
>
>The Tylenol people won't be making any money off you then.
You're the hurtin' pup.
Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Obama boohoo is all you can come up with..boohoo, he STOLE a huge
>> automotive company...boohoo.
>
>Yes, that is exactly what the communist bastard did.
Company borrows money, company can't pay it back, company goes bankrupt,
creditors own the company. Happens everyday, nobody stole anything.
Even if they did, they didn't get much. According to GM's bankruptcy filing,
they had assets of $82 billion and liabilities of $172 billion for a negative
net worth of $90 billion.
-- Doug
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 26, 10:17 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> . They can ban smoking for example, a perfectly legal activity.
> Yet cocaine and heroin are illegal. What's up with that?
I dunno, what's up with it?
>> You can own a car company, like I, and my pension fund owned GM at one
>> time. The government through regulation and taxing policy can control
>> how it is managed, or, you can have a communist bastard like Obama steal
>> it from you, and now the government both owns and controls it.
> GM did soooo much better on their own.
The owners of GM, being the stockholders, could not do worse than losing
everything. Once big brother, the communist bastard obama and his red
regime stole the company, the company could do no worse.
They ran the whole thing into the ground so it had no real value,
Wrong camel breath, the company did have real value before it was stolen
by the Obama regime.
Ford didn't get stolen by that bastard Obama now did it?
Not yet, no.
By your position (such as it is) Obama
> should have 'stolen' Ford, it at least had some value.
GM had value before it was stolen by Obama.
> But welcome to the Revisionist Club, in here there are already a few
> members.
The only one making shit up here is you, and you are too fukking simple
for it to matter much, so carry on.
--
Jack
Got Change: Inconvenient Truth =====> Convenient Lies!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHxb_vZe7Ao
Really?
"Zz Yzx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:04:43 -0700, Zz Yzx <[email protected]>
wrote:
I aplogize for forgetting the "OT" leader.
-Zz
On Jul 13, 4:17=A0am, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Scritch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
>
> >> "Zz Yzx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >> What are your thoughts on the Catastrophe possibility put forth: that
> >> the sea bottom will collapse (due to the BOP falling over) =A0in the
> >> immediate vicinity of the well and cause a tsunami - among other
> >> cataclysmic issues?
>
> > The well is about 18,000 feet deep below the seabed. =A0It's highly unl=
ikely
> > that 18,000 feet of rock will suddenly collapse into a previously oil-
> > filled void. =A0Remember, the oil is being forced out by pressure. =A0T=
his
> > pressure has to come from somewhere, and is most likely the surrounding
> > rock slowly compressing the reservoir. =A0As the reservoir empties, the=
rock
> > will slowly settle into the available space.
>
> > What is maybe more likely, in addition to general poisoning of the Gulf
> > ecosystem, is that the water temperature in the Gulf will rise to a poi=
nt
> > where the methane hydrates thaw out, releasing untold quantities of
> > methane, a potent greenhouse gas, not to mention toxic to most life,
> > resulting in mass extinction on a global level. =A0Sounds like fun?
>
> Hadn't thought about the hydrates! Ever read "Swarm"?
"BP engineers planned to shut off pipes that are already funneling
some oil to two ships, to see how the cap handles the pressure of the
crude coming up from the ground. Then they planned to close, one by
one, three valves that let oil pass through the cap."
Got to catch a few more dollars worth of oil, before turning off the
spigot, eh?
On Jul 14, 7:59=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > "BP engineers planned to shut off pipes that are already funneling
> > some oil to two ships, to see how the cap handles the pressure of the
> > crude coming up from the ground. Then they planned to close, one by
> > one, three valves that let oil pass through the cap."
> > Got to catch a few more dollars worth of oil, before turning off the
> > spigot, eh?
>
> Why should they turn off the spigot?
>
> So you fascist Canadians can control more of the oil market?
>
Idiot!
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:56:30 -0500, basilisk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 05:36:25 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy wrote:
>
>> On Jul 14, 12:41 am, "<<<__ Bøb __>>>" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "BP engineers planned to shut off pipes that are already funneling
>>>> some oil to two ships, to see how the cap handles the pressure of the
>>>> crude coming up from the ground. Then they planned to close, one by
>>>> one, three valves that let oil pass through the cap."
>>>
>>>> Got to catch a few more dollars worth of oil, before turning off the
>>>> spigot, eh?
>>>
>>> They have to stop the flow gradually .. if they slam it shut, it will
>>> cause the world's largest case of "water hammer" and it could be enough
>>> to blow a hole someplace in the earth's crust that could NEVER be repaired.
>>
>> These are people who only care about 'yield'. Now their gold is
>> flowing into the Gulf instead of their coffers. They truly don't give
>> a rat's ass about the environment other than the fact that it affects
>> their 'brand'. Yes, BP would like to stop the negative publicity but
>> their true and main concern is to have their cake AND eat it too. They
>> want to look good, but keep the oil as well.
>> They would like to make that naughty well pay for the clean-up.
