|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: dick greenhaus Date: 24 Jul 10 - 11:46 AM Well, BP should be attacked for hiring Halliburton, if nothing else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Jul 10 - 03:57 PM ""What kind of good news is in this? Especially in the early days when all the things you mention happened?"" If I have to explain my posts sentence by bloody sentence it ain't worth the effort, but just for you,..... The good news of BP remaining involved in repairing the damage, as they intend, will somehow escape the attention of your wonderfully unbiased Media, because there is no monetary gain from reporting anything positive. So, from the moment the well is finally killed, and there is no more mileage in further denigration of BP, and absolution of Transocean and Halliburton, said Media will cease to show the slightest interest in BP's efforts to ensure the damage is mitigated. I make this prediction with absolute confidence. If you want to know what BP does to that end, you will certainly have to look at the British Media for the information. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: dick greenhaus Date: 24 Jul 10 - 04:37 PM Don- Legally, of course, BP had no option: they have to pay for repairs. The point of the 20 billion was to make sure that there was at least that much available. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 24 Jul 10 - 05:02 PM The repair work by BP will not restore the damaged lives of the people on the Gulf, or restore wildlife destroyed, or more importantly restore the faith of seafood lovers in the safety of Gulf catches, or of vacationers trust in the purity of Gulf beaches and waters; that will drag on the economy of the region for years. As noted above, estimates of tourism losses alone exceed the capacity of BP to pay for them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Jul 10 - 05:42 PM ""As noted above, estimates of tourism losses alone exceed the capacity of BP to pay for them. "" Or, in the interest of truth and accuracy, they exceed the sum so far set aside, which I believe was the amount demanded by your president. BP, however did not suggest any limit, contenting themselves with stating on several occasions their intention to "Pay the total cost of the disaster". You seem to have some inside knowledge of BP's finances which allows you to judge what they can, or cannot, afford. Perhaps you will provide some evidence to back that up? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Jul 10 - 08:39 PM There's this....... ..and then this...... Maybe its a new 'secret weapon'! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 24 Jul 10 - 09:52 PM $20 billion in escrow would require BP to suspend dividends, according to the Financial Post. As noted, this will be a fraction of the costs of the catastrophe. BP and Shell account for 50% of dividends paid by UK companies every year. Many shares are held by small holders who live off their dividend income. If dividends are suspended, these people must sell their shares to get income. With the depressed share price, this spells economic trouble. One outcome is BP selling off holdings. Apache has acquired about $10 billion in Alaskan holdings, but that is small. Takeover is possible, both Exxon-Mobil and Shell have the resources to acquire control of the stock. Neither seems willing to do so. BP assets, on the other hand, are large. The company should weather the storm. Barclay's Bank estimates the value of the BP American Portfolio at $64 billion. There are no estimates of total costs of the spill, but $40 billion is one bottom line figure, and a top figure is $100 billion (article in the Telegraph (UK), 24 July). A bill will be debated next week that would prevent BP from getting any new offshore licenses, effectively ruining their plans for the Gulf and the Arctic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 25 Jul 10 - 06:32 PM ""From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity - PM Date: 24 Jul 10 - 08:39 PM There's this....... ..and then this...... Maybe its a new 'secret weapon'! GfS"" Of course the second link has exposed your total ignorance, Gone from Sanity. You haven't noticed that Gordon Brown no longer has a brave new world, nor a cabinet position. In fact there's a new government over here. Still, nice try I suppose, if totally ineffective. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 25 Jul 10 - 06:39 PM ""A bill will be debated next week that would prevent BP from getting any new offshore licenses, effectively ruining their plans for the Gulf and the Arctic."" As I've said before, I don't expect American oil companies will be too upset at the removal of a major competitor. In fact I can name two companies who will be very relieved. The two that should be sharing the cost with BP, but have been given a "Get out of jail free" card by the US. The time will come when there is another spill in the gulf, and BP's expertise in offshore drilling will be needed. I wonder whether they will feel inclined to assist when that happens. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Ed T Date: 25 Jul 10 - 07:24 PM "Or, in the interest of truth and accuracy, they exceed the sum so far set aside, which I believe was the amount demanded by your president". I don't know if Q is an American. But, I gather from the posts, he lives in Canada. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 25 Jul 10 - 08:15 PM Don T., did you listen to the "60 Minutes" interview that I linked to up-thread? It's with Mike Williams, who was a member of the Deepwater Horizon crew, and he barely escaped with his life when the explosion occurred. He describes what happened over the weeks leading up to the blowout, and the sequence in which these things happened. If not, I suggest that you do. Here's a link to the YouTube breakout of the interview: 60 Minutes interview with Mike Williams ##### Ignoring the biases of the various news services, but paying close attention to reports and commentaries in the British press as well as others, plus discussing the matter with my aforementioned friend, who has worked on oil drilling rigs and who has been following this matter with great interest. Incidentally, he is not an American, he is from Sri Lanka, and is currently living in the U. S. He no longer works on oil rigs, he is now an ecologist, and he takes these matters quite seriously. The following has emerged: The sequence of events begins with the first bore hole that was drilled by the Deepwater Horizon drilling crew. Up to this point, it was the deepest well ever drilled. 35,000 feet. And also, up to this point, the Deepwater Horizon crew had had an excellent safety record. The job was actually on schedule according to the Deepwater Horizon crew. BP's estimated drilling time was 21 days. But this estimate was far too low. At this point, it had actually taken six weeks—42 days. BP was not happy with the fact that it was not meeting their estimate. But to do the job safely, it takes as long as it takes. They issued orders to—as Mike Williams said in the 60 Minute interview—"Bump it up." There was an argument. The BP manager threatened that if they didn't speed up the drilling job, they would replace them with a crew that would. So with great reluctance and considerable apprehension, the crew obeyed the BP manager's demands. And what they were afraid might happen did. The hole split open, the drilling mud leaked out, and they lost their drilling tools in the hole. But—their ultimate fear, a blow-out, did not happen. If the Deepwater Horizon crew had been allowed to complete the job without interference, there is every indication that nothing untoward would have happened. But because of this, they had to back off and start again, thus precipitating a whole new sequence of events. They had to drill a new hole. It should be noted that at this point, some $25,000,000 had been spent with nothing gained. All because of trying to push the job too fast. Now—with the drilling of the new hole: The timeline according to Reuters: April 20, 2010 - Explosion and fire on Transocean Ltd's drilling rig Deepwater Horizon licensed to BP Plc; 11 workers are killed. The rig was drilling in BP's Macondo project 42 miles (68 km) southeast of Venice, Louisiana, in 5,000 feet (1,525 metres) of water and 13,000 feet (4 km) under the seabed.BP's position is that something went wrong with the blow-out preventer installed at Deepwater Horizon. Perhaps it jammed against a tube-joint that it couldn't cut though, or there was something inside the tube that blocked it, like a piece of cement or other obstruction. According to Mike Williams, what happened was that they had been ordered to test the blow-out preventer when a crewman accidentally moved a joystick, applying hundreds of thousands of pounds of force, apparently damaging the "annular," a ring of rubber. Pieces of rubber were found in the drilling fluid, which he said indicated damage to a crucial seal. But a supervisor declared the find to be "not a big deal," and to press on regardless. All the focus on the blowout preventer is a distraction from figuring out what went wrong with the well in the first place. Why was gas able to surge up from the well onto the platform, where it ignited into a fireball? Shortly before the explosion that ended in the sinking the Deepwater Horizon rig, a critical series of events took place. The concrete plug, made by Halliburton, is designed to prevent gas from escaping up the pipe to the surface. Before such a plug is placed, the job of keeping underground gas from coming up the pipe is done by heavy drilling fluid inside the well, commonly known as "mud." The plug is normally put in before the mud is removed. But according to the account of Halliburton, Transocean, and the Deepwater