Discussion:
Deepwater Oil Spill - Oh Shit...
(too old to reply)
Winfield Hill
2010-06-18 14:04:53 UTC
Permalink
If you like, a little background.
An Introduction to Drilling Offshore Oil Wells
http://www.treesfullofmoney.com/?p=1610

What's really going on with BP's well head?
The Deepwater Oil Spill - Oh Shit...

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967
"stuck with a wide open gusher blowing out
150,000 barrels a day of raw oil or more."

I also found the comments interesting. There
has been very little about this in the press.
Here's one story, is it the only one?
Could Damaged Oil Well Casing Lead to Underwater Tar Pit?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20006706-10391695.html


--
Thanks,
- Win
amdx
2010-06-18 15:30:34 UTC
Permalink
"Winfield Hill" <***@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> If you like, a little background.
> An Introduction to Drilling Offshore Oil Wells
> http://www.treesfullofmoney.com/?p=1610
>
> What's really going on with BP's well head?
> The Deepwater Oil Spill - Oh Shit...
>
> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967
> "stuck with a wide open gusher blowing out
> 150,000 barrels a day of raw oil or more."
>
> I also found the comments interesting. There
> has been very little about this in the press.
> Here's one story, is it the only one?
> Could Damaged Oil Well Casing Lead to Underwater Tar Pit?
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20006706-10391695.html
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> - Win
One thought about the cracks in the well casing, the casing is open at
the top,
this would make me think most of the oil is flowing from the top of the
casing and
not flowing into the geological formation.
Once the relief wells are drilled and they can relieve the flow from the
original well
they should be able to seal the casing with concrete and stop any flow from
cracks
in the casing. But that's just thinking from someone in the seafood business
on the
gulf coast.

This mornings newspaper headline "Significant oil 32 miles away"

Did you watch this 60 minutes video?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml
It is in two parts on left side of page, part one is how the chief
electronics technician
heard the problem and saved his life, part two is what he saw in the weeks
before
the explosion. I was locked on this when it first aired. Strange to me I
have not seen
any other media relate the same info.
Mike
PS. I'm not happy that the government strong armed $20 billion from BP. This
only made BP
weaker financially. If BP stays strong they can continue to earn $10 to $25
billion each year
for the next 10 years and pay for the cleanup. If the government continues
to talk BP down
and they go bankrupt, the bill will be on the taxpayers shoulders.
I had more faith hat BP would pay for any losses I may have than the federal
government.
StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
2010-06-18 15:57:41 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:30:34 -0500, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:

>
>"Winfield Hill" <***@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
>>
>> If you like, a little background.
>> An Introduction to Drilling Offshore Oil Wells
>> http://www.treesfullofmoney.com/?p=1610
>>
>> What's really going on with BP's well head?
>> The Deepwater Oil Spill - Oh Shit...
>>
>> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967
>> "stuck with a wide open gusher blowing out
>> 150,000 barrels a day of raw oil or more."
>>
>> I also found the comments interesting. There
>> has been very little about this in the press.
>> Here's one story, is it the only one?
>> Could Damaged Oil Well Casing Lead to Underwater Tar Pit?
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20006706-10391695.html
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> - Win
> One thought about the cracks in the well casing, the casing is open at
>the top,
>this would make me think most of the oil is flowing from the top of the
>casing and
>not flowing into the geological formation.
> Once the relief wells are drilled and they can relieve the flow from the
>original well
>they should be able to seal the casing with concrete and stop any flow from
>cracks
>in the casing. But that's just thinking from someone in the seafood business
>on the
>gulf coast.
>
>This mornings newspaper headline "Significant oil 32 miles away"
>
> Did you watch this 60 minutes video?
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml
>It is in two parts on left side of page, part one is how the chief
>electronics technician
>heard the problem and saved his life, part two is what he saw in the weeks
>before
>the explosion. I was locked on this when it first aired. Strange to me I
>have not seen
>any other media relate the same info.
> Mike
>PS. I'm not happy that the government strong armed $20 billion from BP. This
>only made BP
>weaker financially. If BP stays strong they can continue to earn $10 to $25
>billion each year
>for the next 10 years and pay for the cleanup. If the government continues
>to talk BP down
>and they go bankrupt, the bill will be on the taxpayers shoulders.
>I had more faith hat BP would pay for any losses I may have than the federal
>government.
>
>
Unlike with FEMA and the Katria claims fiasco, BP was paying claims
from day one!

I wish folks would stop relying on incomplete, sensationalized new
services' reports.

Nobody here can tell me what BP did on day one.

I SAY that they mobilized efforts immediately. Large assets take time
to move, and these WERE on the move, or they would have arrived later
than they did.

I SAY that Washington was also right on it, because doing otherwise
would be a bad move, and he knew that.

Neither party called up ANY news agency and reported all the things that
they WERE doing.

Only dopey fucks among the citizenry draw conclusions based on the
obviously incomplete data set that the news is relying on to "inform" us.

I say, that the "information" is so badly distorted and incomplete,
they the new is largely responsible for ALL the downturns that the world
has suffered in the last decade!

Many of them get it wrong, despite all the information they have
sitting right in front of them. Many of them are so bad that they do not
even understand what they are reporting on.

In the past, producers caught the things I see, and made corrections.
These days, the producers are nearly as dumb as the reporters, because
they sit idly by.

Same exact thing happens in the LEO realm. NONE of the intelligent
cops point ANY fingers at the flood of absolutely retarded Nazi pigs they
have on their forces these days. So, even the intelligent ones are
guilty of crimes.

It should be a crime for an intelligent man to desire to work ion law
enforcement these days, when one notes all the abuse and lack of
punishment among their ranks.

NO, they are NOT "our finest". If they are, we are all in for a sad
century.

Essentially, this entire planet, and the entire species of man,
deserves nothing less than a rock 1/4 the size of the moon hitting us.

God, and the Lord should have done so a couple millennia ago.

He probably did, it just takes the rock a while to get here.

We deserve whatever calamities we get. Man has been so complacent in
so many places, and most are so goddamned sociocentric that there is
absolutely no hope that we will ever achieve a truly civil, free society.
amdx
2010-06-18 19:26:53 UTC
Permalink
"StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt" <***@thusspoke.org> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:30:34 -0500, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Winfield Hill" <***@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>> If you like, a little background.
>>> An Introduction to Drilling Offshore Oil Wells
>>> http://www.treesfullofmoney.com/?p=1610
>>>
>>> What's really going on with BP's well head?
>>> The Deepwater Oil Spill - Oh Shit...
>>>
>>> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967
>>> "stuck with a wide open gusher blowing out
>>> 150,000 barrels a day of raw oil or more."
>>>
>>> I also found the comments interesting. There
>>> has been very little about this in the press.
>>> Here's one story, is it the only one?
>>> Could Damaged Oil Well Casing Lead to Underwater Tar Pit?
>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20006706-10391695.html
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>> - Win
>> One thought about the cracks in the well casing, the casing is open at
>>the top,
>>this would make me think most of the oil is flowing from the top of the
>>casing and
>>not flowing into the geological formation.
>> Once the relief wells are drilled and they can relieve the flow from the
>>original well
>>they should be able to seal the casing with concrete and stop any flow
>>from
>>cracks
>>in the casing. But that's just thinking from someone in the seafood
>>business
>>on the
>>gulf coast.
>>
>>This mornings newspaper headline "Significant oil 32 miles away"
>>
>> Did you watch this 60 minutes video?
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml
>>It is in two parts on left side of page, part one is how the chief
>>electronics technician
>>heard the problem and saved his life, part two is what he saw in the weeks
>>before
>>the explosion. I was locked on this when it first aired. Strange to me I
>>have not seen
>>any other media relate the same info.
>> Mike
>>PS. I'm not happy that the government strong armed $20 billion from BP.
>>This
>>only made BP
>>weaker financially. If BP stays strong they can continue to earn $10 to
>>$25
>>billion each year
>>for the next 10 years and pay for the cleanup. If the government continues
>>to talk BP down
>>and they go bankrupt, the bill will be on the taxpayers shoulders.
>>I had more faith hat BP would pay for any losses I may have than the
>>federal
>>government.
>>
>>
> Unlike with FEMA and the Katria claims fiasco, BP was paying claims
> from day one!
>
> I wish folks would stop relying on incomplete, sensationalized new
> services' reports.
>
> Nobody here can tell me what BP did on day one.
>
I'm confused by what you said, I can't tell if you think BP was
spreading money out quickly or not. Here in PC, Fl. money was
flowing 6 or 8 weeks before the oil was here, and it still is not
on our beaches. From my perspective it looks like lot's of money
is being spent. My business is still doing well, but the writing is
on the wall, "The end is near"
I just hope BP still has assets if/when I start to have loses.
Mike
Archimedes' Lever
2010-06-18 19:48:27 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:26:53 -0500, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:

>
>"StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt" <***@thusspoke.org> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:30:34 -0500, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Winfield Hill" <***@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>>news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>>
>>>> If you like, a little background.
>>>> An Introduction to Drilling Offshore Oil Wells
>>>> http://www.treesfullofmoney.com/?p=1610
>>>>
>>>> What's really going on with BP's well head?
>>>> The Deepwater Oil Spill - Oh Shit...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967
>>>> "stuck with a wide open gusher blowing out
>>>> 150,000 barrels a day of raw oil or more."
>>>>
>>>> I also found the comments interesting. There
>>>> has been very little about this in the press.
>>>> Here's one story, is it the only one?
>>>> Could Damaged Oil Well Casing Lead to Underwater Tar Pit?
>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20006706-10391695.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> - Win
>>> One thought about the cracks in the well casing, the casing is open at
>>>the top,
>>>this would make me think most of the oil is flowing from the top of the
>>>casing and
>>>not flowing into the geological formation.
>>> Once the relief wells are drilled and they can relieve the flow from the
>>>original well
>>>they should be able to seal the casing with concrete and stop any flow
>>>from
>>>cracks
>>>in the casing. But that's just thinking from someone in the seafood
>>>business
>>>on the
>>>gulf coast.
>>>
>>>This mornings newspaper headline "Significant oil 32 miles away"
>>>
>>> Did you watch this 60 minutes video?
>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml
>>>It is in two parts on left side of page, part one is how the chief
>>>electronics technician
>>>heard the problem and saved his life, part two is what he saw in the weeks
>>>before
>>>the explosion. I was locked on this when it first aired. Strange to me I
>>>have not seen
>>>any other media relate the same info.
>>> Mike
>>>PS. I'm not happy that the government strong armed $20 billion from BP.
>>>This
>>>only made BP
>>>weaker financially. If BP stays strong they can continue to earn $10 to
>>>$25
>>>billion each year
>>>for the next 10 years and pay for the cleanup. If the government continues
>>>to talk BP down
>>>and they go bankrupt, the bill will be on the taxpayers shoulders.
>>>I had more faith hat BP would pay for any losses I may have than the
>>>federal
>>>government.
>>>
>>>
>> Unlike with FEMA and the Katria claims fiasco, BP was paying claims
>> from day one!
>>
>> I wish folks would stop relying on incomplete, sensationalized new
>> services' reports.
>>
>> Nobody here can tell me what BP did on day one.
>>
> I'm confused by what you said, I can't tell if you think BP was
>spreading money out quickly or not. Here in PC, Fl. money was
>flowing 6 or 8 weeks before the oil was here, and it still is not
>on our beaches. From my perspective it looks like lot's of money
>is being spent. My business is still doing well, but the writing is
>on the wall, "The end is near"
>I just hope BP still has assets if/when I start to have loses.
> Mike
>

I am saying that they mobilized ships immediately. It was in their best
interests to do so. They have exactly zero reasons to have done
otherwise.

They also began paying claims immediately once received, though I am not
sure what their validation criteria has been.

What this whole thing is mostly indicative of is just how gullible, and
suggestion compliant most folks are these days. They see some crap on
the news and write it down in stone in their heads as fact.

They suffer the same delusion regarding cops and believing their
horseshit that they are all truth sayers and beyond reproach.

They are beyond reproach, but is an artificial cloak, when one
considers that they do commit crimes. Sum ting wong.

This country has taken big steps backward in their educational prowess.
Too much discipline tells me that we should go back to gender segregated
paradigms. Then maybe we can begin to give kids back their morals and
values, and actually give them years of education instead of years of
consternation.

We should be disciplining the governments and the cops. THEY are the
ones that still eat steak 3 nights a week in this country. THEY are the
ones that never suffer during an economic downturn because they are the
ones that have succeeded in re-creating yet another failed democracy due
to abject fucking greed.

The folks running this country deserve nothing less than a monster
smack down by someone that actually knows what is going on in the big
picture.

They are damaging this country, and that will subsequently damage all
the progress we have made of the centuries toward making the world
poverty free, red, and properly governed.

It was a nice try, but unless you guys put someone up there to kick
some lame politician ass, we will NEVER recover from the spiral they are
currently trying to shove us over the event horizon of.
amdx
2010-06-18 21:09:02 UTC
Permalink
"Archimedes' Lever" <***@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:26:53 -0500, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt" <***@thusspoke.org> wrote in
>>message
>>news:***@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:30:34 -0500, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Winfield Hill" <***@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> If you like, a little background.
>>>>> An Introduction to Drilling Offshore Oil Wells
>>>>> http://www.treesfullofmoney.com/?p=1610
>>>>>
>>>>> What's really going on with BP's well head?
>>>>> The Deepwater Oil Spill - Oh Shit...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967
>>>>> "stuck with a wide open gusher blowing out
>>>>> 150,000 barrels a day of raw oil or more."
>>>>>
>>>>> I also found the comments interesting. There
>>>>> has been very little about this in the press.
>>>>> Here's one story, is it the only one?
>>>>> Could Damaged Oil Well Casing Lead to Underwater Tar Pit?
>>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20006706-10391695.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> - Win
>>>> One thought about the cracks in the well casing, the casing is open
>>>> at
>>>>the top,
>>>>this would make me think most of the oil is flowing from the top of the
>>>>casing and
>>>>not flowing into the geological formation.
>>>> Once the relief wells are drilled and they can relieve the flow from
>>>> the
>>>>original well
>>>>they should be able to seal the casing with concrete and stop any flow
>>>>from
>>>>cracks
>>>>in the casing. But that's just thinking from someone in the seafood
>>>>business
>>>>on the
>>>>gulf coast.
>>>>
>>>>This mornings newspaper headline "Significant oil 32 miles away"
>>>>
>>>> Did you watch this 60 minutes video?
>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml
>>>>It is in two parts on left side of page, part one is how the chief
>>>>electronics technician
>>>>heard the problem and saved his life, part two is what he saw in the
>>>>weeks
>>>>before
>>>>the explosion. I was locked on this when it first aired. Strange to me I
>>>>have not seen
>>>>any other media relate the same info.
>>>> Mike
>>>>PS. I'm not happy that the government strong armed $20 billion from BP.
>>>>This
>>>>only made BP
>>>>weaker financially. If BP stays strong they can continue to earn $10 to
>>>>$25
>>>>billion each year
>>>>for the next 10 years and pay for the cleanup. If the government
>>>>continues
>>>>to talk BP down
>>>>and they go bankrupt, the bill will be on the taxpayers shoulders.
>>>>I had more faith hat BP would pay for any losses I may have than the
>>>>federal
>>>>government.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Unlike with FEMA and the Katria claims fiasco, BP was paying claims
>>> from day one!
>>>
>>> I wish folks would stop relying on incomplete, sensationalized new
>>> services' reports.
>>>
>>> Nobody here can tell me what BP did on day one.
>>>
>> I'm confused by what you said, I can't tell if you think BP was
>>spreading money out quickly or not. Here in PC, Fl. money was
>>flowing 6 or 8 weeks before the oil was here, and it still is not
>>on our beaches. From my perspective it looks like lot's of money
>>is being spent. My business is still doing well, but the writing is
>>on the wall, "The end is near"
>>I just hope BP still has assets if/when I start to have loses.
>> Mike
>>
>
> I am saying that they mobilized ships immediately. It was in their best
> interests to do so. They have exactly zero reasons to have done
> otherwise.
>
> They also began paying claims immediately once received, though I am not
> sure what their validation criteria has been.
>
Ok you and I are on the same page.
When the office first opened up in P.C. Beach Fl. the criteria was nill.
I know of one lazy bum that got his first check for $2,500 to cover losses,
the guy didn't earn $5,000 all last year, he didn't have losses. His
welfare,
food stamp collecting girl friend collected $1,000. Both are fraudulent but
at least he did clean a few fish last year. She had no income except from
the taxpayers. It is time for their next check, may have already got it.
Next were the shrimpers, no oil, plenty of shrimp, price is up, but many
owners went and got $5,000 and the deckhands $2,500, but they actually
had more income. To be fair some of the shrimpers and fishermen deserve
to get checks, as their fishing/shrimping grounds are contaminated and they
have lost income and a way of life. And then there are some that got their
check and continue to fish.
Here's an article in my local paper that illustrates the high pay BP is
giving.
http://www.newsherald.com/news/checks-84528-apalachicola-compensation.html

I have been on a rant the last week, don't know if you noticed any of my
posts
but here is a letter I sent out regarding the BP $20 billion escrow fund. It
was
to little to late.