>
>Don't know about the rest of the country or Canada, but there are a lot
>of BP stations in the South and in the last 3 weeks the larger BP
>logos are disappearing from the stations. The only place the BP logo
>is left is on the flourescent signs, I guess it takes longer to replace the
>signs.
Haven't seen any, though there's only a couple of BP stations in the county. I
didn't see any fewer on the way to Atlanta last weekend, or Birmingham two
weeks earlier.
>> And as far as that pinprick in the earth's crust is concerned? That's
>> like worrying about a hippo's bowels trying to ooze out through a
>> mosquito bite. BP uses a well-proven tactic by using fear so that the
>> population can applaud them when they finally triumph over this
>> leak...but they want to keep the oil too.
>
>Might as well use it now that it is turned loose.
>>
>> BP has only one motive. ONE only. It is called money. They will say,
>> do, promise anything with a straight face to get things their way, and
>> considering the political connections those oil people have, they have
>> a great pool of PR resources to draw from; the Republicans who have a
>> bit of experience in that (Iraq) sort of thing.
>
>I personally don't care if BP survives as a viable company or
>not (it will). However, hopefully they can be forced into
>supporting those most affected and cleaning up at least part of
>the spill.
I hope they do. I'd rather not have one fewer competitor.
>> I wonder which BP department is busier these days. Public Relations or
>> Engineering.
>
>I would bet there is more sweating and hand wringing in the PR
>department.
>
>Alabama has more pressing problems than greasy beaches, starving
>fishermen and a shut down tourist industry, we have bingo wars.
I don't know how the "bingo" parlors stayed open as long as they did. I've
only been here a couple of years, but obviously the entire state is corrupt.
On Jun 18, 11:12=A0am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 10:26 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Zz Yzx wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >>> ... based on what I've gleaned from the news reports.
> >>> Analysis:
> >>> 1. To save time/$, they didn't ...
> >>> 2. To save time/$, they "hung" ...
> >>> 3. To save time/$, they used only ...
> >>> 4. To save time/$, they used ...
> >> ...
> >> I think we get the drift here.
>
> >> I find it amazing that after spending multi-millions to bring in a
> >> helluva a good-producing well, that apparently everyone thinks that at
> >> that point the said "Since this is such a lucrative well that's going =
to
> >> produce thousands of barrels of crude a day at a minimum of $75 or
> >> $80/bbl, let's risk all that by seeing how shoddily we can now finish
> >> off the work..."
>
> >> Yeah, right...sounds like what would have happened to me... :(
>
> >> --
>
> > You bring a project in on time and under budget, you get the big
> > bonus. You miss your deadline and you go over budget, you don't get
> > that bonus, you don't get that new car, you do get a harsh review at
> > end of the year.
>
> You lose a multi-million dollar cash cow and cost billions on a
> designed, intended set of operations? =A0Not hardly...
No, that's not how the thinking goes. They don't say, "Well, if we
don't do this, the thing will blow up." They say, "Well, if we don't
do this, the odds of it blowing up are 100,000 to 1." "Okay, I can
live with that." But the number and confidence numbers are bogus.
> Something went wrong; what, precisely, will only be known when the
> postmortems are complete and maybe not entirely even then.
>
> It's unlikely imo that any decisions were made expressly for the purpose
> of shaving corners; that there may have been poor judgment or even
> engineering mistakes is quite possible but I'd wager there wasn't
> anything the folks involved did that was any different than they did
> routinely and had worked in the past.
>
> "Stuff happens..."
>
> That the end result ended up in a botched operation this time doesn't
> infer intent.
Nobody says, "Oh, let's see what corners can be cut just for the hell
of it." What they say is: "If we do this, we'll save this much time
and money.", then the corners get cut. There are way too many ex-
corners to be explained away for it to be claimed as an unforeseeable
accident.
If it were in any other industry they'd also be facing RICO charges.
It's amazing how all of the oil companies disaster plans were
wholesale cut and paste jobs. They can't exactly argue that they
couldn't afford to work up a fookin' disaster plan required by law.
Sheesh.
R
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:58:45 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jun 18, 9:06 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 6/18/2010 7:14 AM, Maxwell Lol wrote:
>>
>> > Zz Yzx<[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> >> 6. To save time/$, they displaced the drilling mud in the riser (above
>> >> the BOP up to the drill rig on the surface) with sea water before the
>> >> inferior cement had completely set, and without the normal plug in the
>> >> casing below the BOP. This would drastically reduce the pressure head
>> >> on the formation, and allow formation fluids to enter the borehole.
>>
>> > 7. To save time/$ - they did not use an acoustic switch as a backup
>> > system to shut off the valve.
>>
>> What part of "valve is broken" are you having trouble with? You can put
>> a billion switches on a light and if the bulb is burnt out none of them
>> are going to make it turn on.
>>
>> The problem with the valve is not that it did not get the signal to
>> close, the problem is that something is preventing it from closing.
>>
>> > This safety mechanism is required by
>> > law in other countries (e.g. Norway, Brazil). It is not a requirement
>> > in the US.
>>
>> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870442350457521203141793...
>>
>> Irrelevant. The thing that the switch is supposed to control is broken.
