|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: mousethief Date: 05 Aug 10 - 08:51 PM Small business being the driving force behind employment in this country (did I already say that?). Of course Big Biz never met a Small Biz it didn't want to drive out of business and/or buy up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Bobert Date: 05 Aug 10 - 04:30 PM No thanks, mouse... They've allready nailed me big time this year with their across the board policy of not lending to small businesses... Someone elses turn... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: mousethief Date: 05 Aug 10 - 04:15 PM Bend over, Bobert. You're next. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Bobert Date: 05 Aug 10 - 12:32 PM I wish I could forget that, mouse... Our country is in a real pickel with these corporatists having their way with any and everything... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: mousethief Date: 05 Aug 10 - 02:00 AM I mean, we get, what... 5% of our oil from our own sources??? What's the hurry if takin' a little time and doin' stuff right means not messin' up our other resources... I mean, resources are rescources... If ya kill off $50B in fish to maybe extract $20B in oil then it don't take the Wes Ginny Slide Rule to tell ya' that yer gamblin' against "the house"... Don't take too many of those bad bets and we have the bad results of "risk" passed onto the taxpayer... You fail to understand. The people who make money off the fish are by and large private fishermen, processors, and small restaurant owners. The people who make money off the oil are multibillionaires in air-conditioned offices in New York with multimillion-dollar golden parachutes to fall back on should they f*** up. Drill, baby, drill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 10 - 11:44 PM For five hundred million they could drill oout to it from the shore line, fer cry-i. Modern directional drilling techniques don't usually go that far, true--but where there are trillions at stake... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Bobert Date: 04 Aug 10 - 10:17 PM Maybe Obama should extend the ban on new drillin' a few months... 'Er years??? I mean, we get, what... 5% of our oil from our own sources??? What's the hurry if takin' a little time and doin' stuff right means not messin' up our other resources... I mean, resources are rescources... If ya kill off $50B in fish to maybe extract $20B in oil then it don't take the Wes Ginny Slide Rule to tell ya' that yer gamblin' against "the house"... Don't take too many of those bad bets and we have the bad results of "risk" passed onto the taxpayer... This ain't rocket surgery here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 04 Aug 10 - 10:05 PM The Liberty prospect on the Alaska side of the Beaufort is matched by similar prospects on the Nunavut (Canadian) side. G. MacKay, director of petroleum resources for the Nunavut government, says value of reserves may be as high as $3 trillion. Imperial Oil back 30 and more years ago researched and pioneered the construction of offshore islands in the Beaufort Sea. The 'feet' of the rigs will be on the islands, but that does not necessarily mean that the wells are safer. A blowout would soon overwhelm the small area of the artificial islands. The cold climate guarantees that any spilled oil would be around much longer than it would be in the Gulf where biodegradation is faster. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: katlaughing Date: 04 Aug 10 - 07:36 PM Makes ya wonder, huh, gnu? There are a lot of articles which show up in a google search. Here's just ONE of them. I wonder how many of the "common folk" don't know about this. It says they're going to test the first well this Fall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: gnu Date: 04 Aug 10 - 02:58 PM Ahhhh... I would like to see the plans for that. When ice is pushed by wind and you couple that with freeze-thaw and currents, Mother Nature can be a bitch. My main qusetion would be about the height of the top of the 400m diameter island above sea level. Secondly, about the assessment of the seabed to withstand, over time, the horizontal shear force at the base of the island radiating from the centre... about 2000m or more. That's a lot of seabed. If it lets go in one direction in future, or if the island settles differentially over time, the remedial actions taken in the Gulf of Mexico won't even be an option. But, I am sure BP has ther top peeps on it and there are no worries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: katlaughing Date: 04 Aug 10 - 02:17 PM She may get her oil spill in AK afterall if BP isn't stopped: BP is at it again! Despite the catastrophe in the Gulf, BP is moving forward with a controversial project to drill in the Arctic. In order to get around the Obama Administration's moratorium on off-shore drilling, BP has built "Liberty Island" three miles off the Alaskan Coast and plans to drill two miles under the sea and then six to eight miles horizontally to tap an underwater reserve. An oil spill in the Arctic would be far worse than what continues to unfold in the Gulf. There is no proven technology for cleaning up oil in icy water and the nearest emergency and relief supports are thousands of miles away. Ignoring the lessons of this most recent disaster, Federal regulators even allowed BP to write its own environmental review for the project. We cannot allow for history to repeat itself. Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, has the ability to STOP this catastrophe before it happens and YOU have the ability to influence Secretary Salazar. Tell Secretary Salazar to stop BP's dangerous and unregulated drilling in the Arctic Sincerely, Robert Greenwald and the Brave New Foundation team |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Riginslinger Date: 28 May 10 - 11:36 AM It's definately Obama's Katrina now. He just fired his own version of Brownie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Bobert Date: 17 May 10 - 10:27 PM Donuel< That show allready occured... I posted my thoughts on it... Alice has put a link to it... Dude!!! Yer behind a week... Must be nice... lol... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 May 10 - 10:23 PM See link to text of program posted by Alice, above. 16May 11:17. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Donuel Date: 17 May 10 - 09:36 PM This Sunday on CBS 60 minutes you will learn exactly why and how the oil diaster occured. BP argued to eliminate putting in the 3rd plug of drilling mud to seal the well with the weight of filling the pipe with mud. Halliburton argued that the well haed had broken due to an explosive gush of gas 2 months earlier so they did not know how much pressure was in the pipe since the valve had shattered and had come out the top of the pipe in pieces. With no way to know the pressure Halliburton argued that a total sealing of the pipe was necessary. BP said that filling the whole mile long pipe wioth mud would take too much time when they were ready to pump oil. BP won the arguement. This entire argument actually took place aboard the oil rig that blew up 3 hours later killing eleven people and set into motion a oil diaster that could spread across two oceans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 May 10 - 04:57 PM It seems to me that it would be cheaper and safer for the U. S. to get its oil from elsewhere. In spite of those who forcast only 20 years (or whatever) reserves left, more is being discovered all over the globe. New discoveries of natural gas in Canada have led some oil pundits to say that the reserves are sufficient for 100 years. Tar sands can supply the US and Canada for 50 years. Big discoveries off Brazil and Nigeria and you name it- why drill in sensitive areas? Why encourage it? (Obama, Palin, and the guy next door). Wind solar nuclear hydrogen are coming slowly, but should be strong in 30 years or so (And why is China becoming the leader?). Even BP is a leading producer of solar panels and Exxon-Mobil-Ford-GM-BMW etc. research in storage batteries and hybrid technology are producing results. In the meantime it seems that the world will be subject to more 'accidents' in risky drilling operations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Bobert Date: 17 May 10 - 03:48 PM Oh boy!!! Ya' know the stpidest thing is that the US has an estimated 2% of the worlds petroleum reserves so it does make ya' wonder if off-shore drilling is worth it??? I mean, 2% ain't jack... Especially seein' that fish are a renewable resource... Or, better put, were... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 May 10 - 03:44 PM At the last Gulf lease sale by MMS, Anadarko picked up 48 tracts. It and Mariner bid $52.5 million for the Walker Ridge block; in all, Anadarko paid $128 million for leases. Maersk made bids totaling $97 million, Shell $89 million, Chevron $79 million. Maersk is known for container shipping, but it also is into petroleum exploration. Chevron has ordered a drillship from Pacific Drilling, the ship being built in South Korea. It is capable of drilling in 12,000 feet of water and to more than 35,000 feet depth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 May 10 - 03:17 PM Gulf of Mexico drilling- In March, Shell announced that its deepwater Gulf wells, Appomatox prospect, has hit pay. These wells are in 7000-8000 feet water depth (more than the BP well which blew out) and were drilled to a total depth of about 26,000 feet. This adds to the other Shell-Nexen discoveries, Shiloh and Vicksburg, at similar depths. Gulf offshore oil- U. S. area 1.7 million bbl/day 30% of domestic production. 3500 production platforms, many with multiple wells 35,000 workers engaged in exploration and production. Most of these wells are in shallower water and were drilled to much less depth. Gulf oil- Mexican area Pemex has many wells in their portion of the Gulf. A portion of this production goes to the U. S. Data from the magazine Offshore and Ny Times article, May 2, 2010, Jad Mouawad |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Amos Date: 17 May 10 - 03:05 PM I mentioned in an earlier post the threat that would be posed if this huge oil spill were to drift far enough NE to be picked up by the local Gulf loop and carried around the Florida peninsula up the East coast. Turns out in this story that a bottle with a note in it made exactly this voyage many years back, and landed on the Florida shore thirty miles south of Cape Kennedy, having been launched in the Gulf of Mexico not far from where the Deep Horizon well later stood. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Alice Date: 17 May 10 - 02:19 PM Yes, I read the print script. I could absorb all of the details better than listening. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 May 10 - 02:10 PM Thanks from me too, Alice. There were parts I wanted to re-hear, but print is better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Bobert Date: 17 May 10 - 09:14 AM Thanks for the link, Alice... I was absolutely spellbound watching that report... I mean, I couldn't believe what I was hearing... If this all turns out to be the way things went down then there are gonna be alot of people very pissed off with BP... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: GUEST,Fishy Date: 17 May 10 - 03:53 AM A waiter at a Gulf Coast diner is overheard saying to his customers, "Would you like some Gulf Coast shrimp cooked in it's own oil?" Will that be 30 weight or light crude? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Ron Davies Date: 17 May 10 - 12:01 AM "MMS shouldn't want to please the oil companies..." Not the point. Point is: the more drilling, the more income for the MMS--and the government. MMS no doubt wants to show a trajectory of increasing income--that was probably a measure of its success--and a much more tangible one than safety. The desire for income more and more outweighed the other, contradictory function of the MMS--safety (and possibly also environmental concerns). That's part of the reason for this tragedy. We hope the problem of the contradictory functions will be lessened by the splitting of MMS----but you can bet the government will still want as much income as possible--especially because of the worsening deficits. And historically, as I noted, MMS has been the #2 source of income for the US government--right after IRS. So there will still be pressure to sign off on industry plans--not to please oil firms but to maximize income for the federal government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Alice Date: 16 May 10 - 11:17 PM CBS News 60 Minutes - Deepwater Disaster |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 16 May 10 - 11:06 PM The 60 Minutes report was damning. And believable. Ordering the removal of the mud column before the seals were finished is something I would not have believed. And operating with a faulty BOP is inviting trouble when high pressure is likely. Even more worrying are the accusations about the Atlantis platform, which is 'home' to several deep water wells and with more planned. BP already is a principal supplier of liquid hydrocarbons to the United States. Canada supplies more hydrocarbon in volume, but the sources are largely the tar sands and large gas deposits. BP wishes to displace the Canadian hydrocarbons with cheaper Gulf oil. Makes me wonder if they are so anxious to do so that they have thrown caution to the winds, to use the old cliche. They were heavily fined for shortcomings in the refinery fire and mention is made of other 'accidents', obviously their operations should be thoroughly investigated. The tar sands are destructive to the boreal forest (in which they are located) but damage to the Gulf hurts hundreds of thousands of people who directly or indirectly make their livlihood from the Gulf waters and shore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Bobert Date: 16 May 10 - 10:13 PM Make that, "BP took alot of risks just before the rig blew..." And, ahhhh,... ...200, fir grins... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Bobert Date: 16 May 10 - 08:41 PM There were two main interviewees, Q... One was in charge of the electronics and computers on the rig...The other, an engineer... It was reported that BP sent in some of their heavy hitters just the week before and there were heated discussions about the fact that the sealing ring had broken and that other equipement below was not operational... According to the accounts, BP won the arguments... I was kinda hopin' that Halliburton would be the fall guy but not this time... Loooking, at least for now, that BP was in too big a hurry and took alot of risjs just before the rig blew... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 16 May 10 - 08:36 PM Missed the 60 minutes, but maybe I can catch the west coart airing. Did they say where the information came from? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Bobert Date: 16 May 10 - 08:09 PM Just finished watching an excellent "60 Minutes" piece about this and it seems that BP execs pushed too hard for completeion... Even after pieces of the seal (which apparently was broken 5000 feet below) came up thru the shaft??? If that is the case and BP went ahead without a sufficient seal for the pipe, whoes contents were under pressure, then this one is all BPs... b~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: mousethief Date: 16 May 10 - 05:56 PM Hmm. Did the word "generally" escape someone's attention? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 16 May 10 - 12:50 PM What Obama said is true. There have been many advances and drilling is much safer than it was in, say, the 1920s or so. Few 'spills' (generally the result of high pressure causing a 'gusher') and many fewer deaths and injuries among the workers on the drilling platform. Improvements have continued to be made. I believe he was ignorant, however, of the dangers in deep water drilling and drilling in general- as we all are except those in the industry or concerned closely with the industry. He also was ignorant of MMS policies, relying, as leaders do, on what his adwisors said. That being said, he must now see that improvements are made in the regulatory bodies and that they make 'informed' decisions, and that dangerous situations are recognized and avoided. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 16 May 10 - 12:17 PM just remember guys .. "oil rigs today generally don't cause spills. They are technologically very advanced" Obama said that .... just a few days before this oil rig blew, and subsequently causing the worst man-made environmental catastrophe ever biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: mousethief Date: 16 May 10 - 11:07 AM The store wants to please the customer. The MMS shouldn't want to please the oil companies; the other way, surely. This is a regulator/regulated relationship. You might as well say the magistrate is the store and the accused criminal is the customer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Ron Davies Date: 16 May 10 - 10:26 AM It depends on who is the customer and who is the store proprietor. It would not surprise me if industry sees itself as the proprietor, and the government as the customer. As I noted, industry has the expertise in drilling and maintaining deep-water wells; the government does not--partly since the government no doubt does not pay the salaries paid to the top expertise in this field by industry; thus can't attract and/or keep top talent. But as we've just seen dramatically illustrated, here the customer (government) must override the store (industry) sometimes---for safety and environmental reasons. So maybe the customer/ store model doesn't exactly work here. But the main problem in the government/industry relationship in this issue, as I indicated, is that the pressure for income will probably never go down--so the pressure to let industry have its way--in order to maximize production, and hence oil and gas taxes--will also never decline. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 15 May 10 - 01:18 PM A "transforming event." BP CEO. I suppose by now we all have pondered his meaning. Ken Salazar is suposed to speak today. MMS does generate a lot of money. Ron is correct. The customer may voice his wishes, but he should never run the store. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Ron Davies Date: 15 May 10 - 11:57 AM Three explanations I heard on why MMS did not enforce safety regulations. 1) MMS, by taxing the oil and gas industries, has been the #2 source of all income for the government, after the IRS. So there is huge pressure to sign off on industry ideas---to maximize income for the government. 2) In drilling and maintaining deep-water wells, industry has the expertise; the MMS did not. So they deferred. 3) The revolving door. At least with the splitting of the two MMS functions, #1 may be addressed. Still the revolving door must be slowed, if not blocked. But obviously with the huge deficits facing the government, the pressure for income will continue, to say the least. Somebody will have to ride herd on the taxing function of the former MMS. And against the pressure for income, good luck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Greg F. Date: 15 May 10 - 08:34 AM Speaking of the Exxon Valdez, the shit from that spill is still fouling the coast of Alaska. The "cleanup"[sic] was cosmetic at best. BP's new advertising slogan: "Oil Spills Are Forever". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Bobert Date: 15 May 10 - 07:53 AM Yer speakin' Greek to 'um, TIA... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 14 May 10 - 11:53 PM Several academic (gasp!!!=socialist liberal media elite Nazis) who have spent their lives studying this shit (but are clearly motivated by the gigantic dollars that are available in education as opposed to industry) are saying that the spill may be 10X as bad as BP is telling us. I.e an EXXON Valdiz every *four days* (do the math you tool-head, ass-hat, Faux-News groupies) instead of over the 11 months we are being told. Holy shit. Biggest mand-made environmental catastrophe ever. Does that make you pause at all? Yes, you, you dickheads that I clash with regularly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: mousethief Date: 14 May 10 - 06:32 PM Ah, competition. It's the American way, you know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 14 May 10 - 06:14 PM Haliburton, Slumberger, are the two most used well service companies and have been in business for 70 year or more. Haliburton has been involved in 50 leases and 100 wells in the deep water, salt water canopy Gulf, and claim to be the leader in deepwater completions. www.haliburton.com Slumberger offers services in "high-risk deepwater prospects" and estimates deepwater rigs will quadruple in number by 2012. www.slb.com The two companies are the most advanced in technology and thus are at the top of the list for well service. All major companies have them on contract. To service your well, who do you call? Either Haliburton or Slumberger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: mousethief Date: 14 May 10 - 05:52 PM Halliburton is everywhere. It's the antichrist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Bobert Date: 14 May 10 - 07:45 AM Ya know, this thing about Halliburton being involved in this spill scares the living crud outta me... I mean, Halliburton??? Halliburton could mess up a wet dream (pun intended)... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: mousethief Date: 14 May 10 - 01:53 AM I support enforcing the regulations. As it is now, the industry itself writes and enforces its own regulations. This is true of many industries in the US since the Republicans over the last 8 years have been putting industry moguls in strategic offices (I remember the faint squeak about a meat baron taking over the USDA some years back, for example). Teddy Roosevelt is spinning in his grave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 13 May 10 - 11:36 AM Safety should not be politicized. Barbara Boxer, in recent statements, is one of those supporting tightening of the regulations. After seeing Rinks posts on ethnic suppression, he has put himself up for bigot of the year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Bobert Date: 13 May 10 - 07:20 AM Oh??? So the chances of another massive oil spill won't be because regs are tightened but because Boxer may get voted out??? Hmmmmmm, Rigs??? We're gonna have to respectfully ask you to pee in this little plastic cup... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Riginslinger Date: 12 May 10 - 11:57 PM Well, it looks like Barbara Boxer will be gone soon, so once this mess is cleaned up we're less likely to experience another one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills) From: Bobert Date: 12 May 10 - 10:31 PM Repeating behavior expecting different results = insanity... Seems change is in the air... |