Dear Senator,

My wife and I have a small store where we have been selling shrimp from for
11 years. Our store is actually a boat in St. Andrews Marina. Everyday
fishermen hired by BP are going out in search of oil. I see 30 to 50 boats
leave every morning. Many (it should be most*) of these are fishermen that
have lost there means of making a living. BP has hired them and is paying
them well. At this time we have no oil in Panama City.

MY FIRST POINT, don't do anything that will affect the financial viability
of BP. You should encourage purchase of BP fuel, you need to keep BP healthy
so the stock price can rise, this makes BP stronger so it can continue to
pay cleanup crews and claims.

I am on this marina everyday and I know most of the fishermen, the fisherman
are thrilled with the pay from BP.

A small boat of 20ft gets $1000 dollars day, This is $250,000 a year for a 5
day work week. Fuel and supplies are paid by BP. The larger the boat the
higher the pay, $3000 a day is the highest I have heard. That's $750,000 a
year, and the expenses are paid. Deckhands are getting $200 dollars a day,
that is $50,000 a year. Most of these deckhands never saw $20,000 a year in
there life.

The pay is so high that the shrimpers are stopping shrimping and going to
work for BP, on oil patrol. The same is happening in Apalachicola Fl, (about
100 miles SE of me) the oyster capitol of this area. Our local oyster bar
had to find a new source for oysters, his oystermen went to work for BP.

A quote from our local newspaper,

"APALACHICOLA - With compensation checks easily available, oystering has
slowed to a crawl on Apalachicola Bay. ...Seafood houses across the county
say they are able to obtain barely 10 percent of their normal allotment of
oysters. There are plenty of oysters. ( just know one to harvest them)

Same with Apalachicola shrimpers, There is no oil and plenty of shrimp.

Panama City Beach is a tourist area, when the oil gets here the thousands of
hotel rooms will not have tourists, the housekeepers won't have work, the
restaurants won't have customers and waitresses tips will dwindle. All
business will be affected. Real estate is already greatly affected, people
don't want to buy with oil coming and some know prices will be lower in 3 or
4 months.

Now back to my situation, for the last 7 years we have been open 10 hrs a
day, 7 days a week, 363 days a year.

We will continue working until we can't. The plan was 7 to 10 more years,
now I don't know if it will be one more month or one more year. At this
point I am confident BP will pay for any losses that I may have in the
future, but they need to continue to be financially strong.

I'm sure you're aware that the BP stock price is down 44% since the spill
started. This means they have lost 73 billion in market capitalization. It
is time to help the company recover rather than do anything that could
affect the price further.

Many retirees rely on BP dividends for retirement income. If you push the
idea to create an escrow fund and cause the dividend to be unpaid, this will
lower the stock price, further weakening the company. Without those
dividends the retirees will find other stocks to get there income**.

This could cause BP to fail.

If you allow BP to stay strong, the 15 to 20 billion dollars of profit they
generate every year will be more

than enough to pay cleanup and claims.

Please stay focused on the unintended consequences of creating an escrow
fund.

Sincerely,

Mike Knowlton

**Recreational fisherman are jumping on this gravy train, it should have
been commercial

fishermen first. Retirees are supplementing their retirement with their
recreational fishing boat.





** ( starting with 44% less money)
Paul E. Schoen
2010-06-18 22:55:16 UTC
Permalink
"amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote in message
news:8374e$4c1be0c1$18d66003$***@KNOLOGY.NET...
>
> Ok you and I are on the same page.
> When the office first opened up in P.C. Beach Fl. the criteria was nill.
> I know of one lazy bum that got his first check for $2,500 to cover
> losses,
> the guy didn't earn $5,000 all last year, he didn't have losses. His
> welfare,
> food stamp collecting girl friend collected $1,000. Both are fraudulent
> but
> at least he did clean a few fish last year. She had no income except from
> the taxpayers. It is time for their next check, may have already got it.
> Next were the shrimpers, no oil, plenty of shrimp, price is up, but many
> owners went and got $5,000 and the deckhands $2,500, but they actually
> had more income. To be fair some of the shrimpers and fishermen deserve
> to get checks, as their fishing/shrimping grounds are contaminated and
> they
> have lost income and a way of life. And then there are some that got their
> check and continue to fish.
> Here's an article in my local paper that illustrates the high pay BP is
> giving.
> http://www.newsherald.com/news/checks-84528-apalachicola-compensation.html
>
> I have been on a rant the last week, don't know if you noticed any of my
> posts but here is a letter I sent out regarding the BP $20 billion escrow
> fund. It was to little to late.
>
> Dear Senator,
>
> My wife and I have a small store where we have been selling shrimp from
> for
> 11 years. Our store is actually a boat in St. Andrews Marina. Everyday
> fishermen hired by BP are going out in search of oil. I see 30 to 50 boats
> leave every morning. Many (it should be most*) of these are fishermen that
> have lost there means of making a living. BP has hired them and is paying
> them well. At this time we have no oil in Panama City.
>
> MY FIRST POINT, don't do anything that will affect the financial viability
> of BP. You should encourage purchase of BP fuel, you need to keep BP
> healthy
> so the stock price can rise, this makes BP stronger so it can continue to
> pay cleanup crews and claims.
>
> I am on this marina everyday and I know most of the fishermen, the
> fisherman
> are thrilled with the pay from BP.
>
> A small boat of 20ft gets $1000 dollars day, This is $250,000 a year for a
> 5
> day work week. Fuel and supplies are paid by BP. The larger the boat the
> higher the pay, $3000 a day is the highest I have heard. That's $750,000 a
> year, and the expenses are paid. Deckhands are getting $200 dollars a day,
> that is $50,000 a year. Most of these deckhands never saw $20,000 a year
> in
> there life.
>
> The pay is so high that the shrimpers are stopping shrimping and going to
> work for BP, on oil patrol. The same is happening in Apalachicola Fl,
> (about
> 100 miles SE of me) the oyster capitol of this area. Our local oyster bar
> had to find a new source for oysters, his oystermen went to work for BP.
>
> A quote from our local newspaper,
>
> "APALACHICOLA - With compensation checks easily available, oystering has
> slowed to a crawl on Apalachicola Bay. ...Seafood houses across the county
> say they are able to obtain barely 10 percent of their normal allotment of
> oysters. There are plenty of oysters. ( just know one to harvest them)
>
> Same with Apalachicola shrimpers, There is no oil and plenty of shrimp.
>
> Panama City Beach is a tourist area, when the oil gets here the thousands
> of
> hotel rooms will not have tourists, the housekeepers won't have work, the
> restaurants won't have customers and waitresses tips will dwindle. All
> business will be affected. Real estate is already greatly affected, people
> don't want to buy with oil coming and some know prices will be lower in 3
> or
> 4 months.
>
> Now back to my situation, for the last 7 years we have been open 10 hrs a
> day, 7 days a week, 363 days a year.
>
> We will continue working until we can't. The plan was 7 to 10 more years,
> now I don't know if it will be one more month or one more year. At this
> point I am confident BP will pay for any losses that I may have in the
> future, but they need to continue to be financially strong.
>
> I'm sure you're aware that the BP stock price is down 44% since the spill
> started. This means they have lost 73 billion in market capitalization. It
> is time to help the company recover rather than do anything that could
> affect the price further.
>
> Many retirees rely on BP dividends for retirement income. If you push the
> idea to create an escrow fund and cause the dividend to be unpaid, this
> will
> lower the stock price, further weakening the company. Without those
> dividends the retirees will find other stocks to get there income**.
>
> This could cause BP to fail.
>
> If you allow BP to stay strong, the 15 to 20 billion dollars of profit
> they
> generate every year will be more
>
> than enough to pay cleanup and claims.
>
> Please stay focused on the unintended consequences of creating an escrow
> fund.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mike Knowlton
>
> **Recreational fisherman are jumping on this gravy train, it should have
> been commercial
>
> fishermen first. Retirees are supplementing their retirement with their
> recreational fishing boat.
>
> ** ( starting with 44% less money)

The Oildrum link was broken, and thre were many threads that were closed due
to high volume of comments. This seems to be validand active:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6604

There is a lot of technical information but it seems apparent that corners
were cut to save money and time. I agree that BP should not be forced into
insolvency for this tragedy, and it was really just a roll of the dice that
they were the ones to have this happen in such a big way at this time. I'm
sure most other companies were/are doing the same thing, although now they
are probably going back and tightening things up for a while.

There should be some contribution from the other companies involved in all
similar sorts of drilling and oil extraction. Maybe BP should pay the lion's
share, but there should be an investigation of the other companies, and
unless they can prove a much higher standard of safety over the last several
years, and an impeccable track record, they should also contribute to the
escrow fund. And all companies should be forced to invest a considerable
amount toward new safety measures and inspections to minimize the danger of
a future catastrophe. There have been other accidents before and after this
major event, but they did not have the "perfect storm" set of circumstances
to cause so much damage.

This is one way to make sure the other companies do not get an unfair
advantage just because they have been lucky so far. I planned to boycott BP
just as I did with Exxon after the Alaska spill. But it was really
inconsequential especially since I no longer drive much and my vehicles
average 30-35 MPG. What is really needed is an overall drop in consumption
that will lower demand and cause prices to drop across the board and affect
all companies equally. The other way to make it fair is to impose a stiff
tax of $1-$2 per gallon or more, and use that revenue to fund alternative
energies and better efficiencies, and take care of this and other
environmental calamities that exist or will happen in the future.

There are many ways to achieve a more sustainable energy future, and each of
us must be willing to make a sacrifice. We may need to choose a little pain
now or worse pain in the future.

Paul
Winfield Hill
2010-06-18 16:36:52 UTC
Permalink
amdx wrote...
>
> PS. I'm not happy that the government strong armed $20 billion from BP.
> This only made BP weaker financially. If BP stays strong they can
> continue to earn $10 to $25 billion each year ...

As I understand it, the $20B is to be $5B/year for 4 years.
That's half the dividend payout that BP normally makes, which
they are suspending. So by itself $5B/yr could not make them
weaker. It does mean an independent party will make payment
determinations, rather than BP or the gov't, which should
hopefully be better for the shoreline and disaster victims.

As for bankruptcy, BP's assets and cash flow $$ swamp the
numbers we're talking about here. The disturbing thing about
"The Oil Drum" guy's analysis is if he's right, $20B may not
begin to cover the costs. One thing, a 4-year BP deposit rate
makes more sense with a scenario that goes on and on and on.


--
Thanks,
- Win
Archimedes' Lever
2010-06-18 16:41:04 UTC
Permalink
On 18 Jun 2010 09:36:52 -0700, Winfield Hill
<***@newsguy.com> wrote:

>amdx wrote...
>>
>> PS. I'm not happy that the government strong armed $20 billion from BP.
>> This only made BP weaker financially. If BP stays strong they can
>> continue to earn $10 to $25 billion each year ...
>
> As I understand it, the $20B is to be $5B/year for 4 years.
> That's half the dividend payout that BP normally makes, which
> they are suspending. So by itself $5B/yr could not make them
> weaker. It does mean an independent party will make payment
> determinations, rather than BP or the gov't, which should
> hopefully be better for the shoreline and disaster victims.
>
> As for bankruptcy, BP's assets and cash flow $$ swamp the
> numbers we're talking about here. The disturbing thing about
> "The Oil Drum" guy's analysis is if he's right, $20B may not
> begin to cover the costs. One thing, a 4-year BP deposit rate
> makes more sense with a scenario that goes on and on and on.


This spill will cost more than Bill Gates is (or was) worth.

It will last for more than a decade as well.
Joe Chisolm
2010-06-21 06:11:42 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:30:34 -0500, amdx wrote:

> "Winfield Hill" <***@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
>>
>> If you like, a little background.
>> An Introduction to Drilling Offshore Oil Wells
>> http://www.treesfullofmoney.com/?p=1610
>>
>> What's really going on with BP's well head? The Deepwater Oil Spill -
>> Oh Shit...
>>
>> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967 "stuck with a wide open
>> gusher blowing out 150,000 barrels a day of raw oil or more."
>>
>> I also found the comments interesting. There has been very little
>> about this in the press. Here's one story, is it the only one? Could
>> Damaged Oil Well Casing Lead to Underwater Tar Pit?
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20006706-10391695.html
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> - Win
> One thought about the cracks in the well casing, the casing is open
> at
> the top,
> this would make me think most of the oil is flowing from the top of the
> casing and
> not flowing into the geological formation.
> Once the relief wells are drilled and they can relieve the flow from
> the
> original well
> they should be able to seal the casing with concrete and stop any flow
> from cracks
> in the casing. But that's just thinking from someone in the seafood
> business on the
> gulf coast.
>
> This mornings newspaper headline "Significant oil 32 miles away"
>
> Did you watch this 60 minutes video?
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml
> It is in two parts on left side of page, part one is how the chief
> electronics technician
> heard the problem and saved his life, part two is what he saw in the
> weeks before
> the explosion. I was locked on this when it first aired. Strange to me I
> have not seen
> any other media relate the same info.
> Mike
> PS. I'm not happy that the government strong armed $20 billion from BP.
> This only made BP
> weaker financially. If BP stays strong they can continue to earn $10 to
> $25 billion each year
> for the next 10 years and pay for the cleanup. If the government
> continues to talk BP down
> and they go bankrupt, the bill will be on the taxpayers shoulders. I had
> more faith hat BP would pay for any losses I may have than the federal
> government.

I suspect the BP folks where high fiveing each other once they got on
the plane and away from cameras. They know they are gonna have to pay
out this money and they dont want a bunch of lawsuits all consolidated
into class action in some Louisiana courthouse. Before their plane
landed in DC the BP financial folks would have run the numbers on how
the 20B payment plan would impact the bottom line. Rumors were they were
(and may still be) thinking about a debt offering to cover to 20B+.

BP got good PR by agreeing to the slush fund. 2009 annual report shows
a before tax profit of 25B. Net assets of 102B. The 100M fund was
was also good PR and less than 1/2 of what they made in interest income
alone in 2009 (225M).