>> More switches aren't going to make any difference.
>
>There was no point putting brakes on a car, the thing crashed anyway.
>Do you have ANY idea how flawed your logic is? (*fasten your
>seatbelts, here comes a bus full of straw men*)
You have it exactly backwards. The brakes *were* applied. The brake
cylinders seized.
On Jul 14, 8:43=A0am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
> > They truly don't give
>
> a rat's ass about the environment other than the fact that it affects
> their 'brand'. Yes, BP would like to stop the negative publicity but
> their true and main concern is to have their cake AND eat it too. They
> want to look good, but keep the oil as well.
> They would like to make that naughty well pay for the clean-up.
> ------------------------------------
> Basic definition of the function of a corporation, any corporation.
>
> Lew
Absolutely. No way was I trying to infer that BP's dealings were
anything unusual. But those types of corporations are aware that
'brand' is also valuable. It is one of the first pages in the
corporate textbooks: "don't matter what we are/do, what do we look
like to those who buy our shit."
The one page is still being written: "How do we get out of this
situation AND keep our stuff."
Within that framework, that 20 billion BP promised Obama they were
going to pay was nothing more than a political move to make Obama look
like he's doing something in exchange for 'cooperation' from all those
who are in Obama's pocket. Obama can't piss BP off too much, he also
needs contributions.
So, the headline being written, just in time for elections: " Obama's
skillful handling of the situation allowed BP to save the day and
humanity."
It's all smoke and mirrors, cardboard replicas and short pieces of
string. Sweep away the bullshit and the Chicken Littles and what you
have is: "how can we make the best of this oops in the Gulf."
"Zz Yzx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm a geologist by trade. In a former life I spent a few years
> working oil rigs, a couple of those on offshore rigs. Here's my
> analysis and worst fears, based on what I've gleaned from the news
> reports.
What are your thoughts on the Catastrophe possibility put forth: that the
sea bottom will collapse (due to the BOP falling over) in the immediate
vicinity of the well and cause a tsunami - among other cataclysmic issues?
On 6/18/2010 7:14 AM, Maxwell Lol wrote:
> Zz Yzx<[email protected]> writes:
>
>> 6. To save time/$, they displaced the drilling mud in the riser (above
>> the BOP up to the drill rig on the surface) with sea water before the
>> inferior cement had completely set, and without the normal plug in the
>> casing below the BOP. This would drastically reduce the pressure head
>> on the formation, and allow formation fluids to enter the borehole.
>
>
>
> 7. To save time/$ - they did not use an acoustic switch as a backup
> system to shut off the valve.
What part of "valve is broken" are you having trouble with? You can put
a billion switches on a light and if the bulb is burnt out none of them
are going to make it turn on.
The problem with the valve is not that it did not get the signal to
close, the problem is that something is preventing it from closing.
> This safety mechanism is required by
> law in other countries (e.g. Norway, Brazil). It is not a requirement
> in the US.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html
Irrelevant. The thing that the switch is supposed to control is broken.
More switches aren't going to make any difference.
Zz Yzx wrote:
...
> ... based on what I've gleaned from the news reports.
>
> Analysis:
>
> 1. To save time/$, they didn't ...
>
> 2. To save time/$, they "hung" ...
>
> 3. To save time/$, they used only ...
>
> 4. To save time/$, they used ...
...
I think we get the drift here.
I find it amazing that after spending multi-millions to bring in a
helluva a good-producing well, that apparently everyone thinks that at
that point the said "Since this is such a lucrative well that's going to
produce thousands of barrels of crude a day at a minimum of $75 or
$80/bbl, let's risk all that by seeing how shoddily we can now finish
off the work..."
Yeah, right...sounds like what would have happened to me... :(
--
Dave wrote:
> On Jun 18, 10:26 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Zz Yzx wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> ... based on what I've gleaned from the news reports.
>>> Analysis:
>>> 1. To save time/$, they didn't ...
>>> 2. To save time/$, they "hung" ...
>>> 3. To save time/$, they used only ...
>>> 4. To save time/$, they used ...
>> ...
>> I think we get the drift here.
>>
>> I find it amazing that after spending multi-millions to bring in a
>> helluva a good-producing well, that apparently everyone thinks that at
>> that point the said "Since this is such a lucrative well that's going to
>> produce thousands of barrels of crude a day at a minimum of $75 or
>> $80/bbl, let's risk all that by seeing how shoddily we can now finish
>> off the work..."
>>
>> Yeah, right...sounds like what would have happened to me... :(
>>
>> --
>
> You bring a project in on time and under budget, you get the big
> bonus. You miss your deadline and you go over budget, you don't get
> that bonus, you don't get that new car, you do get a harsh review at
> end of the year.
You lose a multi-million dollar cash cow and cost billions on a
designed, intended set of operations? Not hardly...
Something went wrong; what, precisely, will only be known when the
postmortems are complete and maybe not entirely even then.
It's unlikely imo that any decisions were made expressly for the purpose
of shaving corners; that there may have been poor judgment or even
engineering mistakes is quite possible but I'd wager there wasn't
anything the folks involved did that was any different than they did
routinely and had worked in the past.
"Stuff happens..."
That the end result ended up in a botched operation this time doesn't
infer intent.
--
--
Dave wrote:
> On Jun 18, 10:26 am, dpb<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Zz Yzx wrote:
>>> ... based on what I've gleaned from the news reports.
>>
>>> Analysis:
>>
>>> 1. To save time/$, they didn't ...
>>
>>> 2. To save time/$, they "hung" ...
>>
>>> 3. To save time/$, they used only ...
>>
>>> 4. To save time/$, they used ...
I haven't read all of the posts, forgive me for jumping in (I'll
probably be sorry). I think things are really not so complicated as
they seem--BP evidently takes a lot of calculated risks and is suffering
now what they call "a bad beat" in Poker. Since the company has finite
equity, it is likely mathematically-advantageous for the company to take
risks that might not be in the best interest of those outside of the
company (or to animals for instance!). It's a little reminiscent of
what went on in the world of finance in recent years. Nothing new under
the sun?
Bill
Zz Yzx wrote:
> Joe Barton should be hanged.
One guy tells the truth and you want him hanged?
Ali Obama and his corrupt administration (and socialist democrats in
general) get huge sums of money from BP so they can buy their elections.
In turn Obama gives BP passes to violate safety regs put in place to
prevent this shit, regulations that Haliburton cringes at and recommends
not to ignore, but Obama and BP ignore anyway.
Next, BP, whose safety records are so freaking bad even Leon, a rec
woodworker, not an oil muckity muck, or corrupt government hack, or
corrupt president, knows sucks the big one, fukks up everything and
begins to pollute the earth.
Then consider it was the corrupt government that forced them to drill
over a mile of sea water to begin with.
Then when the Obama administration doesn't lift a finger to reduce the
effects of the spill on the environment, other than to refuse help, for
example from the Norwegians who offered giant oil sucking ships, or fire
proof oil booms from a company in Connecticut, or give permission to
build sand barriers to keep the oil they refused to suck up from the
wetlands, you want to shoot some no name no one that managed to tell the
truth in public... Yeah, that makes sense...
--
Jack
Please don't tell Obama what comes after a Trillion!
http://jbstein.com
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b529a9c0-ba85-42e7-9157-1a056ad1d5bf@h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 21, 1:08 pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zz Yzx wrote:
> > Joe Barton should be hanged.
>
> One guy tells the truth and you want him hanged?
>
> Ali Obama and his corrupt administration (and socialist democrats in
> general) get huge sums of money from BP so they can buy their elections.
>
And the Bushes and Cheneys never took any oil money? Never bought
elections?
Do you have ANY idea how stupid you look?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/?ref=global-home
Robatoy wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>> Zz Yzx wrote:
>>> Joe Barton should be hanged.
>> One guy tells the truth and you want him hanged?
>>
>> Ali Obama and his corrupt administration (and socialist democrats in
>> general) get huge sums of money from BP so they can buy their elections.
> And the Bushes and Cheneys never took any oil money?
BP gave large dollars to the Obama campaign to get him elected. Bush
and Cheney were not even in the running, two term limit for Bush, you
idiot.
> Do you have ANY idea how stupid you look?
No, you seem to be the one stuck on stupid!
Bush is NOT in the picture, they received no money to run for election
because they were NOT in the running. It was the Obama regime that
issued the wavers to BP, not Bush. It is the Obama regime that threw
road blocks at early efforts to minimize the disastrous effects of their
wavers.
--
Jack
Got Change: Democratic Republic ======> Banana Republic!
http://jbstein.com
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>> Zz Yzx wrote:
>>> Joe Barton should be hanged.
>> One guy tells the truth and you want him hanged?
> Bottom line: there is no (zero, zip, zilch) constitutional authority for
> Obama to have done what he did in this instance. Yes, it was a shakedown,
> he had his Attorney General in the meeting essentially browbeating the CEO
> of BP into submission (BP CEO deserved it, he poured huge amounts of money
> into getting PBHO elected, so there is some karmic justice there). A sane
> legislative branch would be howling over this. PBHO acted as all three
> branches of government in this instance, providing the BP CEO with no legal
> recourse. Obama declared guilt, Obama assessed a fine, Obama directed how
> that fine would be paid, and who would oversee the disbursement of the fine
> (one of his non-congressionally approved czars). This is not even close to
> constitutional. Barton may have been somewhat clumsy in how he brought out
> the facts, but the fundamental issue of this event is not the fact that
> someone apologized for government overreach to a corporate executive, but
> that the president of the US is being given a pass for exercising power not
> vested in the office.
Well said and exactly right.
--
Jack
You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
http://jbstein.com
On 6/22/10 12:42 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 22, 11:11 am, Larry Jaques<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack Stein<[email protected]>
>> wrote the following:
>>
>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> You two would be much happier if you plonked each other.
>
> Ohw... just a little harmless needlin'. Jack is against same-sex
> marriage...as if they would BREED or something.
>
Is he from Texas?