The other thing BP got from the slush fund is they are out of the claims
processing and that headache. When people have problems getting paid, BP
can point to the pay czar and say "Not our problem, we put the money in
the fund". Same with the clean up effort, all directed by the part time
Sectary of the Navy. And you know that legal agreement has to have
language that lets BP audit the payouts.

So a couple of years down the road BP does the audit, "No, No, and No..."
and the tax payers are going to be on the hook to pay BP back. No party,
R or D is going to go to that fisherman and say "Oh, that 200K you got
from BP, we need a 100K back".

Funny thing is some of the borrowed money to pay BP back will probably
come from the UK, some pension fund will take the dividend from BP and
buy US debt.

Obama and his team took BP to the wood shed real good.....

--
Joe Chisolm
Marble Falls, Tx.
linnix
2010-06-18 15:54:17 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 18, 7:04 am, Winfield Hill <***@newsguy.com>
wrote:
> If you like, a little background.
> An Introduction to Drilling Offshore Oil Wellshttp://www.treesfullofmoney.com/?p=1610
>
> What's really going on with BP's well head?
> The Deepwater Oil Spill - Oh Shit...

They expected (or hoped, prayed) that the pressure would drop from the
initial 15,000 psi to more manageable level (the casing was tested to
7000 psi). However, with the oil cavity collasping or leaking, it is
not happening. We might have a couple billion barrels of oil to fill
the Dead Sea of Mexico.

>
> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967
> "stuck with a wide open gusher blowing out
> 150,000 barrels a day of raw oil or more."
>

That's probably both oil and gas. So, 25% or around 40,000 barrels of
oil per day. It will run out in around 130 years.
George Jefferson
2010-06-18 16:34:34 UTC
Permalink
"Winfield Hill" <***@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> If you like, a little background.
> An Introduction to Drilling Offshore Oil Wells
> http://www.treesfullofmoney.com/?p=1610
>
> What's really going on with BP's well head?
> The Deepwater Oil Spill - Oh Shit...
>
> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967
> "stuck with a wide open gusher blowing out
> 150,000 barrels a day of raw oil or more."
>
> I also found the comments interesting. There
> has been very little about this in the press.
> Here's one story, is it the only one?
> Could Damaged Oil Well Casing Lead to Underwater Tar Pit?
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20006706-10391695.html
>
>
> --


I think they are simply looking at new cheaper methods to get the oil to the
surface.
George Jefferson
2010-06-18 16:58:28 UTC
Permalink
There are many methods to quickly stop the spill but none are being used.
While I don't like to be a conspiracy theorist I don't really have a problem
with it considering what has gone on with 9/11(IIRC 30% of Americans believe
the government was involved).

It seems too much of a coincidence that the explosion happened exactly at
the time Obama needed something like this to happen to get this draconian
environmental agenda through. Even if this weren't the case considering the
response shows extreme incompetence. Everyone knows what was done wrong so I
don't need to reiterate it. If you believe Obama is a genius then either he
is exploiting the oil spill or created it. If not then he is simply
incompetent and should not be president.

If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP would go
along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap n
trade, a foreign company that has the largest investment in energy in the
world, an obvious lack of motivation to solve the problem(similar to the
governments). In the end, if this is true, BP will be the only one left
standing(as it was design to be).

Now, when we compare this with the 9/11 theory there is much more reason to
believe it. With 9/11 it is all just suspicion but here was have proof of
something(incompetence or conspiracy). Of course I here nothing about a
conspiracy anywhere. I guess conspiracies can only happen under a
conservative/republican government?
Pieyed Piper
2010-06-18 17:16:25 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:58:28 -0500, "George Jefferson"
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>There are many methods to quickly stop the spill but none are being used.

Name a few. Hell, name ONE!

Criteria:

1) 15,000 psi well head issue @ 5000ft under the sea.

2) Quickly stop


I bet you can't.


>While I don't like to be a conspiracy theorist I don't really have a problem
>with it considering what has gone on with 9/11(IIRC 30% of Americans believe
>the government was involved).

Jeez, you aren't a goddamned Rosie O'Retard minion are you?


>It seems too much of a coincidence that the explosion happened exactly at
>the time Obama needed something like this to happen to get this draconian
>environmental agenda through.

Now that, considering the person, I could believe. Remember, this is
the same oath denying, unamerican bastard that claimed under oath that he
did not know Ayers.

He should be in jail for perjury, not sitting in the oval office.

> Even if this weren't the case considering the
>response shows extreme incompetence. Everyone knows what was done wrong so I
>don't need to reiterate it. If you believe Obama is a genius then either he
>is exploiting the oil spill or created it. If not then he is simply
>incompetent and should not be president.

He IS an incompetent, and has no clue as to the big picture in
AMYTHING, much less this fiasco.

Of course, the non-US citizen assshole should NOT be our president.
>
>If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP would go
>along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture.

They would never do so. If it was done intentionally, then the party
that did it did not get BP on the bus for the job.

> Cap n
>trade, a foreign company that has the largest investment in energy in the
>world, an obvious lack of motivation to solve the problem(similar to the
>governments). In the end, if this is true, BP will be the only one left
>standing(as it was design to be).

Huh? You are saying that the other oil companies are going to fail?
>
>Now, when we compare this with the 9/11 theory there is much more reason to
>believe it.

You really are a goddamned idiot. Do you also think that no plane hit
the Pentagon? Do you also think that we did not go to the moon?

> With 9/11 it is all just suspicion but here was have proof of
>something(incompetence or conspiracy). Of course I here nothing about a
>conspiracy anywhere. I guess conspiracies can only happen under a
>conservative/republican government?

You bark some pretty stupid crap, boy. Pretty fucking meaningless too.

So, tell us, oh mechanical master, how do we "stop it quickly"?
amdx
2010-06-18 19:35:18 UTC
Permalink
> While I don't like to be a conspiracy theorist ....

I don't believe in them at all.

> It seems too much of a coincidence that the explosion happened exactly at
> the time Obama needed something like this to happen to get this draconian
> environmental agenda through.

On the other hand, this is obviously a conspiracy that Obama propagated!

Tongue firmly in cheek.
Mike
linnix
2010-06-18 22:56:34 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 18, 4:58 pm, "George Jefferson" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are many methods to quickly stop the spill but none are being used.

They have all been tested and failed before. Top hat, top kill and
top pipe were all tried in Mexico and other wells. BP knew they won't
work, but have to show something to the public. The PEMX spill was
capped with relief well 10 months later. So, we could be looking at
early next year. However, PEMEX was fixing it in 200 feet, not 5000
feet and they did not have other leaks in and out of the cavity.
Bill Bowden
2010-06-19 02:43:32 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 18, 9:58 am, "George Jefferson" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are many methods to quickly stop the spill but none are being used.
> While I don't like to be a conspiracy theorist I don't really have a problem
> with it considering what has gone on with 9/11(IIRC 30% of Americans believe
> the government was involved).
>
> It seems too much of a coincidence that the explosion happened exactly at
> the time Obama needed something like this to happen to get this draconian
> environmental agenda through. Even if this weren't the case considering the
> response shows extreme incompetence. Everyone knows what was done wrong so I
> don't need to reiterate it. If you believe Obama is a genius then either he
> is exploiting the oil spill or created it. If not then he is simply
> incompetent and should not be president.
>
> If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP would go
> along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap n
> trade, a foreign company that has the largest investment in energy in the
> world, an obvious lack of motivation to solve the problem(similar to the
> governments). In the end, if this is true, BP will be the only one left
> standing(as it was design to be).
>
> Now, when we compare this with the 9/11 theory there is much more reason to
> believe it. With 9/11 it is all just suspicion but here was have proof of
> something(incompetence or conspiracy). Of course I here nothing about a
> conspiracy anywhere. I guess conspiracies can only happen under a
> conservative/republican government?

The oil spill wasn't a conspiracy, just lack of quality control. Final
quality control tests sometimes show up intermittent problems, only to
have the test re-run where the problem goes away, and the unit gets
shipped. Everybody wants to go to lunch early.

-Bill
Grumps
2010-06-19 06:54:09 UTC
Permalink
"George Jefferson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hvg8j6$4ie$***@news.eternal-september.org...
<snippy snip snip>

> If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP would go
> along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap n
> trade, a foreign company

Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US registered
company?

> that has the largest investment in energy in the world, an obvious lack of
> motivation to solve the problem(similar to the governments). In the end,
> if this is true, BP will be the only one left standing(as it was design to
> be).

<and snip the rest too>
Michael A. Terrell
2010-06-19 14:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Grumps wrote:
>
> "George Jefferson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hvg8j6$4ie$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> <snippy snip snip>
>
> > If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP would go
> > along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap n
> > trade, a foreign company
>
> Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US registered
> company?


And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their spokesweasel
is returning to England.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
MooseFET
2010-06-19 16:22:53 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <***@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Grumps wrote:
>
> > "George Jefferson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:hvg8j6$4ie$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> > <snippy snip snip>
>
> > > If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP would go
> > > along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap n
> > > trade, a foreign company
>
> > Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US registered
> > company?
>
> And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their spokesweasel
> is returning to England.

Multinational corporations are not really part of any nation. BP is
largely but
not completely owned by the British.

The US registered part could be used as a way to duck out from the
responsibility after things cool off. The main part of BP can pump
the
money out of the US part while making the US part responsible for the
damages. At some point the US part goes bankrupt leaving the US
stuck with the remaining costs.

The 20 Billion set aside doesn't even begin to cover the likely long
term costs. The fishing industry in Alaska still hasn't recovered
after
20 years. When you knock things like fish stocks way down, there is
no telling whether it recovers to the same combination of critters as
it was before.
amdx
2010-06-19 20:41:14 UTC
Permalink
"MooseFET" <***@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:3dc8cf08-35f0-4778-a677-***@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <***@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Grumps wrote:
>>
>> > "George Jefferson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:hvg8j6$4ie$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > <snippy snip snip>
>>
>> > > If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP
>> > > would go
>> > > along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap
>> > > n
>> > > trade, a foreign company
>>
>> > Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US
>> > registered
>> > company?
>>
>> And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their spokesweasel
>> is returning to England.
>
> Multinational corporations are not really part of any nation. BP is
> largely but
> not completely owned by the British.
>
> The US registered part could be used as a way to duck out from the
> responsibility after things cool off. The main part of BP can pump
> the
> money out of the US part while making the US part responsible for the
> damages. At some point the US part goes bankrupt leaving the US
> stuck with the remaining costs.



> The 20 Billion set aside doesn't even begin to cover the likely long
> term costs.

Ya, the government should have let BP keep their $20 billion.
We all need to keep the company financially strong, if they can continue
making $15 billion in profits the next 10 or 20 years they can pay the
losses caused by the oil leak.
But taking $20B form a company that has already lost over $70B in assets
is just weakening them and pushing them toward bankruptcy Bp only had $7B
in cash when the shakedown occurred. Now they need to find a way to get
$13B plus a little more for operating capital.

Mike
k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
2010-06-19 21:26:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:41:14 -0500, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:

>
>"MooseFET" <***@rahul.net> wrote in message
>news:3dc8cf08-35f0-4778-a677-***@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <***@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Grumps wrote:
>>>
>>> > "George Jefferson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:hvg8j6$4ie$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> > <snippy snip snip>
>>>
>>> > > If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP
>>> > > would go
>>> > > along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap
>>> > > n
>>> > > trade, a foreign company
>>>
>>> > Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US
>>> > registered
>>> > company?
>>>
>>> And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their spokesweasel
>>> is returning to England.
>>
>> Multinational corporations are not really part of any nation. BP is
>> largely but
>> not completely owned by the British.
>>
>> The US registered part could be used as a way to duck out from the
>> responsibility after things cool off. The main part of BP can pump
>> the
>> money out of the US part while making the US part responsible for the
>> damages. At some point the US part goes bankrupt leaving the US
>> stuck with the remaining costs.
>
>
>
>> The 20 Billion set aside doesn't even begin to cover the likely long
>> term costs.
>
> Ya, the government should have let BP keep their $20 billion.
>We all need to keep the company financially strong, if they can continue
>making $15 billion in profits the next 10 or 20 years they can pay the
>losses caused by the oil leak.
>But taking $20B form a company that has already lost over $70B in assets
>is just weakening them and pushing them toward bankruptcy Bp only had $7B
>in cash when the shakedown occurred. Now they need to find a way to get
>$13B plus a little more for operating capital.

But that's not the point. Obama *wants* BP (and all others) to go out of
business. The Demonicrats want the $20B to pay for Obamacare.
Bill Bowden
2010-06-20 04:56:19 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 19, 2:26 pm, "***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:41:14 -0500, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:
>
> >"MooseFET" <***@rahul.net> wrote in message
> >news:3dc8cf08-35f0-4778-a677-***@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <***@earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Grumps wrote:
>
> >>> > "George Jefferson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> >news:hvg8j6$4ie$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>> > <snippy snip snip>
>
> >>> > > If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP
> >>> > > would go
> >>> > > along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap
> >>> > > n
> >>> > > trade, a foreign company
>
> >>> > Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US
> >>> > registered
> >>> > company?
>
> >>>    And fully owned by British petroleum.  That's why their spokesweasel
> >>> is returning to England.
>
> >> Multinational corporations are not really part of any nation.  BP is
> >> largely but
> >> not completely owned by the British.
>
> >> The US registered part could be used as a way to duck out from the
> >> responsibility after things cool off.  The main part of BP can pump
> >> the
> >> money out of the US part while making the US part responsible for the
> >> damages.  At some point the US part goes bankrupt leaving the US
> >> stuck with the remaining costs.
>
> >> The 20 Billion set aside doesn't even begin to cover the likely long
> >> term costs.
>
> >  Ya, the government  should have let BP keep their $20 billion.
> >We all need to keep the company financially strong, if they can continue
> >making $15 billion in profits the next 10 or 20 years they can pay the
> >losses caused by the oil leak.
> >But taking $20B form a company that has already lost over $70B in assets
> >is just weakening them and pushing them toward bankruptcy Bp only had $7B
> >in cash when the shakedown occurred. Now they need to find a way to get
> >$13B plus a little more for operating capital.
>
> But that's not the point.  Obama *wants* BP (and all others) to go out of
> business.  The Demonicrats want the $20B to pay for Obamacare.

They want more than that. Obama wants BP to go out of business and to
continue to pay laid off oil workers after they do so.

http://nonsensibleshoes.blogspot.com/2010/06/wait-who-pays-for-laid-off-oil-rig.html

"Wait, who pays for laid off oil rig workers?

After meeting with President Obama, BP agreed to set aside a special
$100 million to compensate oil workers laid off as a result of
President Obama's six month moratorium on deep water drilling. Why
does it feel more and more like the United States is operating at the
whims of an emperor?"

-Bill
k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
2010-06-20 16:46:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:56:19 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden <***@att.net>
wrote:

>On Jun 19, 2:26 pm, "***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:41:14 -0500, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"MooseFET" <***@rahul.net> wrote in message
>> >news:3dc8cf08-35f0-4778-a677-***@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <***@earthlink.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> Grumps wrote:
>>
>> >>> > "George Jefferson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>> >news:hvg8j6$4ie$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>> >>> > <snippy snip snip>
>>
>> >>> > > If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP
>> >>> > > would go
>> >>> > > along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap
>> >>> > > n
>> >>> > > trade, a foreign company
>>
>> >>> > Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US
>> >>> > registered
>> >>> > company?
>>
>> >>>    And fully owned by British petroleum.  That's why their spokesweasel
>> >>> is returning to England.
>>
>> >> Multinational corporations are not really part of any nation.  BP is
>> >> largely but
>> >> not completely owned by the British.
>>
>> >> The US registered part could be used as a way to duck out from the
>> >> responsibility after things cool off.  The main part of BP can pump
>> >> the
>> >> money out of the US part while making the US part responsible for the
>> >> damages.  At some point the US part goes bankrupt leaving the US
>> >> stuck with the remaining costs.
>>
>> >> The 20 Billion set aside doesn't even begin to cover the likely long
>> >> term costs.
>>
>> >  Ya, the government  should have let BP keep their $20 billion.
>> >We all need to keep the company financially strong, if they can continue
>> >making $15 billion in profits the next 10 or 20 years they can pay the
>> >losses caused by the oil leak.
>> >But taking $20B form a company that has already lost over $70B in assets
>> >is just weakening them and pushing them toward bankruptcy Bp only had $7B
>> >in cash when the shakedown occurred. Now they need to find a way to get
>> >$13B plus a little more for operating capital.
>>
>> But that's not the point.  Obama *wants* BP (and all others) to go out of
>> business.  The Demonicrats want the $20B to pay for Obamacare.
>
>They want more than that. Obama wants BP to go out of business and to
>continue to pay laid off oil workers after they do so.
>
>http://nonsensibleshoes.blogspot.com/2010/06/wait-who-pays-for-laid-off-oil-rig.html
>
>"Wait, who pays for laid off oil rig workers?
>
>After meeting with President Obama, BP agreed to set aside a special
>$100 million to compensate oil workers laid off as a result of
>President Obama's six month moratorium on deep water drilling. Why
>does it feel more and more like the United States is operating at the
>whims of an emperor?"
>
Maybe it is time for BP to go under. The weak shouldn't survive.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
2010-06-20 02:30:53 UTC
Permalink
BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
assets.

Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.

Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
corporate death penalty is considered?

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:***@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
43rd Law of Computing:
Anything that can go wr
fortune: Segmentation violation -- Code dumped
Copacetic
2010-06-20 03:43:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:30:53 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<***@Hovnanian.com> wrote:

>Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
>sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
>corporate death penalty is considered?


Because the chance that it will bring down whole world markets is too
high.

The needs of the many.

Put me in office, and I will bring it back, and make sure it gets
carried out (people and companies). In fact, there are several bad cops
that would end up on that wagon train.

AMybe one day, they will figure out what they are doing wrong and some
of them can regain their honor.

As it stands, we are heading for a PIG nation.

I think it should be criminal when I see a cop pull someone over (a
teenager), and five minutes later four cruisers are there, wasting the
tax payer's dollars at a rate 3 times greater than it should be.

The goddamned supreme court decision that allows them to illicitly
search a car or person should be thrown out, and that judge should be
retired.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
2010-06-21 03:28:48 UTC
Permalink
Copacetic wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:30:53 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> <***@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
> >Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
> >sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
> >corporate death penalty is considered?
>
> Because the chance that it will bring down whole world markets is too
> high.

Doubtful. Liquidate the company and let others pick up the assets and
continue to operate them. Life and production goes on.

> The needs of the many.

You could call that socialism or the ends justify the means. Either way,
not what I'd expect from anyone serious about market economies and law
and order.

> The goddamned supreme court decision that allows them to illicitly
> search a car or person should be thrown out, and that judge should be
> retired.

Methinks he doth protest too much. You or one of your friends got caught
holding? ;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:***@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
At some point it becomes necessary to behead all the architects and
begin construction. -- Abi-Bar-Shim (Project Mgr. - Great Pyramid)
Copacetic
2010-06-21 06:19:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:28:48 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<***@Hovnanian.com> wrote:

>
>Doubtful. Liquidate the company and let others pick up the assets and
>continue to operate them. Life and production goes on.
>

You ain't a very bright "big picture" guy at all.

The markets are already teetering and have been for a while. One more
perturbation, and the cost of EVERYTHING goes up. It could ruin things
around the world. That is not the kind of reset the world needs.

It is called a downward spiral.

It behaves just like your grasp of this situation does. Ever
diminishing returns.
Copacetic
2010-06-21 06:21:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:28:48 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<***@Hovnanian.com> wrote:

>> The needs of the many.
>
>You could call that socialism or the ends justify the means. Either way,
>not what I'd expect from anyone serious about market economies and law
>and order.

Execpt that your skills in market analysis means that your assessment
of this has no merit.

Call your broker and ask him what such a perturbation would do.

And no, it simply "being absorbed by others" would not "smooth
everything out".
Copacetic
2010-06-21 06:23:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:28:48 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<***@Hovnanian.com> wrote:

>> The goddamned supreme court decision that allows them to illicitly
>> search a car or person should be thrown out, and that judge should be
>> retired.
>
>Methinks he doth protest too much. You or one of your friends got caught
>holding? ;-)

No, you retarded, presumptuous dumbfuck.

All you have to do is watch 'Cops' or watch the local cops when they are
shaking down one of your neighbor's kids.

Dude, that one placed you below Johnny on the IQ scale. Yours matches
the year the stock market crashed... 29
amdx
2010-06-21 11:35:08 UTC
Permalink
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <***@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:***@Hovnanian.com...
> Copacetic wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:30:53 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
>> <***@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
>> >sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
>> >corporate death penalty is considered?
>>
>> Because the chance that it will bring down whole world markets is too
>> high.
>
> Doubtful. Liquidate the company and let others pick up the assets and
> continue to operate them. Life and production goes on.
>

That would have been a great idea for the car companies, they could have
renegotiated there contracts and gotten away from there medical and
retirement
liabilities.
With BP, they have strong earnings. We want them to continue so their
profits
can be used to pay losses associated with the spill and cleanup.

Mike
DrParnassus
2010-06-21 17:14:17 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:35:08 -0500, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:

>
>"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <***@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
>news:***@Hovnanian.com...
>> Copacetic wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:30:53 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
>>> <***@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
>>> >sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
>>> >corporate death penalty is considered?
>>>
>>> Because the chance that it will bring down whole world markets is too
>>> high.
>>
>> Doubtful. Liquidate the company and let others pick up the assets and
>> continue to operate them. Life and production goes on.
>>
>
> That would have been a great idea for the car companies, they could have
>renegotiated there contracts and gotten away from there medical and
>retirement
>liabilities.
> With BP, they have strong earnings. We want them to continue so their
>profits
>can be used to pay losses associated with the spill and cleanup.
>
> Mike
>
Trust me, none of these dopes have enough of a clue to understand the
bigger picture.
k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
2010-06-21 23:04:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:28:48 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <***@Hovnanian.com>
wrote:

>Copacetic wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:30:53 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
>> <***@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
>> >sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
>> >corporate death penalty is considered?
>>
>> Because the chance that it will bring down whole world markets is too
>> high.
>
>Doubtful. Liquidate the company and let others pick up the assets and
>continue to operate them. Life and production goes on.

Continue to pump and sell oil? *THAT'S* dirty! Obama would never let that
happen.

>> The needs of the many.
>
>You could call that socialism or the ends justify the means. Either way,
>not what I'd expect from anyone serious about market economies and law
>and order.

You even dare to utter those words when talking about the Chicago mob?

>> The goddamned supreme court decision that allows them to illicitly
>> search a car or person should be thrown out, and that judge should be
>> retired.
>
>Methinks he doth protest too much. You or one of your friends got caught
>holding? ;-)

Holding what? ;-)
Winston
2010-06-20 05:53:19 UTC
Permalink
On 6/19/2010 7:30 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
> bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
> companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
> assets.
>
> Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
> getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.
>
> Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
> sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
> corporate death penalty is considered?

Corporations are only considered people WRT rights,
not responsibilities.

--Winston
k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
2010-06-20 16:46:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:53:19 -0700, Winston <***@bigbrother.net> wrote:

>On 6/19/2010 7:30 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>> BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
>> bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
>> companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
>> assets.
>>
>> Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
>> getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.
>>
>> Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
>> sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
>> corporate death penalty is considered?
>
>Corporations are only considered people WRT rights,
>not responsibilities.

Nonsense.
Perenis
2010-06-20 18:30:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:46:43 -0500, "***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:53:19 -0700, Winston <***@bigbrother.net> wrote:
>
>>On 6/19/2010 7:30 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>>> BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
>>> bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
>>> companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
>>> assets.
>>>
>>> Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
>>> getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.
>>>
>>> Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
>>> sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
>>> corporate death penalty is considered?
>>
>>Corporations are only considered people WRT rights,
>>not responsibilities.
>
>Nonsense.


What he stated is a truism, whether you choose to believe it or not.

What color are those glasses, idiot?
k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
2010-06-20 21:18:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:30:41 -0700, Perenis <***@hereforlongtime.org>
wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:46:43 -0500, "***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:53:19 -0700, Winston <***@bigbrother.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/19/2010 7:30 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>>>> BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
>>>> bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
>>>> companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
>>>> assets.
>>>>
>>>> Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
>>>> getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.
>>>>
>>>> Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
>>>> sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
>>>> corporate death penalty is considered?
>>>
>>>Corporations are only considered people WRT rights,
>>>not responsibilities.
>>
>>Nonsense.
>
>
> What he stated is a truism, whether you choose to believe it or not.

I don't need any more proof of my position than the previous sentence.

> What color are those glasses, idiot?

Clear, actually. We all know your's are black, since you're blind to all
logic, AlwaysWrong.
JosephKK
2010-06-21 04:54:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:46:43 -0500, "***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:53:19 -0700, Winston <***@bigbrother.net> wrote:
>
>>On 6/19/2010 7:30 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>>> BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
>>> bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
>>> companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
>>> assets.
>>>
>>> Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
>>> getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.
>>>
>>> Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
>>> sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
>>> corporate death penalty is considered?
>>
>>Corporations are only considered people WRT rights,
>>not responsibilities.
>
>Nonsense.

Really? Consider Love Canal. Consider Bhopal.
k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
2010-06-21 23:04:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:54:40 -0700, "JosephKK"<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:46:43 -0500, "***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:53:19 -0700, Winston <***@bigbrother.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/19/2010 7:30 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>>>> BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
>>>> bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
>>>> companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
>>>> assets.
>>>>
>>>> Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
>>>> getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.
>>>>
>>>> Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
>>>> sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
>>>> corporate death penalty is considered?
>>>
>>>Corporations are only considered people WRT rights,
>>>not responsibilities.
>>
>>Nonsense.
>
>Really? Consider Love Canal. Consider Bhopal.

Considered. Next?
d***@yahoo.com
2010-06-20 18:03:52 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 20, 1:53 am, Winston <***@bigbrother.net> wrote:
> On 6/19/2010 7:30 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>
> > BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
> > bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
> > companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
> > assets.
>
> > Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
> > getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.
>
> > Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
> > sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
> > corporate death penalty is considered?
>
> Corporations are only considered people WRT rights,
> not responsibilities.

Not true. In both cases you can sue them, and if they're too poor to
pay they go bankrupt.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Perenis
2010-06-20 18:57:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:03:52 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Jun 20, 1:53 am, Winston <***@bigbrother.net> wrote:
>> On 6/19/2010 7:30 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>>
>> > BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
>> > bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
>> > companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
>> > assets.
>>
>> > Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
>> > getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.
>>
>> > Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
>> > sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
>> > corporate death penalty is considered?
>>
>> Corporations are only considered people WRT rights,
>> not responsibilities.
>
>Not true. In both cases you can sue them, and if they're too poor to
>pay they go bankrupt.


Only if you win the suit, and only then if you live long enough for the
decision, and then you have to get the remuneration in your hand, which
also does not always happen at once. I am not saying that it is right, I
am just saying that this is how things are.

Try suing a cop, or having one criminally charged some day, and see
just how the fuckers make laws that allow them to fuck you, but not for
you to get them for doing it.
d***@yahoo.com
2010-06-20 19:01:33 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 20, 2:57 pm, Perenis <***@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:03:52 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> >On Jun 20, 1:53 am, Winston <***@bigbrother.net> wrote:
> >> On 6/19/2010 7:30 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>
> >> > BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
> >> > bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
> >> > companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
> >> > assets.
>
> >> > Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
> >> > getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.
>
> >> > Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
> >> > sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
> >> > corporate death penalty is considered?
>
> >> Corporations are only considered people WRT rights,
> >> not responsibilities.
>
> >Not true.  In both cases you can sue them, and if they're too poor to
> >pay they go bankrupt.
>
>   Only if you win the suit, and only then if you live long enough for the
> decision, and then you have to get the remuneration in your hand, which
> also does not always happen at once.  I am not saying that it is right, I
> am just saying that this is how things are.

Same for both. Try suing a deadbeat for back rent.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Perenis
2010-06-20 19:23:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:01:33 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:

> Try suing a deadbeat for back rent.

A bad loan debt can stay on you CR for about 3 to 7 years. A bad renter
debt stays on there for 9, just like a bankruptcy does, but it has far
worse consequences.
k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
2010-06-20 21:19:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:23:02 -0700, Perenis <***@hereforlongtime.org>
wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:01:33 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Try suing a deadbeat for back rent.
>
> A bad loan debt can stay on you CR for about 3 to 7 years. A bad renter
>debt stays on there for 9, just like a bankruptcy does, but it has far
>worse consequences.

...and a corporation is dead. They're not exactly the same, but you're
wrong, as always, AlwaysWrong.
Perenis
2010-06-20 23:55:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:19:52 -0500, "***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:23:02 -0700, Perenis <***@hereforlongtime.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:01:33 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> Try suing a deadbeat for back rent.
>>
>> A bad loan debt can stay on you CR for about 3 to 7 years. A bad renter
>>debt stays on there for 9, just like a bankruptcy does, but it has far
>>worse consequences.
>
>...and a corporation is dead. They're not exactly the same, but you're
>wrong, as always, AlwaysWrong.

The bankruptcy reference was PART of the reference about one's PERSONAL
credit rating, idiot.

A personal bankruptcy can damage your credit for nine years.

We already know that is NOT the case in industry. Just ask Chrysler
Corp.
k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
2010-06-21 00:53:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:55:12 -0700, Perenis <***@hereforlongtime.org>
wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:19:52 -0500, "***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:23:02 -0700, Perenis <***@hereforlongtime.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:01:33 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Try suing a deadbeat for back rent.
>>>
>>> A bad loan debt can stay on you CR for about 3 to 7 years. A bad renter
>>>debt stays on there for 9, just like a bankruptcy does, but it has far
>>>worse consequences.
>>
>>...and a corporation is dead. They're not exactly the same, but you're
>>wrong, as always, AlwaysWrong.
>
> The bankruptcy reference was PART of the reference about one's PERSONAL
>credit rating, idiot.

Once again, you demonstrate your illiteracy.

> A personal bankruptcy can damage your credit for nine years.

...or not, AlwaysWrong.

> We already know that is NOT the case in industry. Just ask Chrysler
>Corp.

Try remedial reading, DimBulb. I'm sure they have classes for those older
than three somewhere in Kalifornica.
MooseFET
2010-06-20 14:21:44 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 20, 10:30 am, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <***@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
> BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
> bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
> companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
> assets.
>

The new guy (Tony WhatsHisName) has made great improvements in BPs
safety record. We can't really blame him for the truly awful safety
record
of BP. He took charge of a company that was just plain dangerous to
work for and has worked to improve it.

> Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
> getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.

BP actually has only a smallish set of physical assets. They have
some
contracts and drilling rights and the like that have great value but
aren't
things you can touch. They have been working their way largely out of
the oil business for some time now. These days, their oil operations
work
mostly by bankrolling others.


> Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
> sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
> corporate death penalty is considered?