:http://jaysays.com/2010/06/texas-gop-official-platform-calls-for-imprisonment-of-homosexuals-and-supportive-heterosexuals/
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 22, 11:11 am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
>> wrote the following:
>>
>>> Robatoy wrote:
>> You two would be much happier if you plonked each other.
>
> Ohw... just a little harmless needlin'. Jack is against same-sex
> marriage...as if they would BREED or something.
Non-breeders don't need no stinkin marriage!
>> Or got a room. ;)
>
> Naaa, that's more Jack's style. I like women too much to even
> entertain that idea.
So you claim, over and over. Perhaps your homophobic attitude is just a
cover... go figure!
--
Jack
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
http://jbstein.com
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:23:42 GMT, pete <[email protected]> wrote the
> following:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:
>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>> Jack Stein wrote:
>>>>> Zz Yzx wrote:
>>>>>> Joe Barton should be hanged.
>>>>> One guy tells the truth and you want him hanged?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ali Obama and his corrupt administration (and socialist democrats in
>>>>> general) get huge sums of money from BP so they can buy their
>>>>> elections.
>>>
>>>> And the Bushes and Cheneys never took any oil money?
>>>
>>> BP gave large dollars to the Obama campaign to get him elected.
>>
>>Heh, heh. I bet they won't make *that* mistake next time.
>
> I hope nobody else does in the future, either. Can we even survive
> this -one- reign of terror?
This year there is an opportunity to render them toothless. Vote out the
Careerists.
Steve wrote:
> On 2010-06-23 09:53:47 -0400, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
> said:
>
>> I hope nobody else does in the future, either. Can we even survive
>> this -one- reign of terror?
>
> Since we survived two of the Chimpster, I have faith in human resiliency.
Tell that to the over 100,000,000 murdered by the socialist bastards
over the past 100 years. They haven't bounced back much.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
--
Jack
Obama Care...Freedom not Included!
http://jbstein.com
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>How do you justify the taking of the company from its lawful owners and giving
>it to another?
>
>>They ran the whole thing into the ground so it had no real value,
>
>A lie. Even so, how do you justify the taking, without due process?
There was due process. It's called bankruptcy. The lawful owners lose their
ownership of the company and the company is broken up and sold off or the
creditors get ownership of the company in place of their loans to the company.
It happens every day.
The case of GM is politically hot because the major creditors were the US
government and the UAW. The UAW was a major creditor through the health care
restructuring that was done in 2006 or so. The government was a major creditor
because GM came, hat in hand, via private jet, to get a bail out loan late in
2008.
GM was unable to meet the terms of those loans and so was forced into
bankruptcy. They had a net worth of minus $82.29 billion dollars according to
their March 31, 2009 SEC filing. See
http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40730/000119312509105365/d10q.htm#toc85756_4
You can also see a discussion of the government loan terms and GM's bankruptcy
plans in anticipation of their failure to meet those terms. I'd be a little
slower with the term "lie" . The company was less than worthless.
-- Doug
ChairMan wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> Jack Stein <[email protected]>spewed forth:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Jun 22, 11:11 am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack Stein
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote the following:
>>>>
>>>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>> You two would be much happier if you plonked each other.
>>> Ohw... just a little harmless needlin'. Jack is against same-sex
>>> marriage...as if they would BREED or something.
>> Non-breeders don't need no stinkin marriage!
> Sure they do, they deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us<g>
That's just plain mean!:-)
--
Jack
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.
http://jbstein.com
Robert Haar wrote:
> On 6/24/10 12:44 PM, "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tell that to the over 100,000,000 murdered by the socialist bastards
>> over the past 100 years. They haven't bounced back much.
>>
>> http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
>>
>
> Are you saying that socialism and communism are the same thing?
All communists are socialists.
Are you saying communists are not socialists?
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
http://jbstein.com
[email protected] wrote:
> On Jun 25, 9:33 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robert Haar wrote:
>>> On 6/24/10 12:44 PM, "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Tell that to the over 100,000,000 murdered by the socialist bastards
>>>> over the past 100 years. They haven't bounced back much.
>>>> http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
>>> Are you saying that socialism and communism are the same thing?
>> Well, yeah. They differ only on the margins.
>>
>> "Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and
>> services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and
>> planned by a centralized organization. Socialism asserts that the
>> distribution should take place according to the amount of individuals'
>> production efforts, however, while communism asserts that that goods and
>> services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals'
>> needs." [In socialism, a doctor earns more than a common laborer; under
>> Communism, they earn the pretty much the same.]
>>
>> A socialist economy has room for small amounts of capitalism; a Communist
>> society does not allow ANY private economic transactions.
>
> Close, though there are differing lines that can be drawn. Socialism
> is an economic system where the state owns the means of production.
> Under communism there is no private property, even yourself.
Close but socialism is an economic system where a strong, centralized
government *controls* the means of production, communism is the same
except they also *own* the means of production. Other than that, they
are identical, and always fall on there collective faces compared to an
economic system where the individual rules, and owns and controls the
means of production.