These days corporations live forever. In the past, they always had a
finite life. At the end of the time, their assets were broken up and
distributed. It used to be that corporations were formed for specific
tasks. This is no longer true.

Corporations are gradually replacing the state as the organizing
principle of the word. They have assets larger than many states,
their own armies and in effect their own laws and police forces.
MooseFET
2010-06-20 14:11:50 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 20, 4:41 am, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:
> "MooseFET" <***@rahul.net> wrote in message
>
> news:3dc8cf08-35f0-4778-a677-***@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <***@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Grumps wrote:
>
> >> > "George Jefferson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:hvg8j6$4ie$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> > <snippy snip snip>
>
> >> > > If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP
> >> > > would go
> >> > > along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap
> >> > > n
> >> > > trade, a foreign company
>
> >> > Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US
> >> > registered
> >> > company?
>
> >> And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their spokesweasel
> >> is returning to England.
>
> > Multinational corporations are not really part of any nation. BP is
> > largely but
> > not completely owned by the British.
>
> > The US registered part could be used as a way to duck out from the
> > responsibility after things cool off. The main part of BP can pump
> > the
> > money out of the US part while making the US part responsible for the
> > damages. At some point the US part goes bankrupt leaving the US
> > stuck with the remaining costs.
> > The 20 Billion set aside doesn't even begin to cover the likely long
> > term costs.
>
> Ya, the government should have let BP keep their $20 billion.
> We all need to keep the company financially strong, if they can continue
> making $15 billion in profits the next 10 or 20 years they can pay the
> losses caused by the oil leak.
> But taking $20B form a company that has already lost over $70B in assets
> is just weakening them and pushing them toward bankruptcy Bp only had $7B
> in cash when the shakedown occurred. Now they need to find a way to get
> $13B plus a little more for operating capital.

BP (international) is at no risk of going bankrupt the 20 Billion is
less than
they lose into the seat cushions on a Friday night. It is also only a
tiny
fraction of the total cost of the clean up.



>
> Mike
amdx
2010-06-20 15:21:37 UTC
Permalink
"MooseFET" <***@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:cf53d867-b841-4f9d-9397-***@h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 4:41 am, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:
>> "MooseFET" <***@rahul.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:3dc8cf08-35f0-4778-a677-***@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <***@earthlink.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Grumps wrote:
>>
>> >> > "George Jefferson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:hvg8j6$4ie$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>> >> > <snippy snip snip>
>>
>> >> > > If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP
>> >> > > would go
>> >> > > along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture.
>> >> > > Cap
>> >> > > n
>> >> > > trade, a foreign company
>>
>> >> > Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US
>> >> > registered
>> >> > company?
>>
>> >> And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their
>> >> spokesweasel
>> >> is returning to England.
>>
>> > Multinational corporations are not really part of any nation. BP is
>> > largely but
>> > not completely owned by the British.
>>
>> > The US registered part could be used as a way to duck out from the
>> > responsibility after things cool off. The main part of BP can pump
>> > the
>> > money out of the US part while making the US part responsible for the
>> > damages. At some point the US part goes bankrupt leaving the US
>> > stuck with the remaining costs.
>> > The 20 Billion set aside doesn't even begin to cover the likely long
>> > term costs.
>>
>> Ya, the government should have let BP keep their $20 billion.
>> We all need to keep the company financially strong, if they can continue
>> making $15 billion in profits the next 10 or 20 years they can pay the
>> losses caused by the oil leak.
>> But taking $20B form a company that has already lost over $70B in assets
>> is just weakening them and pushing them toward bankruptcy Bp only had $7B
>> in cash when the shakedown occurred. Now they need to find a way to get
>> $13B plus a little more for operating capital.
>
> BP (international) is at no risk of going bankrupt the 20 Billion is
> less than
> they lose into the seat cushions on a Friday night. It is also only a
> tiny
> fraction of the total cost of the clean up.

Today, (June 9, 2010) BP is worth $91.4 billion. In mid-April, the
company was worth $180 billion.
The government just did a shakedown of 22% of the company. However BP gets
that $20B, it will
make for a weaker company. I will say it till the government drives them
into bankruptcy, "we want
BP to be financially strong, so they can continue to make big profits and
use those profits to pay
citizens for losses and to clean up the oil."

The choice is, do you want the profits from BP to pay the costs or do you
want the taxpayers to pay the costs .
I have come to believe that Obama wants it to be a government program.
Mike
MooseFET
2010-06-20 16:29:43 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 20, 11:21 pm, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:
> "MooseFET" <***@rahul.net> wrote in message
>
> news:cf53d867-b841-4f9d-9397-***@h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 20, 4:41 am, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:
> >> "MooseFET" <***@rahul.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:3dc8cf08-35f0-4778-a677-***@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <***@earthlink.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Grumps wrote:
>
> >> >> > "George Jefferson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:hvg8j6$4ie$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> >> > <snippy snip snip>
>
> >> >> > > If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP
> >> >> > > would go
> >> >> > > along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture.
> >> >> > > Cap
> >> >> > > n
> >> >> > > trade, a foreign company
>
> >> >> > Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US
> >> >> > registered
> >> >> > company?
>
> >> >> And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their
> >> >> spokesweasel
> >> >> is returning to England.
>
> >> > Multinational corporations are not really part of any nation. BP is
> >> > largely but
> >> > not completely owned by the British.
>
> >> > The US registered part could be used as a way to duck out from the
> >> > responsibility after things cool off. The main part of BP can pump
> >> > the
> >> > money out of the US part while making the US part responsible for the
> >> > damages. At some point the US part goes bankrupt leaving the US
> >> > stuck with the remaining costs.
> >> > The 20 Billion set aside doesn't even begin to cover the likely long
> >> > term costs.
>
> >> Ya, the government should have let BP keep their $20 billion.
> >> We all need to keep the company financially strong, if they can continue
> >> making $15 billion in profits the next 10 or 20 years they can pay the
> >> losses caused by the oil leak.
> >> But taking $20B form a company that has already lost over $70B in assets
> >> is just weakening them and pushing them toward bankruptcy Bp only had $7B
> >> in cash when the shakedown occurred. Now they need to find a way to get
> >> $13B plus a little more for operating capital.
>
> > BP (international) is at no risk of going bankrupt the 20 Billion is
> > less than
> > they lose into the seat cushions on a Friday night. It is also only a
> > tiny
> > fraction of the total cost of the clean up.
>
> Today, (June 9, 2010) BP is worth $91.4 billion. In mid-April, the
> company was worth $180 billion.
> The government just did a shakedown of 22% of the company. However BP gets
> that $20B, it will
> make for a weaker company. I will say it till the government drives them
> into bankruptcy, "we want
> BP to be financially strong, so they can continue to make big profits and
> use those profits to pay
> citizens for losses and to clean up the oil."

Your numbers are wrong:
http://ycharts.com/companies/BP/assets

There is no risk of the international part of BP going bankrupt.
Companies set aside money for purposes all the time. This does not
make BP any weaker than it naturally would be. They are facing
truly massive law suits. This is the biggest problem they have.

> The choice is, do you want the profits from BP to pay the costs or do you
> want the taxpayers to pay the costs .

Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
total cost
that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves a fair chunk
of money
because a third party will be handling much of the work on paying out
the
claims. The escrow account will be managed by the third party and
thus
the denied claims will be denied by that third party. In large
measure,
neither BP nor the government will get the blame for the denials.


> I have come to believe that Obama wants it to be a government program.

I think it more likely that you started off with that belief and then
looked
for evidence to support it. The last thing Obama would want is to be
involved in the denials of claims and to constantly have his name
attached
to the oil spill. He may have to learn to live with it but it is a
major political
drag.

> Mike
amdx
2010-06-20 17:34:03 UTC
Permalink
"MooseFET" <***@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:1cefe7a4-ddd0-422b-a51a-***@s6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 11:21 pm, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:
>> "MooseFET" <***@rahul.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:cf53d867-b841-4f9d-9397-***@h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 20, 4:41 am, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:
>> >> "MooseFET" <***@rahul.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:3dc8cf08-35f0-4778-a677-***@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
>> >> > <***@earthlink.net>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> Grumps wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > "George Jefferson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:hvg8j6$4ie$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>> >> >> > <snippy snip snip>
>>
>> >> >> > > If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why
>> >> >> > > BP
>> >> >> > > would go
>> >> >> > > along with such a thing until you think about the whole
>> >> >> > > picture.
>> >> >> > > Cap
>> >> >> > > n
>> >> >> > > trade, a foreign company
>>
>> >> >> > Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US
>> >> >> > registered
>> >> >> > company?
>>
>> >> >> And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their
>> >> >> spokesweasel
>> >> >> is returning to England.
>>
>> >> > Multinational corporations are not really part of any nation. BP is
>> >> > largely but
>> >> > not completely owned by the British.
>>
>> >> > The US registered part could be used as a way to duck out from the
>> >> > responsibility after things cool off. The main part of BP can pump
>> >> > the
>> >> > money out of the US part while making the US part responsible for
>> >> > the
>> >> > damages. At some point the US part goes bankrupt leaving the US
>> >> > stuck with the remaining costs.
>> >> > The 20 Billion set aside doesn't even begin to cover the likely long
>> >> > term costs.
>>
>> >> Ya, the government should have let BP keep their $20 billion.
>> >> We all need to keep the company financially strong, if they can
>> >> continue
>> >> making $15 billion in profits the next 10 or 20 years they can pay the
>> >> losses caused by the oil leak.
>> >> But taking $20B form a company that has already lost over $70B in
>> >> assets
>> >> is just weakening them and pushing them toward bankruptcy Bp only had
>> >> $7B
>> >> in cash when the shakedown occurred. Now they need to find a way to
>> >> get
>> >> $13B plus a little more for operating capital.
>>
>> > BP (international) is at no risk of going bankrupt the 20 Billion is
>> > less than
>> > they lose into the seat cushions on a Friday night. It is also only a
>> > tiny
>> > fraction of the total cost of the clean up.
>>
>> Today, (June 9, 2010) BP is worth $91.4 billion. In mid-April, the
>> company was worth $180 billion.
>> The government just did a shakedown of 22% of the company. However BP
>> gets
>> that $20B, it will
>> make for a weaker company. I will say it till the government drives them
>> into bankruptcy, "we want
>> BP to be financially strong, so they can continue to make big profits and
>> use those profits to pay
>> citizens for losses and to clean up the oil."
>
> Your numbers are wrong:
> http://ycharts.com/companies/BP/assets
>

I did read that the book value was higher than the stock market value.

I did not think it was that much higher. I've read that analysts so it is
not
a takeover candidate, but to buy $240 B in assets for $91 looks good
to me. The trick would be to buy the assets without the liabilities.
The $91B was the value of BPs stock, a little higher today.
Thanks for the info, it makes me think that when my losses come
will be assets left to make me whole again.


> There is no risk of the international part of BP going bankrupt.
> Companies set aside money for purposes all the time. This does not
> make BP any weaker than it naturally would be. They are facing
> truly massive law suits. This is the biggest problem they have.
>
>> The choice is, do you want the profits from BP to pay the costs or do you
>> want the taxpayers to pay the costs .
>
> Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
> total cost
> that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves a fair chunk
> of money
> because a third party will be handling much of the work on paying out
> the claims.

I don't think that will save BP money unless you think that the third party
will pay out less in claims. I think the third party will just use part of
the $20M as operating expenses.


>> I have come to believe that Obama wants it to be a government program.


> I think it more likely that you started off with that belief and then
> looked for evidence to support it.

No that's not true, I am not one to go with any conspiracy nonsense, but
just
as of recently I'm starting to believe that Obama does want to fundamentally
change
the type of government that we have. In fact the statement above which I did
put some
thought into before I wrote it, was the start of a turning point for me.
With the
Healthcare bill that included the takeover of the college loan program, the
ownership of
a large part of GM and Chrysler, Cash for clunkers, the $8,000 to first time
home buyers,
his stance on the boarder and comprehensive immigration reform and I'm sure
there is more,
I just think he is so against what America stands for that we need to stop
his agenda.
Mike
k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
2010-06-20 21:24:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:34:03 -0500, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:

>
>"MooseFET" <***@rahul.net> wrote in message
>news:1cefe7a4-ddd0-422b-a51a-***@s6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

>>> The choice is, do you want the profits from BP to pay the costs or do you
>>> want the taxpayers to pay the costs .
>>
>> Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
>> total cost
>> that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves a fair chunk
>> of money
>> because a third party will be handling much of the work on paying out
>> the claims.
>
> I don't think that will save BP money unless you think that the third party
>will pay out less in claims. I think the third party will just use part of
>the $20M as operating expenses.

Make that $20B. Certainly, Obummer's cronies will come out very well off
indeed. Were I BP, I'd wash my hands at $20B and let the courts go after more
(it will take forever, if it can even be done). Government wants to handle
it, let them.

>>> I have come to believe that Obama wants it to be a government program.
>
>
>> I think it more likely that you started off with that belief and then
>> looked for evidence to support it.
>
> No that's not true, I am not one to go with any conspiracy nonsense, but
>just
>as of recently I'm starting to believe that Obama does want to fundamentally
>change
>the type of government that we have. In fact the statement above which I did
>put some
>thought into before I wrote it, was the start of a turning point for me.
>With the
>Healthcare bill that included the takeover of the college loan program, the
>ownership of
>a large part of GM and Chrysler, Cash for clunkers, the $8,000 to first time
>home buyers,
>his stance on the boarder and comprehensive immigration reform and I'm sure
>there is more,
>I just think he is so against what America stands for that we need to stop
>his agenda.

Quite obviously true. However, Moose can't see what's happening any better
than can DimBulb.
MooseFET
2010-06-21 10:47:11 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 21, 5:24 am, "***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:34:03 -0500, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:
>
> >"MooseFET" <***@rahul.net> wrote in message
> >news:1cefe7a4-ddd0-422b-a51a-***@s6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> The choice is, do you want the profits from BP to pay the costs or do you
> >>> want the taxpayers to pay the costs .
>
> >> Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
> >> total cost
> >> that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves a fair chunk
> >> of money
> >> because a third party will be handling much of the work on paying out
> >> the claims.
>
> > I don't think that will save BP money unless you think that the third party
> >will pay out less in claims. I think the third party will just use part of
> >the $20M as operating expenses.
>
> Make that $20B. Certainly, Obummer's cronies will come out very well off
> indeed. Were I BP, I'd wash my hands at $20B and let the courts go after more
> (it will take forever, if it can even be done). Government wants to handle
> it, let them.
>
After the record of the republicans on crony capitalism, his hiring
practices will be a breath of fresh air. For once competence will
matter.
k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
2010-06-21 23:10:34 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 03:47:11 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <***@rahul.net> wrote:

>On Jun 21, 5:24 am, "***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:34:03 -0500, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"MooseFET" <***@rahul.net> wrote in message
>> >news:1cefe7a4-ddd0-422b-a51a-***@s6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >>> The choice is, do you want the profits from BP to pay the costs or do you
>> >>> want the taxpayers to pay the costs .
>>
>> >> Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
>> >> total cost
>> >> that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves a fair chunk
>> >> of money
>> >> because a third party will be handling much of the work on paying out
>> >> the claims.
>>
>> > I don't think that will save BP money unless you think that the third party
>> >will pay out less in claims. I think the third party will just use part of
>> >the $20M as operating expenses.
>>
>> Make that $20B. Certainly, Obummer's cronies will come out very well off
>> indeed. Were I BP, I'd wash my hands at $20B and let the courts go after more
>> (it will take forever, if it can even be done). Government wants to handle
>> it, let them.
>>
>After the record of the republicans on crony capitalism, his hiring
>practices will be a breath of fresh air. For once competence will
>matter.

As always, you're full of shit. Obama is all about cronyism (check out who he
has working for him - all your friends from GS). Then there's Chris Dodd and
Barney Frank. Yeah, all Republicans.

Obama's Chicago mob has already raided the treasury and will use the $20B from
BP to clear their palate for the next course. Maybe you'll just kill yourself
in November.
DrParnassus
2010-06-21 23:35:04 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:10:34 -0500, "***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

>
>As always, you're full of shit.

krw has a fetish!

Come on, Johnny, where is your netsacatpolice post?
k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
2010-06-22 00:02:44 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:35:04 -0700, DrParnassus
<***@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:10:34 -0500, "***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>
>>As always, you're full of shit.
>
> krw has a fetish!

I knew I'd get you excited, AlwaysWrong.

> Come on, Johnny, where is your netsacatpolice post?

Get ahold of yourself, Dimbulb. Then log off mommy's computer and go to play
in her hamper. You'll feel much better.
MooseFET
2010-06-21 10:43:37 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 21, 1:34 am, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:
> "MooseFET" <***@rahul.net> wrote in message
[....]
>
> > Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
> > total cost
> > that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves a fair chunk
> > of money
> > because a third party will be handling much of the work on paying out
> > the claims.
>
> I don't think that will save BP money unless you think that the third party
> will pay out less in claims. I think the third party will just use part of
> the $20M as operating expenses.

The 3rd party will pay about the same in actual claims and less for
the
lawyers. Making the situation tidier makes he openings for lawyers
less.


>
> >> I have come to believe that Obama wants it to be a government program.
> > I think it more likely that you started off with that belief and then
> > looked for evidence to support it.
>
> No that's not true, I am not one to go with any conspiracy nonsense, but
> just
> as of recently I'm starting to believe that Obama does want to fundamentally
> change
> the type of government that we have. In fact the statement above which I did
> put some
> thought into before I wrote it, was the start of a turning point for me.
> With the
> Healthcare bill that included the takeover of the college loan program,

The college loan program was being done in an insane way. Private
companies made the loans and kept the profit when the loans got
paid off. The government got stuck with the losses. It was a classic
case of privatizing the profits while socializing the costs. Taking
over
the making of the loans will save the government money.


> the
> ownership of
> a large part of GM and Chrysler,

The government acted to stop the crash and is now getting back out
of the car business as fast as it can. This is not the first time the
government bailed out a car company. It really isn't anything new.

> Cash for clunkers,

Getting people to trash out old cars that are inefficient and pollute
a lot is not that bad of a thing. Back in 1973 when Nixon put a
55 MPH speed limit in place, it would have been far better to have
sent people gift certificates for tune ups. The cars on the road at
that time were very inefficient.


> the $8,000 to first time
> home buyers,

You can deduct your mortgage interest but not on your car payments.
Government often does stuff like that
.

> his stance on the boarder and comprehensive immigration reform and I'm sure
> there is more,
> I just think he is so against what America stands for that we need to stop
> his agenda.

He is for everything that America stands for.


> Mike
d***@yahoo.com
2010-06-20 18:36:17 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <***@rahul.net> wrote:

> Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
> total cost that the profits from BP will cover.  It actually saves a
> fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
> of the work on paying out the claims.

It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
card to buy your clothes saves you money.

It mostly just means that the payments will be made without concern to
their effectiveness or merit, by someone who has no interest in
either: Mr. Obama's pay czar. The pay czar's interest is to pay
quickly, often, and to as many people as possible, deserving or not.

The really good thing about Mr. Obama extorting $20B from BP is that
the government gets control of the $20B, and so can spend it faster,
and buy more votes.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Perenis
2010-06-20 19:11:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <***@rahul.net> wrote:
>
>> Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
>> total cost that the profits from BP will cover.  It actually saves a
>> fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
>> of the work on paying out the claims.
>
>It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
>card to buy your clothes saves you money.

It is not about money, dumbfuck. It is about PROCESSING efficiency. A
barge full of contaminant is more effective at timely clean-up than a
barge that is filled, but 40% of that fill is water.
>
>It mostly just means that the payments will be made without concern to
>their effectiveness or merit,

You are a goddamned idiot. The device states what it does. The crews
DO need separation processes, and his centrifugal device does that in a
smaller package than the big platforms utilize, which allows them to be
mounted on the barges themselves.

Do you retarded little pussies have ANY fucking common sense?

> by someone who has no interest in
>either: Mr. Obama's pay czar. The pay czar's interest is to pay
>quickly, often, and to as many people as possible, deserving or not.

Who are you saying does not deserve 'pay'?
>
>The really good thing about Mr. Obama extorting $20B from BP is that
>the government gets control of the $20B, and so can spend it faster,
>and buy more votes.

That is a "good thing"? Wow, dude, you really are retarded. Learn that
dumb shit from your daddy, did ya?
d***@yahoo.com
2010-06-20 20:42:16 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <***@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> >On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <***@rahul.net> wrote:
>
> >> Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
> >> total cost that the profits from BP will cover.  It actually saves a
> >> fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
> >> of the work on paying out the claims.
>
> >It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
> >card to buy your clothes saves you money.
>
>   It is not about money, dumbfuck.  It is about PROCESSING efficiency.  A
> barge full of contaminant is more effective at timely clean-up than a
> barge that is filled, but 40% of that fill is water.

We're talking about the $20B fund Obama extracted from BP. Not
Costner's centrifuge.

But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
barge at 50-100GPM?


James Arthur
k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
2010-06-20 21:29:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <***@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <***@rahul.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
>> >> total cost that the profits from BP will cover.  It actually saves a
>> >> fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
>> >> of the work on paying out the claims.
>>
>> >It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
>> >card to buy your clothes saves you money.
>>
>>   It is not about money, dumbfuck.  It is about PROCESSING efficiency.  A
>> barge full of contaminant is more effective at timely clean-up than a
>> barge that is filled, but 40% of that fill is water.
>
>We're talking about the $20B fund Obama extracted from BP. Not
>Costner's centrifuge.
>
>But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
>barge at 50-100GPM?

Speaking about processing efficiency, how long will it take the government to
pay the first dime to those who need it? It's been a couple of months now,
and Obummer still can't come to skipping a round of golf.
d***@yahoo.com
2010-06-20 22:12:22 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 20, 5:29 pm, "***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> >On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <***@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <***@rahul.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
> >> >> total cost that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves a
> >> >> fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
> >> >> of the work on paying out the claims.
>
> >> >It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
> >> >card to buy your clothes saves you money.
>
> >> It is not about money, dumbfuck. It is about PROCESSING efficiency. A
> >> barge full of contaminant is more effective at timely clean-up than a
> >> barge that is filled, but 40% of that fill is water.
>
> >We're talking about the $20B fund Obama extracted from BP.  Not
> >Costner's centrifuge.
>
> >But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
> >barge at 50-100GPM?
>
> Speaking about processing efficiency, how long will it take the government to
> pay the first dime to those who need it?  It's been a couple of months now,
> and Obummer still can't come to skipping a round of golf.

That's a good point. Mr. Obama prevented LA Gov. Bobby Jindal
building his berms for at least a month, a month when the oil was
still offshore. Those berms could've prevented a lot of damage,
saving wildlife and cleanup money too. Mr. Obama still hasn't
suspended the Jones Act. He's the slow one, not BP.

Re: efficiency, it depends what you're optimizing. I have every
confidence the government can spend any amount of money faster than BP
and get far less for it. But, they'll buy votes with BP's money, BP
will still be liable for the rest, and blamed for the government's
failings. To a politician, that's very efficient. It's awful.

James Arthur
k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
2010-06-20 22:53:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:12:22 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Jun 20, 5:29 pm, "***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <***@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <***@rahul.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
>> >> >> total cost that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves a
>> >> >> fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
>> >> >> of the work on paying out the claims.
>>
>> >> >It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
>> >> >card to buy your clothes saves you money.
>>
>> >> It is not about money, dumbfuck. It is about PROCESSING efficiency. A
>> >> barge full of contaminant is more effective at timely clean-up than a
>> >> barge that is filled, but 40% of that fill is water.
>>
>> >We're talking about the $20B fund Obama extracted from BP.  Not
>> >Costner's centrifuge.
>>
>> >But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
>> >barge at 50-100GPM?
>>
>> Speaking about processing efficiency, how long will it take the government to
>> pay the first dime to those who need it?  It's been a couple of months now,
>> and Obummer still can't come to skipping a round of golf.
>
>That's a good point. Mr. Obama prevented LA Gov. Bobby Jindal
>building his berms for at least a month, a month when the oil was
>still offshore. Those berms could've prevented a lot of damage,
>saving wildlife and cleanup money too. Mr. Obama still hasn't
>suspended the Jones Act. He's the slow one, not BP.
>
>Re: efficiency, it depends what you're optimizing. I have every
>confidence the government can spend any amount of money faster than BP
>and get far less for it. But, they'll buy votes with BP's money, BP
>will still be liable for the rest, and blamed for the government's
>failings. To a politician, that's very efficient. It's awful.

But *will* BP be liable for the rest? AIUI, their liability is capped at
something ridiculous like $75M. If BP decides to say "screw you, Obummer",
how long would it take to get another dime?
amdx
2010-06-21 01:42:09 UTC
Permalink
<***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:12:22 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>On Jun 20, 5:29 pm, "***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>><***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com
>>> wrote:
>>> >On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <***@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
>>> >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <***@rahul.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
>>> >> >> total cost that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves
>>> >> >> a
>>> >> >> fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
>>> >> >> of the work on paying out the claims.
>>>
>>> >> >It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
>>> >> >card to buy your clothes saves you money.
>>>
>>> >> It is not about money, dumbfuck. It is about PROCESSING efficiency. A
>>> >> barge full of contaminant is more effective at timely clean-up than a
>>> >> barge that is filled, but 40% of that fill is water.
>>>
>>> >We're talking about the $20B fund Obama extracted from BP. Not
>>> >Costner's centrifuge.
>>>
>>> >But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
>>> >barge at 50-100GPM?
>>>
>>> Speaking about processing efficiency, how long will it take the
>>> government to
>>> pay the first dime to those who need it? It's been a couple of months
>>> now,
>>> and Obummer still can't come to skipping a round of golf.
>>
>>That's a good point. Mr. Obama prevented LA Gov. Bobby Jindal
>>building his berms for at least a month, a month when the oil was
>>still offshore. Those berms could've prevented a lot of damage,
>>saving wildlife and cleanup money too. Mr. Obama still hasn't
>>suspended the Jones Act. He's the slow one, not BP.
>>
>>Re: efficiency, it depends what you're optimizing. I have every
>>confidence the government can spend any amount of money faster than BP
>>and get far less for it. But, they'll buy votes with BP's money, BP
>>will still be liable for the rest, and blamed for the government's
>>failings. To a politician, that's very efficient. It's awful.
>
> But *will* BP be liable for the rest? AIUI, their liability is capped at
> something ridiculous like $75M. If BP decides to say "screw you,
> Obummer",
> how long would it take to get another dime?
>
Last numbers I saw they had already paid out $1.35 Billion and
that was a week or two ago.
k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
2010-06-21 02:28:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:42:09 -0500, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:

>
><***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:12:22 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 20, 5:29 pm, "***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>><***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <***@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
>>>> >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >> >On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <***@rahul.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> >> Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
>>>> >> >> total cost that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves
>>>> >> >> a
>>>> >> >> fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
>>>> >> >> of the work on paying out the claims.
>>>>
>>>> >> >It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
>>>> >> >card to buy your clothes saves you money.
>>>>
>>>> >> It is not about money, dumbfuck. It is about PROCESSING efficiency. A
>>>> >> barge full of contaminant is more effective at timely clean-up than a
>>>> >> barge that is filled, but 40% of that fill is water.
>>>>
>>>> >We're talking about the $20B fund Obama extracted from BP. Not
>>>> >Costner's centrifuge.
>>>>
>>>> >But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
>>>> >barge at 50-100GPM?
>>>>
>>>> Speaking about processing efficiency, how long will it take the
>>>> government to
>>>> pay the first dime to those who need it? It's been a couple of months
>>>> now,
>>>> and Obummer still can't come to skipping a round of golf.
>>>
>>>That's a good point. Mr. Obama prevented LA Gov. Bobby Jindal
>>>building his berms for at least a month, a month when the oil was
>>>still offshore. Those berms could've prevented a lot of damage,
>>>saving wildlife and cleanup money too. Mr. Obama still hasn't
>>>suspended the Jones Act. He's the slow one, not BP.
>>>
>>>Re: efficiency, it depends what you're optimizing. I have every
>>>confidence the government can spend any amount of money faster than BP
>>>and get far less for it. But, they'll buy votes with BP's money, BP
>>>will still be liable for the rest, and blamed for the government's
>>>failings. To a politician, that's very efficient. It's awful.
>>
>> But *will* BP be liable for the rest? AIUI, their liability is capped at
>> something ridiculous like $75M. If BP decides to say "screw you,
>> Obummer",
>> how long would it take to get another dime?
>>
> Last numbers I saw they had already paid out $1.35 Billion and
>that was a week or two ago.

That's already 20x their legal liability cap. I'm really surprised that
they're being so generous, given the thrashing they're getting anyway.
d***@yahoo.com
2010-06-21 03:20:28 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 20, 5:53 pm, krw wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:12:22 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> >On Jun 20, 5:29 pm, krw wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:

> >> Speaking about processing efficiency, how long will it take the government to
> >> pay the first dime to those who need it? It's been a couple of months now,
> >> and Obummer still can't come to skipping a round of golf.
>
> >That's a good point.  Mr. Obama prevented LA Gov. Bobby Jindal
> >building his berms for at least a month, a month when the oil was
> >still offshore.  Those berms could've prevented a lot of damage,
> >saving wildlife and cleanup money too.  Mr. Obama still hasn't
> >suspended the Jones Act.  He's the slow one, not BP.
>
> >Re: efficiency, it depends what you're optimizing.  I have every
> >confidence the government can spend any amount of money faster than BP
> >and get far less for it.  But, they'll buy votes with BP's money, BP
> >will still be liable for the rest, and blamed for the government's
> >failings.  To a politician, that's very efficient.  It's awful.
>
> But *will* BP be liable for the rest?  AIUI, their liability is capped at
> something ridiculous like $75M.  If BP decides to say "screw you, Obummer",
> how long would it take to get another dime?

Under 33 U.S.C. § 2702, BP's liable for removal costs + $75M, unless
the result of “gross negligence or willful misconduct.” So yes,
they're being generous. OTOH, our confiscatorial Congress was huffing
about passing an ex post facto law to eliminate that limit.

What surprises me is the lawyerly assumption that BP is 100% liable
even though they weren't drilling the hole. There were 126 people on
board the Deepwater Horizon when it blew, only 6 of whom worked for
BP. ISTM the driller and cementing contractors bear the brunt. If
they protested the procedure was unsafe, all the more so--that'd mean
they did something dangerous, knowingly. That's reckless disregard.

If you want to argue BP approved the work, well, so did Obama's
Mineral Management Services under his MMS secretary. Who at this
government's MMS approved this well, who inspected it? What managers
supervised it? Were procedures followed? Why weren't they being
grilled at Congress' hearings?