Whilst falling on their collective faces, they have murdered 100's of
millions of people that seem to get in the way of their quest for
absolute power.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
--
Jack
Got Change: God Bless America ======> God Damn Amerika!
http://jbstein.com
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:09:34 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Jun 27, 12:03 pm, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jun 27, 11:26 am, "[email protected]"
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Owning the means of production => owning the people. They are slaves to the
>> >> state.
>>
>> >Everybody who works 6 months out of the year to pay for their taxes
>> >(Accumulative taxes, sales, income, property etc) is a fukkin slave.
>>
>> At least you admit that you're in favor of enslaving others for your gain.
>>
>> >You want to live here? You suck the government's dick, no matter who
>> >is in power. The big difference is that liberals kill babies, the
>> >right-wing nutbars wait till they're 18.
>>
>> Spoken like the clueless jerk you are.
>
>Ouch! Coming from that means...well....nothing.
No brain, no pain.
On Jun 27, 12:14=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:09:34 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <[email protected]=
m>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 27, 12:03 pm, "[email protected]"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy <counterfit...@gmail=
.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jun 27, 11:26 am, "[email protected]"
> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> Owning the means of production =3D> owning the people. They are sla=
ves to the
> >> >> state.
>
> >> >Everybody who works 6 months out of the year to pay for their taxes
> >> >(Accumulative taxes, sales, income, property etc) is a fukkin slave.
>
> >> At least you admit that you're in favor of enslaving others for your g=
ain.
>
> >> >You want to live here? You suck the government's dick, no matter who
> >> >is in power. The big difference is that liberals kill babies, the
> >> >right-wing nutbars wait till they're 18.
>
> >> Spoken like the clueless jerk you are.
>
> >Ouch! Coming from that means...well....nothing.
>
> No brain, no pain.
The Tylenol people won't be making any money off you then.
"Scritch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> "Zz Yzx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> What are your thoughts on the Catastrophe possibility put forth: that
>> the sea bottom will collapse (due to the BOP falling over) in the
>> immediate vicinity of the well and cause a tsunami - among other
>> cataclysmic issues?
>>
>
> The well is about 18,000 feet deep below the seabed. It's highly unlikely
> that 18,000 feet of rock will suddenly collapse into a previously oil-
> filled void. Remember, the oil is being forced out by pressure. This
> pressure has to come from somewhere, and is most likely the surrounding
> rock slowly compressing the reservoir. As the reservoir empties, the rock
> will slowly settle into the available space.
>
> What is maybe more likely, in addition to general poisoning of the Gulf
> ecosystem, is that the water temperature in the Gulf will rise to a point
> where the methane hydrates thaw out, releasing untold quantities of
> methane, a potent greenhouse gas, not to mention toxic to most life,
> resulting in mass extinction on a global level. Sounds like fun?
Hadn't thought about the hydrates! Ever read "Swarm"?
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:00:36 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>When are you going to grow a sense of humour?
He's not mentally capable of it.
Robatoy wrote:
> "BP engineers planned to shut off pipes that are already funneling
> some oil to two ships, to see how the cap handles the pressure of the
> crude coming up from the ground. Then they planned to close, one by
> one, three valves that let oil pass through the cap."
> Got to catch a few more dollars worth of oil, before turning off the
> spigot, eh?
Why should they turn off the spigot?
So you fascist Canadians can control more of the oil market?
--
Jack
Got Change: And the Change SUCKS!
http://www2.nationalreview.com/video/video_homie_051410_B.html
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> They would like to make that naughty well pay for the clean-up.
How would you like them to pay for it, fire up a printing press?
What a Maroon!
> And as far as that pinprick in the earth's crust is concerned? That's
BP uses a well-proven tactic by using fear so that the
> population can applaud them when they finally triumph over this
> leak...but they want to keep the oil too.
No, they want to sell the oil, and I want to buy it.
> BP has only one motive. ONE only. It is called money.
BP is a corporation owned by millions of stockholders, many of them
pensioners and pension funds. Their primary motive is money, but only a
douche-nozzle would think thats their only motive.
They will say,
> do, promise anything with a straight face to get things their way, and
> considering the political connections those oil people have, they have
> a great pool of PR resources to draw from; the Republicans who have a
> bit of experience in that (Iraq) sort of thing.
BP supported the communist Obama regime with big money contributions.
Your wild eyed fixation with blame republicans is plain stupid.
> I wonder which BP department is busier these days. Public Relations or
> Engineering.
Looks like Obama and BP are more concerned with PR in that the first 2
months of the spill were spent blocking every effort to minimize
environmental damage from the spill in a sickeningly obvious attempt to
push the socialist green movement that was seriously damaged when the
global warming fraud was exposed. About all the fucker did was attempt
to ban all drilling in the gulf rather than cleanup the mess.
--
Jack
From Little A.C.O.R.N.S Mighty Marxist Grow!
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 15, 8:22 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> So, the headline being written, just in time for elections: " Obama's
>>> skillful handling of the situation allowed BP to save the day and
>>> humanity."
>> Yeah, thats the headline alright....
> When are you going to grow a sense of humour?
Mea Culpa.