--
Cheers,
James Arthur
k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
2010-06-21 23:13:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:20:28 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Jun 20, 5:53 pm, krw wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:12:22 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >On Jun 20, 5:29 pm, krw wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> >> Speaking about processing efficiency, how long will it take the government to
>> >> pay the first dime to those who need it? It's been a couple of months now,
>> >> and Obummer still can't come to skipping a round of golf.
>>
>> >That's a good point.  Mr. Obama prevented LA Gov. Bobby Jindal
>> >building his berms for at least a month, a month when the oil was
>> >still offshore.  Those berms could've prevented a lot of damage,
>> >saving wildlife and cleanup money too.  Mr. Obama still hasn't
>> >suspended the Jones Act.  He's the slow one, not BP.
>>
>> >Re: efficiency, it depends what you're optimizing.  I have every
>> >confidence the government can spend any amount of money faster than BP
>> >and get far less for it.  But, they'll buy votes with BP's money, BP
>> >will still be liable for the rest, and blamed for the government's
>> >failings.  To a politician, that's very efficient.  It's awful.
>>
>> But *will* BP be liable for the rest?  AIUI, their liability is capped at
>> something ridiculous like $75M.  If BP decides to say "screw you, Obummer",
>> how long would it take to get another dime?
>
>Under 33 U.S.C. § 2702, BP's liable for removal costs + $75M, unless
>the result of “gross negligence or willful misconduct.” So yes,
>they're being generous. OTOH, our confiscatorial Congress was huffing
>about passing an ex post facto law to eliminate that limit.

How long would that be in the courts?

>What surprises me is the lawyerly assumption that BP is 100% liable
>even though they weren't drilling the hole. There were 126 people on
>board the Deepwater Horizon when it blew, only 6 of whom worked for
>BP. ISTM the driller and cementing contractors bear the brunt. If
>they protested the procedure was unsafe, all the more so--that'd mean
>they did something dangerous, knowingly. That's reckless disregard.

Deep pockets.

>If you want to argue BP approved the work, well, so did Obama's
>Mineral Management Services under his MMS secretary. Who at this
>government's MMS approved this well, who inspected it? What managers
>supervised it? Were procedures followed? Why weren't they being
>grilled at Congress' hearings?

Why did they just get a safety award from Obama?
d***@yahoo.com
2010-06-22 02:27:15 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 21, 6:13 pm, "***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:20:28 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> >On Jun 20, 5:53 pm, krw wrote:

> >> But *will* BP be liable for the rest? AIUI, their liability is capped at
> >> something ridiculous like $75M. If BP decides to say "screw you, Obummer",
> >> how long would it take to get another dime?
>
> >Under 33 U.S.C. 2702, BP's liable for removal costs + $75M, unless
> >the result of gross negligence or willful misconduct.  So yes,
> >they're being generous.  OTOH, our confiscatorial Congress was huffing
> >about passing an ex post facto law to eliminate that limit.
>
> How long would that be in the courts?

It's been reported in the $20B "shakedown" meeting that Biden told BP
CEO Hayward "You have no choice. If you don't, we'll force you."

With that kind of intimidation, BP'd probably just fold.

Joe Chisolm has a point--BP's a big Democratic supporter. They spent
millions for cap-n-trade, gave the President's chief of staff 5 years
in a rent-free apartment, a major campaign contributor, etc. For
whatever reason they thought they'd do better under Obama than McCain.

So, it could all be theater--they get their symbolic whipping, then a
bunch of special treatment to make it all back over time.

> >What surprises me is the lawyerly assumption that BP is 100% liable
> >even though they weren't drilling the hole.  There were 126 people on
> >board the Deepwater Horizon when it blew, only 6 of whom worked for
> >BP.  ISTM the driller and cementing contractors bear the brunt.  If
> >they protested the procedure was unsafe, all the more so--that'd mean
> >they did something dangerous, knowingly.  That's reckless disregard.
>
> Deep pockets.

Yep. That's still wrong.

> >If you want to argue BP approved the work, well, so did Obama's
> >Mineral Management Services under his MMS secretary.  Who at this
> >government's MMS approved this well, who inspected it?  What managers
> >supervised it?  Were procedures followed?  Why weren't they being
> >grilled at Congress' hearings?
>
> Why did they just get a safety award from Obama?

Because Obama's appointees are full of sunshine and song, but can't
tie their own shoes.

James
Michael A. Terrell
2010-06-21 19:47:55 UTC
Permalink
"***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <***@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <***@rahul.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
> >> >> total cost that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves a
> >> >> fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
> >> >> of the work on paying out the claims.
> >>
> >> >It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
> >> >card to buy your clothes saves you money.
> >>
> >> It is not about money, dumbfuck. It is about PROCESSING efficiency. A
> >> barge full of contaminant is more effective at timely clean-up than a
> >> barge that is filled, but 40% of that fill is water.
> >
> >We're talking about the $20B fund Obama extracted from BP. Not
> >Costner's centrifuge.
> >
> >But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
> >barge at 50-100GPM?
>
> Speaking about processing efficiency, how long will it take the government to
> pay the first dime to those who need it? It's been a couple of months now,
> and Obummer still can't come to skipping a round of golf.


He's going to use part of that 20B to buy himself a yacht.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
2010-06-21 23:16:06 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:47:55 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<***@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <***@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <***@rahul.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
>> >> >> total cost that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves a
>> >> >> fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
>> >> >> of the work on paying out the claims.
>> >>
>> >> >It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
>> >> >card to buy your clothes saves you money.
>> >>
>> >> It is not about money, dumbfuck. It is about PROCESSING efficiency. A
>> >> barge full of contaminant is more effective at timely clean-up than a
>> >> barge that is filled, but 40% of that fill is water.
>> >
>> >We're talking about the $20B fund Obama extracted from BP. Not
>> >Costner's centrifuge.
>> >
>> >But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
>> >barge at 50-100GPM?
>>
>> Speaking about processing efficiency, how long will it take the government to
>> pay the first dime to those who need it? It's been a couple of months now,
>> and Obummer still can't come to skipping a round of golf.
>
>
> He's going to use part of that 20B to buy himself a yacht.

That's some yacht! I guess the Sequoia isn't big enough for a full eighteen
holes.
Perenis
2010-06-20 23:27:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com
wrote:

>But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
>barge at 50-100GPM?
>
>
>James Arthur


Only a fucktard like you would inject a figure into it that is not even
realistic.

Try running numbers on about 1000 or 500 GPM.

Also, NO processing takes place AT THE BARGE currently, so the
efficiency is 100% in EVERY case where processing AT THE BARGE does take
place, you fucking total moron. Likely faster than the skimmers pull the
contaminant bulk out of the water.

Come back when that Karma Factor of yours comes back onto the positive
side.
JW
2010-06-21 11:26:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT) ***@yahoo.com wrote in
Message id:
<15473ffb-3bb1-4034-a5c6-***@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:

>On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <***@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:

:)

Great minds think alike.
DrParnassus
2010-06-21 17:12:54 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:26:34 -0400, JW <***@dev.null> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT) ***@yahoo.com wrote in
>Message id:
><15473ffb-3bb1-4034-a5c6-***@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <***@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
>
>:)
>
>Great minds think alike.

That thinking being utterly retarded compared to the rest of mankind.

Nice job of jumping onto the 40 IQ and below barge, retard boy.

You should be their Yeoman.
k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
2010-06-20 21:27:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <***@rahul.net> wrote:
>
>> Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
>> total cost that the profits from BP will cover.  It actually saves a
>> fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
>> of the work on paying out the claims.
>
>It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
>card to buy your clothes saves you money.
>
>It mostly just means that the payments will be made without concern to
>their effectiveness or merit, by someone who has no interest in
>either: Mr. Obama's pay czar. The pay czar's interest is to pay
>quickly, often, and to as many people as possible, deserving or not.

...while taking the government's, Obummer's cronies, and his cut.

>The really good thing about Mr. Obama extorting $20B from BP is that
>the government gets control of the $20B, and so can spend it faster,
>and buy more votes.

If any money ever comes out the other end[*]. They need to do something fast,
obviously.

[*] BP should demand a full and accurate accounting, including SSNs of anyone
getting a check, before turning over another dime.
MooseFET
2010-06-21 10:50:18 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 21, 2:36 am, ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <***@rahul.net> wrote:
>
> > Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
> > total cost that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves a
> > fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
> > of the work on paying out the claims.
>
> It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
> card to buy your clothes saves you money.

It save money to not have the situation burn up money on an army
or lawyers.

>
> It mostly just means that the payments will be made without concern to
> their effectiveness or merit, by someone who has no interest in
> either: Mr. Obama's pay czar. The pay czar's interest is to pay
> quickly, often, and to as many people as possible, deserving or not.

The folks doing it are not "Obama's pay czar". IIRC they are the same
folks
that did it after 911. These are folks who know how to do this sort
of thing.

> The really good thing about Mr. Obama extorting $20B from BP is that
> the government gets control of the $20B, and so can spend it faster,
> and buy more votes.

Obama doesn't end up controlling it. He may get some extra votes
for having put adults in charge but nothing more.
d***@yahoo.com
2010-06-21 11:57:42 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 21, 6:50 am, MooseFET <***@rahul.net> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2:36 am, ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <***@rahul.net> wrote:
>
> > > Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
> > > total cost that the profits from BP will cover.  It actually saves a
> > > fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
> > > of the work on paying out the claims.
>
> > It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
> > card to buy your clothes saves you money.
>
> It save money to not have the situation burn up money on an army
> or lawyers.

You assume that BP would do that. There's no evidence they are or
will, and why on earth would they if handing out money were cheaper?
But, they have every right to weed out legitimate claims from
illegitimate, a right which they've now lost.

So far they're paying all comers far faster than anyone has ever done
before. They've spent $2B already.


> > It mostly just means that the payments will be made without concern to
> > their effectiveness or merit, by someone who has no interest in
> > either: Mr. Obama's pay czar.  The pay czar's interest is to pay
> > quickly, often, and to as many people as possible, deserving or not.
>
> The folks doing it are not "Obama's pay czar".

No, it /is/ Obama's pay czar. Mr. Obama's appointed Kenneth
Feinberg, /the/ pay czar, the appointee used to dictate bankers'
compensation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65F5KI20100616


>  IIRC they are the same folks
> that did it after 911.  These are folks who know how to do this sort
> of thing.

> > The really good thing about Mr. Obama extorting $20B from BP is that
> > the government gets control of the $20B, and so can spend it faster,
> > and buy more votes.
>
> Obama doesn't end up controlling it.  He may get some extra votes
> for having put adults in charge but nothing more.

What the President of the United States has done is extort $20B from a
private company without due process of law. He's first implicitly
accused them of criminality through his Justice Department, then
demanded money. It's dictatorial, it's illegal, and unseemly.

Every accused in the United States--even a murderer--is entitled to a
fair trial, and an adjudication of the facts in a court of law if he
needs it. This is exactly why we have courts, and why the
Constitution guarantees every citizen--corporate or otherwise--his
right to use them. That's a basic civil right. BP has not gotten
this. We don't even know at this point whether it was BP's fault,
partially, or someone else's.

Instead, the President has appointed himself the nation's highest
vigilante--judge, jury, and executioner--with the Congress as his
salivating lynch mob.

Obviously great harm has been caused, and BP must pay their share.

So far BP has shown every sign of singlehandedly making good the great
harm they and/or their partners caused. It is utterly unfair, unjust,
and illegal to fine them arbitrarily, without chance of defense or
even a determination that they're the ones responsible.

This was truly a disgusting, tyrannical act, the act of a dictator,
not a President.

James Arthur
Greegor
2010-06-22 02:08:38 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 21, 5:50 am, MooseFET <***@rahul.net> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2:36 am, ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <***@rahul.net> wrote:
>
> > > Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
> > > total cost that the profits from BP will cover.  It actually saves a
> > > fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
> > > of the work on paying out the claims.
>
> > It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
> > card to buy your clothes saves you money.
>
> It save money to not have the situation burn up money on an army
> [ of ] lawyers.
>
>
>
> > It mostly just means that the payments will be made without concern to
> > their effectiveness or merit, by someone who has no interest in
> > either: Mr. Obama's pay czar.  The pay czar's interest is to pay
> > quickly, often, and to as many people as possible, deserving or not.

MooseFart > The folks doing it are not
MooseFart > "Obama's pay czar".  IIRC
MooseFart > they are the same folks that did it after 911.

You think that was a GOOD THING?
Red Cross almost got shut down by Congress
for collecting billions and not paying it out.
They were going to use the money to ENLARGE
their ""non-profit"" massively rather than pay it out.

FoxNews O'Reilly caught onto that and
soon the US Congress was dragging their
asses in before a subcommittee.

The point was that the BILLIONS were
donated FOR 9/11, not for Red Cross
to bankroll for enlargement or future
disasters.

Collecting BILLIONS for 9/11 and
using it otherwise would be a SCAM.

The PR disaster forced Red Cross to
start paying out the money.

MooseFart > These are folks who know how
MooseFart > to do this sort of thing.

What a giant brain fart!

WHO the hell are you talking about, specifically?

FEMA ???? LOL


> > The really good thing about Mr. Obama extorting $20B from BP is that
> > the government gets control of the $20B, and so can spend it faster,
> > and buy more votes.

> Obama doesn't end up controlling it.  He may get some extra votes
> for having put adults in charge but nothing more.

Did you know that our government passed
a law LIMITING PAYOUTS FOR OIL SPILLS?

BP is immune beyond that figure.

Did you know that BP is VOLUNTARILY
paying settlement money BEYOND the
liability cap law passed by our Congress?

Congress is now himming and hawing about
removing that liability cap.
DrParnassus
2010-06-22 02:31:40 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:08:38 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>You think that was a GOOD THING?
>Red Cross almost got shut down by Congress
>for collecting billions and not paying it out.

Only about three orders of magnitude off there, you GODDAMNED RETARDED
LYING FUCKTARD!

>They were going to use the money to ENLARGE
>their ""non-profit"" massively rather than pay it out.

Hey,look! The retarded fucking putz got lucky and got one right!
DrParnassus
2010-06-22 02:32:05 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:08:38 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The point was that the BILLIONS were
>donated FOR 9/11, not for Red Cross
>to bankroll for enlargement or future
>disasters.

Still wrong on the numbers... as usual.
DrParnassus
2010-06-22 02:32:38 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:08:38 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Collecting BILLIONS for 9/11 and
>using it otherwise would be a SCAM.


No, idiot, it is called fraud, but you getting the numbers so wrong is
called utter stupidity.
DrParnassus
2010-06-22 02:34:25 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:08:38 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Did you know that our government passed
>a law LIMITING PAYOUTS FOR OIL SPILLS?
>
>BP is immune beyond that figure.