I notice the bammer meister has now included himself in stopping the
leak and pressure testing the cap. Even a maroon like yourself should
recognize how your humor attempt would conflict with the bammers delusions.
He should be in jail for blocking every effort to minimize the
environmental damage caused by the spill. If I didn't give him credit
for being one of the dumbest humans on earth, I'd give him credit for
causing the spill itself to further his cap and tax bullshit agenda.
--
Jack
Got Change: More Unemployment! More Debt! More Fraud! Less Freedom!
http://www2.nationalreview.com/video/video_homie_051410_B.html
http://jbstein.com
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FORGOT THE FUCKING LIST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
OH WHAT A LOUD HOLIDAY I HAD
NOW I JUST NEED A PILL TO GET MY VOICE BACK.
THE BOX IS WEDGED SOMEWHERE CLOSE TO MY ASS
EACH TIME I SHIT I SPEAK.
I SHIT A LOOOOOOOOOOOOT!
THE LIST:
ME as [email protected]
ME as [email protected]
ME as [email protected]
ME as [email protected]
ME as [email protected]
ME as [email protected]
ME as [email protected]
ME as [email protected]
ME as [email protected]
ME as [email protected]
ME as [email protected]
ME as [email protected]
ME as [email protected]
ME as [email protected]
ME as [email protected]
GET THE PICTURE YOU SAPS!!!!!
READ MY BIO AND GET TO LIKE ME!
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.solar.photovoltaic/msg/a57dda4e6757f15c?hl=en
>It's unlikely imo that any decisions were made expressly for the purpose
>of shaving corners; that there may have been poor judgment or even
>engineering mistakes is quite possible but I'd wager there wasn't
>anything the folks involved did that was any different than they did
>routinely and had worked in the past.
You're stupid and you don't know who was in a position to make the
disasterous decisions. The BP company man and the TransOcean tool
pusher, BOTH ON THE RIG, under pressure from their respective
management, made the decisions. THe BP CEO or any other upper
management, who control the "muli-million dollar decisons", were never
in the loop. The shortcuts saved them 3 days, at $1,000,000 day,
that's a lot of savings for the level employees that made the
disasterous decisions.
I'll wager that, of the things the OP listed in the post, all or most
differed from previous wells. And I'll wager that the decision making
process was flawed and influenced by the cost savings, especially
becasue they already a month or more behind.
It will come out in the criminal trials.
-Zz
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote the following:
>Robatoy wrote:
You two would be much happier if you plonked each other.
Or got a room. ;)
--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> Jack Stein wrote:
>>> Zz Yzx wrote:
>>>> Joe Barton should be hanged.
>>> One guy tells the truth and you want him hanged?
>>>
>>> Ali Obama and his corrupt administration (and socialist democrats in
>>> general) get huge sums of money from BP so they can buy their elections.
>
>> And the Bushes and Cheneys never took any oil money?
>
> BP gave large dollars to the Obama campaign to get him elected.
Heh, heh. I bet they won't make *that* mistake next time.
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:17:48 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>>>> A socialist economy has room for small amounts of capitalism; a Communist
>>>>> society does not allow ANY private economic transactions.
>
>>>> Close, though there are differing lines that can be drawn. Socialism
>>>> is an economic system where the state owns the means of production.
>>>> Under communism there is no private property, even yourself.
>
>>> Close but socialism is an economic system where a strong, centralized
>>> government *controls* the means of production, communism is the same
>>> except they also *own* the means of production.
>
>> Not buying that distinction. Ownership == control.
>
>Sounds good but not true.
It certainly is true.
>For example, you can own a pool room and the
>government can regulate and tax you to the point you have little or no
>control. They can ban smoking for example, a perfectly legal activity.
Banning smoking is not an example of *no* control. Smoking crack is also
illegal, BTW. This is a continuum. Yes, we are losing control of our lives,
but as we do we're also losing ownership of ourselves as government takes
over.
> You can own a car company, like I, and my pension fund owned GM at one
>time. The government through regulation and taxing policy can control
>how it is managed, or, you can have a communist bastard like Obama steal
>it from you, and now the government both owns and controls it. Hitler
>for example totally controlled the means of production in socialist NAZI
>Germany, yet businesses were privately owned.
You no longer own Government Motors, so my point stands.
>I do understand your point, and socialism and communism are so close to
>the same thing it is not worth the argument, like peanut butter and
>chunky peanut butter.
No, there is a difference, but mostly in magnitude.
>Anyway, every single last one of the 100 million killed by the red
>bastards were killed by socialists, of that, there is no debate. I
>guess there is a reason the color of socialism is red.
Socialism is as socialism does. There can be no exceptions.
<...>
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:17:48 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>>>> A socialist economy has room for small amounts of capitalism; a Communist
>>>>>> society does not allow ANY private economic transactions.
>>>>> Close, though there are differing lines that can be drawn. Socialism
>>>>> is an economic system where the state owns the means of production.
>>>>> Under communism there is no private property, even yourself.
>>>> Close but socialism is an economic system where a strong, centralized
>>>> government *controls* the means of production, communism is the same
>>>> except they also *own* the means of production.