No, idiot. There are all kinds of things that they ARE responsible for
over and above the $75M figure, you are too goddamned stupid to grasp the
fact that it goes beyond the direct, up front dollar liability.
JosephKK
2010-06-21 04:14:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:41:14 -0500, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:

>
>"MooseFET" <***@rahul.net> wrote in message
>news:3dc8cf08-35f0-4778-a677-***@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <***@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Grumps wrote:
>>>
>>> > "George Jefferson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:hvg8j6$4ie$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> > <snippy snip snip>
>>>
>>> > > If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP
>>> > > would go
>>> > > along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap
>>> > > n
>>> > > trade, a foreign company
>>>
>>> > Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US
>>> > registered
>>> > company?
>>>
>>> And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their spokesweasel
>>> is returning to England.
>>
>> Multinational corporations are not really part of any nation. BP is
>> largely but
>> not completely owned by the British.
>>
>> The US registered part could be used as a way to duck out from the
>> responsibility after things cool off. The main part of BP can pump
>> the
>> money out of the US part while making the US part responsible for the
>> damages. At some point the US part goes bankrupt leaving the US
>> stuck with the remaining costs.
>
>
>
>> The 20 Billion set aside doesn't even begin to cover the likely long
>> term costs.
>
> Ya, the government should have let BP keep their $20 billion.
>We all need to keep the company financially strong, if they can continue
>making $15 billion in profits the next 10 or 20 years they can pay the
>losses caused by the oil leak.
>But taking $20B form a company that has already lost over $70B in assets
>is just weakening them and pushing them toward bankruptcy Bp only had $7B
>in cash when the shakedown occurred. Now they need to find a way to get
>$13B plus a little more for operating capital.
>
> Mike
>
>

Yo Mike. The fall in stock prices is damages to the stockholders, not
the company. BP cash and assets and debits are largely the same as
before the spill. The stock price drop is mostly the disappearance of
imaginary money. Now that $20 billion escrow fund may weaken them a
little, but not much or they would never have agreed to it. They know
more and are covering themselves if the problem escalates past $100
billion.
amdx
2010-06-21 11:47:20 UTC
Permalink
"JosephKK" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:41:14 -0500, "amdx" <***@knology.net> wrote:

>
>"MooseFET" <***@rahul.net> wrote in message
>news:3dc8cf08-35f0-4778-a677-***@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <***@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Grumps wrote:
>>>
>>> > "George Jefferson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:hvg8j6$4ie$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> > <snippy snip snip>
>>>
>>> > > If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP
>>> > > would go
>>> > > along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap
>>> > > n
>>> > > trade, a foreign company
>>>
>>> > Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US
>>> > registered
>>> > company?
>>>
>>> And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their spokesweasel
>>> is returning to England.
>>
>> Multinational corporations are not really part of any nation. BP is
>> largely but
>> not completely owned by the British.
>>
>> The US registered part could be used as a way to duck out from the
>> responsibility after things cool off. The main part of BP can pump
>> the
>> money out of the US part while making the US part responsible for the
>> damages. At some point the US part goes bankrupt leaving the US
>> stuck with the remaining costs.
>
>
>
>> The 20 Billion set aside doesn't even begin to cover the likely long
>> term costs.
>
> Ya, the government should have let BP keep their $20 billion.
>We all need to keep the company financially strong, if they can continue
>making $15 billion in profits the next 10 or 20 years they can pay the
>losses caused by the oil leak.
>But taking $20B form a company that has already lost over $70B in assets
>is just weakening them and pushing them toward bankruptcy Bp only had $7B
>in cash when the shakedown occurred. Now they need to find a way to get
>$13B plus a little more for operating capital.
>
> Mike
>
>

>Yo Mike. The fall in stock prices is damages to the stockholders, not
>the company.

Let's see, if I have a company with $180B in stock market assets and
you have a company with $10B in stock market assets, which of use
could issue $10B in new stock without harming the company.
I bet I could get the $10B long before you, that should tell you that
a fall in stock prices damages the company. Especially one under pressure
from increased expenses.
Mike
Grumps
2010-06-20 07:45:35 UTC
Permalink
"Michael A. Terrell" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:***@earthlink.com...
>
> Grumps wrote:
>>
>> "George Jefferson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hvg8j6$4ie$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>> <snippy snip snip>
>>
>> > If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP would
>> > go
>> > along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap n
>> > trade, a foreign company
>>
>> Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US registered
>> company?
>
>
> And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their spokesweasel
> is returning to England.

And do you know who "owns" BP?
MooseFET
2010-06-20 16:30:30 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 20, 3:45 pm, "Grumps" <***@nothere.com> wrote:
> "Michael A. Terrell" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:***@earthlink.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Grumps wrote:
>
> >> "George Jefferson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:hvg8j6$4ie$***@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> <snippy snip snip>
>
> >> > If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP would
> >> > go
> >> > along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap n
> >> > trade, a foreign company
>
> >> Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US registered
> >> company?
>
> > And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their spokesweasel
> > is returning to England.
>
> And do you know who "owns" BP?

Does my BP stock mean that I do?
Archimedes' Lever
2010-06-20 18:22:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:30:30 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <***@rahul.net>
wrote:

>On Jun 20, 3:45 pm, "Grumps" <***@nothere.com> wrote:
>> "Michael A. Terrell" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:***@earthlink.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Grumps wrote:
>>
>> >> "George Jefferson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:hvg8j6$4ie$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>> >> <snippy snip snip>
>>
>> >> > If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP would
>> >> > go
>> >> > along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap n
>> >> > trade, a foreign company
>>
>> >> Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US registered
>> >> company?
>>
>> > And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their spokesweasel
>> > is returning to England.
>>
>> And do you know who "owns" BP?
>
>Does my BP stock mean that I do?
>

About 1000th the amount of market share that Sam sells beer here.
John O'Flaherty
2010-06-20 21:00:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:30:30 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET
<***@rahul.net> wrote:

>On Jun 20, 3:45 pm, "Grumps" <***@nothere.com> wrote:
>> "Michael A. Terrell" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:***@earthlink.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Grumps wrote:
>>
>> >> "George Jefferson" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:hvg8j6$4ie$***@news.eternal-september.org...
>> >> <snippy snip snip>
>>
>> >> > If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP would
>> >> > go
>> >> > along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap n
>> >> > trade, a foreign company
>>
>> >> Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US registered
>> >> company?
>>
>> > And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their spokesweasel
>> > is returning to England.

That's not fair! He had a yacht race to attend, after all!

>> And do you know who "owns" BP?
>
>Does my BP stock mean that I do?

According to their website, about 40% of stock ownership is in the UK,
and about 39% in the US.

http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9010453&contentId=7019612

http://tinyurl.com/2blagkw

--
John
linnix
2010-06-20 20:55:02 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 20, 1:42 pm, ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <***@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <***@rahul.net> wrote:
>
> > >> Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
> > >> total cost that the profits from BP will cover.  It actually saves a
> > >> fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
> > >> of the work on paying out the claims.
>
> > >It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
> > >card to buy your clothes saves you money.
>
> >   It is not about money, dumbfuck.  It is about PROCESSING efficiency.  A
> > barge full of contaminant is more effective at timely clean-up than a
> > barge that is filled, but 40% of that fill is water.
>
> We're talking about the $20B fund Obama extracted from BP.  Not
> Costner's centrifuge.
>
> But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
> barge at 50-100GPM?
>

How much does a barge cost anyway, a few hundred K? Just surround the
well with the whole fleet and some more to move the cargo to shore.
Land based proccessing plant can filter the water in no time. It
might burn a few more barrels of oil by the ships to move the barge,
but they are burning much more over water anyway.

Alternatively, just build a 80 miles pipe-line to shore. I will do it
for a billion.
Perenis
2010-06-20 23:35:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:55:02 -0700 (PDT), linnix <***@linnix.info-for.us>
wrote:

> Just surround the
>well with the whole fleet and some more to move the cargo to shore.

If 40% of their hold is water, then processing it AT the extraction
point is the right way to go. That way, ALL the hold's contents get
offloaded at shore, and the number of trips is lower.

We do not need to burn all the fuel we would have refined from the stuff
we collect. That would be nearly as bed as the spill, and certainly adds
to the pollution of it.

Want to get weird? String high tension (not power lines)cabling across
the gulf, suspend it, and use paddles to push the slick back toward the
spill point. The collection fleet can remain more tightly packed that
way, along with the contaminant being kept from shores.

Too late for that stuff now though. Maybe a hurricane will come
through, pick it all up, and dump it with the rain all over the south.
Then, MAYBE we will realize that we ALL need to be reducing our carbon
footprints.

The standard of living in the US has gone WAY down. Do not expect it
to get back up to that old comfort zone any time soon, if ever.
linnix
2010-06-21 04:43:38 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 20, 4:35 pm, Perenis <***@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:55:02 -0700 (PDT), linnix <***@linnix.info-for.us>
> wrote:
>
> > Just surround the
> >well with the whole fleet and some more to move the cargo to shore.
>
>  If 40% of their hold is water, then processing it AT the extraction
> point is the right way to go.  

If the pipe is big enough, water content doesn't matter. With 30% oil
coming out of the 20" well, a 48" pipe can handle 80% to 90% water.

> That way, ALL the hold's contents get
> offloaded at shore, and the number of trips is lower.

We should pipe it. If we can go thousands of miles from Alaska, we
can go 80 miles off-shore.

>
>  Too late for that stuff now though.  

Not really. We have at least several months of leaks ahead. If the
relief well misses, or leaks, we have to deal with this problem for a
very long time. The so called "ruptured disk" 1000 feet below is the
well casing itself. That means there is nothing to hold the drilling
mud from the top. Bottom kill is not a sure thing either.

If I am in-charge, I would require containment barges and pipes on
every well at sea.

> Maybe a hurricane will come
> through, pick it all up, and dump it with the rain all over the south.
> Then, MAYBE we will realize that we ALL need to be reducing our carbon
> footprints.
>
>   The standard of living in the US has gone WAY down.  Do not expect it
> to get back up to that old comfort zone any time soon, if ever.
Perenis
2010-06-21 06:29:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:43:38 -0700 (PDT), linnix <***@linnix.info-for.us>
wrote:

>If the pipe is big enough, water content doesn't matter. With 30% oil
>coming out of the 20" well, a 48" pipe can handle 80% to 90% water.


It isn't "coming out of a well" you retarded fuck,ithat is a hundred
miles away from the barges being discussed. They are getting all they
can from the well head, idiot. This discussion is about the barges that
are out there SKIMMING the oil. There is no goddamned 48" inch pipe and
the 20" well is MILES away, dipshit.

You are a stupid fuck. They pull contaminant UP onto the barge, THEN it
gets processed BEFORE it gets put into the barge hold. And yes, 40%
water in that circumstance DOES make a difference.

If you were any more in the dark, I'd say that you were down there
swimming it.

You are probably an aerosol huffer, and you got hold of some insect
repellant.
linnix
2010-06-21 06:59:03 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 20, 11:29 pm, Perenis <***@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:43:38 -0700 (PDT), linnix <***@linnix.info-for.us>
> wrote:
>
> >If the pipe is big enough, water content doesn't matter.  With 30% oil
> >coming out of the 20" well, a 48" pipe can handle 80% to 90% water.
>   It isn't "coming out of a well" you retarded fuck,ithat is a hundred
> miles away from the barges being discussed.

That's because they are not setting it up right at the well site. The
remote barges are solutions after the fact.

>  They are getting all they
> can from the well head, idiot.

No, they are not. They have the capacity to capture much more.
Unfortunately, they are thinking like you with the wrong solution.

>  This discussion is about the barges that
> are out there SKIMMING the oil.  There is no goddamned 48" inch pipe and
> the 20" well is MILES away, dipshit.

Then build it.

>
>   You are a stupid fuck. They pull contaminant UP onto the barge, THEN it
> gets processed BEFORE it gets put into the barge hold.  And yes, 40%
> water in that circumstance DOES make a difference.
>
>   If you were any more in the dark, I'd say that you were down there
> swimming it.

Irrelevant.

>
>  You are probably an aerosol huffer, and you got hold of some insect
> repellant.

Sepeculation.
Perenis
2010-06-21 07:43:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:59:03 -0700 (PDT), linnix <***@linnix.info-for.us>
wrote:

>
>That's because they are not setting it up right at the well site. The
>remote barges are solutions after the fact.


No shit, Dip Tracy! That is what *I* said!
Archimedes' Lever
2010-06-21 07:56:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:59:03 -0700 (PDT), linnix <***@linnix.info-for.us>
wrote:

>>  They are getting all they
>> can from the well head, idiot.
>
>No, they are not. They have the capacity to capture much more.
>Unfortunately, they are thinking like you with the wrong solution.


You're a goddamned idiot. They are grabbing all they can at present.

Until they put more hardware down there, and until the relief well gets
finished, the pressure is going to remain too high to handle completely.
I would not expect a presumptuous dope to get that though. You assume
that they are "doing nothing", and you assume that your petty ideas have
value and that not another soul on scene is thinking about all options.

You not only have offered the wrong non-solution, you offered NO
solution. You have no sense of practicality. None.
Archimedes' Lever
2010-06-21 08:10:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:59:03 -0700 (PDT), linnix <***@linnix.info-for.us>
wrote:

>>  This discussion is about the barges that
>> are out there SKIMMING the oil.  There is no goddamned 48" inch pipe and
>> the 20" well is MILES away, dipshit.
>
>Then build it.

You retarded FUCK! That is NOT the fix!
Archimedes' Lever
2010-06-21 08:15:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:59:03 -0700 (PDT), linnix <***@linnix.info-for.us>
wrote:

>>  You are probably an aerosol huffer, and you got hold of some insect
>> repellant.
>
>Sepeculation.

Come back (in your next life) when your brain hasn't been addled by
huffing sprays, idiot. The word is SPECULATION. And with you, they are
easy, and very likely accurate.
Greegor
2010-06-22 02:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Archie: Do you THINK you act like a mature adult, or a spaz?

What kind of role models did you have?
The Tazmanian Devil?

Your style is much like a neurotic, precocious
idealistic teenager who thinks they know it
all but they have absolutely NO practical real
world experience and no people skills so they
are bitter at people in general.

Where along the spectrum from ADHD
to Autism to Aspergers to Schizophrenia
does your condition fit in?
DrParnassus
2010-06-22 02:56:07 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:37:32 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Archie: Do you THINK you act like a mature adult, or a spaz?

I think that you act like a total retard, and examination of your posts
of late would make for easy proof, you immature little wussified bitch.
>
>What kind of role models did you have?

The best.

>The Tazmanian Devil?

Him too. :-) Don't expect a retarded twit like you to understand,
however. I also like The Tex Avery collection.

>
>Your style is much like a neurotic, precocious
>idealistic teenager who thinks they know it
>all but they have absolutely NO practical real
>world experience and no people skills so they
>are bitter at people in general.

Sounds like projection to me.
>
>Where along the spectrum from ADHD
>to Autism to Aspergers to Schizophrenia
>does your condition fit in?

Sounds like projection to me. Have you completed you stalking regimen
yet today?

Bwuahahahahahahahahahaha!
Perenis
2010-06-21 06:40:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:43:38 -0700 (PDT), linnix <***@linnix.info-for.us>
wrote:

>We should pipe it. If we can go thousands of miles from Alaska, we
>can go 80 miles off-shore.
>
>>
Your logistic sense is nil as well. That means that you are a meth
head or crack head or both, a recent HS grad, and you wear your pants
down past your asscrack. I say this because regardless of what your
numeric age may be, you have the brain and worldly knowledge of a fucking
uneducated punk, at best.

So what? A floating pipe? What happens when it gets full of flowing
contaminant you stupid, didn't think it through meth head?

Also why would we spend three years building your stupid pipe while the
well head keeps leaking the whole time? Didn't think it through hell,
You didn't even think about it at all.

That was about the most retarded suggestion I have yet seen. "Put in 80
miles of 48" pipe. You're a real weiner.

They fill bladders full of it and barges AT the site where they are
recovering it from, NOT at the fucking well head. Those bladders need to
have ONLY contaminant in them to make them worth the trouble.

Your brain is obviously contaminated. Stay off the meth, and buy pants
that fit correctly and wear them correctly.
Perenis
2010-06-20 23:39:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:55:02 -0700 (PDT), linnix <***@linnix.info-for.us>
wrote:

>Alternatively, just build a 80 miles pipe-line to shore. I will do it
>for a billion.

Barges float pipe strings just fine. There are mobile dredgers that
operate just off the shores of Carlsbad. They pump the extraction back to
the inlet. about 2000ft, and they only use floats for the pipes. They
also drag the whole set back into the inlet pretty often as well. The
flex links in the pipe handle high surf just fine.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...