>>> Not buying that distinction. Ownership == control.
>> Sounds good but not true.
> It certainly is true.
>> For example, you can own a pool room and the
>> government can regulate and tax you to the point you have little or no
>> control. They can ban smoking for example, a perfectly legal activity.
> Banning smoking is not an example of *no* control.
Having no authority to allow smoking is not an example of having control.
Smoking crack is also
> illegal, BTW. This is a continuum. Yes, we are losing control of our lives,
> but as we do we're also losing ownership of ourselves as government takes
> over.
Yes, but controlling the means of production does not mean you own the
means of production.
>> You can own a car company, like I, and my pension fund owned GM at one
>> time. The government through regulation and taxing policy can control
>> how it is managed, or, you can have a communist bastard like Obama steal
>> it from you, and now the government both owns and controls it. Hitler
>> for example totally controlled the means of production in socialist NAZI
>> Germany, yet businesses were privately owned.
> You no longer own Government Motors, so my point stands.
The obama regime owning GM is an example of communism, not simply
socialism, so my point also stands.
>> I do understand your point, and socialism and communism are so close to
>> the same thing it is not worth the argument, like peanut butter and
>> chunky peanut butter.
>
> No, there is a difference, but mostly in magnitude.
Yes, like peanut butter and chunky peanut butter, there is a difference,
but they are both peanut butter. Communism and socialism are both
socialism, but communism is socialism with the chunks...
>
>> Anyway, every single last one of the 100 million killed by the red
>> bastards were killed by socialists, of that, there is no debate. I
>> guess there is a reason the color of socialism is red.
> Socialism is as socialism does. There can be no exceptions.
Yes, socialism is an economic system by which a strong, centralized
government controls the means of production, communism is socialism that
also owns the means of production... History has clearly shown you don't
want the red bastards to get their jack boots on your neck, over 100
million in the past 100 years could attest to that simple fact except
the red fukkers already killed them....
--
Jack
Mr. Geithner, May I Borrow Your TurboTax?
http://jbstein.com
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:30:37 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:56:30 -0500, basilisk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 05:36:25 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 14, 12:41 am, "<<<__ Bøb __>>>" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> "BP engineers planned to shut off pipes that are already funneling
>>>>> some oil to two ships, to see how the cap handles the pressure of
>>>>> the crude coming up from the ground. Then they planned to close, one
>>>>> by one, three valves that let oil pass through the cap."
>>>>
>>>>> Got to catch a few more dollars worth of oil, before turning off the
>>>>> spigot, eh?
>>>>
>>>> They have to stop the flow gradually .. if they slam it shut, it will
>>>> cause the world's largest case of "water hammer" and it could be
>>>> enough to blow a hole someplace in the earth's crust that could NEVER
>>>> be repaired.
>>>
>>> These are people who only care about 'yield'. Now their gold is
>>> flowing into the Gulf instead of their coffers. They truly don't give
>>> a rat's ass about the environment other than the fact that it affects
>>> their 'brand'. Yes, BP would like to stop the negative publicity but
>>> their true and main concern is to have their cake AND eat it too. They
>>> want to look good, but keep the oil as well. They would like to make
>>> that naughty well pay for the clean-up.
>>
>>Don't know about the rest of the country or Canada, but there are a lot
>>of BP stations in the South and in the last 3 weeks the larger BP logos
>>are disappearing from the stations. The only place the BP logo is left
>>is on the flourescent signs, I guess it takes longer to replace the
>>signs.
>
> Haven't seen any, though there's only a couple of BP stations in the
> county. I didn't see any fewer on the way to Atlanta last weekend, or
> Birmingham two weeks earlier.
Could be a local thing, I don't know if all the stations in my area
are owned by one entity or not.
>
>>> And as far as that pinprick in the earth's crust is concerned? That's
>>> like worrying about a hippo's bowels trying to ooze out through a
>>> mosquito bite. BP uses a well-proven tactic by using fear so that the
>>> population can applaud them when they finally triumph over this
>>> leak...but they want to keep the oil too.
>>
>>Might as well use it now that it is turned loose.
>>>
>>> BP has only one motive. ONE only. It is called money. They will say,
>>> do, promise anything with a straight face to get things their way, and
>>> considering the political connections those oil people have, they have
>>> a great pool of PR resources to draw from; the Republicans who have a
>>> bit of experience in that (Iraq) sort of thing.
>>
>>I personally don't care if BP survives as a viable company or not (it
>>will). However, hopefully they can be forced into supporting those most
>>affected and cleaning up at least part of the spill.
>
> I hope they do. I'd rather not have one fewer competitor.
>
>>> I wonder which BP department is busier these days. Public Relations or
>>> Engineering.
>>
>>I would bet there is more sweating and hand wringing in the PR
>>department.
>>
>>Alabama has more pressing problems than greasy beaches, starving
>>fishermen and a shut down tourist industry, we have bingo wars.
>
> I don't know how the "bingo" parlors stayed open as long as they did.
> I've only been here a couple of years, but obviously the entire state is
> corrupt.