Horizon crew, in this case, that was not done. The drilling mud was removed before a final cement plug was placed in the well. So—why was the mud removed before the final plug was in place? If a decision had been made to reverse the normal sequence of events, the order could only have come from BP. A worker who was on the drilling rig testified that Halliburton was getting ready to set a final cement plug at 8,000 feet below the rig when workers received other instructions. "Usually we set the cement plug at that point and let it set for six hours, then 'displace the well,'" said the worker, meaning "take out the mud." According to this worker, BP asked permission from the federal Minerals Management Service to displace the mud before the final plugging operation had begun. The mud in the well weighed 14.3 pounds per gallon; it was displaced by seawater that weighed nearly 50 percent less. Like BP, the MMS has declined to comment on this account when testifying before the Senate committee. As the heavy mud was taken out and replaced with much lighter seawater, "that's when the well came at us," said the worker, who was involved in the cementing process. Neither the MMS nor BP are willing to comment. Their silence raises a host of questions. Suppose BP did order Transocean to displace the mud before Halliburton set the final plug in place. What would be the reason for that? And why wasn't a current MMS official testifying before the Senate committee, to explain exactly what the role of the regulator had been on the day in question? Disavowing any direct knowledge of operational details on Deepwater Horizon, BP's McKay kept trying to gloss over what had happened by stressing the unprecedented nature of the entire disaster: "We've not dealt with a situation like this before," he kept repeating. My friend, experienced with drilling rig procedure, explained the following to me: Drilling mud is not "mud" at all. It is a man-made heavy and viscous slurry. It's purpose is to lubricate the bore hole for the drill bit and to act as a plug to prevent oil and gas from seeping up around the bit. "If you remove the mud before you place the concrete plug, it's like popping the top off a bottle of Coca Cola after shaking the bottle. The concrete plug must be placed first or you are risking exactly the kind of disaster that took place in the Gulf of Mexico!" Why did they want to remove the mud? "Drilling mud is expensive in and of itself. Companies like to salvage as much of it as they can so they can clean it and reuse it. Drilling mud amounts to a good 10% of the total cost of drilling a well, and it requires 'mud engineers' who know what they're doing. And they don't come cheap." In my friend's opinion, BP management was cost-conscious to the point of micro-managing the drilling operation when they should have left the job to the people they had hired who knew what they were doing. There's an old English expression: Penny wise and pound foolish. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:19 AM It's with Mike Williams, who was a member of the Deepwater Horizon crew, and he barely escaped with his life when the explosion occurred. Would that be in anyway due to the fact that Transocean employees had overriden and shut of the alarms that would have given Mike Williams a bit more notice of what was going on? All the rest about the drilling actually reinforces what Don T, myself and others have been pointing out - The hole was drilled. it was completed therefore what subsequently happened had nothing to do with the speed at which drilling was done. So with great reluctance and considerable apprehension, the crew obeyed the BP manager's demands. And what they were afraid might happen did. The hole split open, the drilling mud leaked out, and they lost their drilling tools in the hole. But—their ultimate fear, a blow-out, did not happen. I have a problem with the Reuters Timeline you detailed: April 20, 2010 - Explosion and fire on Transocean Ltd's drilling rig Deepwater Horizon licensed to BP Plc; 11 workers are killed. The rig was drilling in BP's Macondo project 42 miles (68 km) southeast of Venice, Louisiana, in 5,000 feet (1,525 metres) of water and 13,000 feet (4 km) under the seabed. April 22 - The Deepwater Horizon rig, valued at more than $560 million, sinks and a 5-mile (8-km) oil slick forms. April 25 - The well's blowout preventer fails. The Blow Out Preventer failed on April 20th that is why there was a fire and explosion on the rig. How the hell could anybody have expected the BOP to work according to Reuter's timeline, your pal the SriLankan who has worked on rigs should have pointed that glaring obvious error to you. Mud is pumped down through the drill string and through the bit whilst drilling to lubricate the drill bit and to balance the pressure. There are three cement plugs set, not just one, by the time the third is set the two previous ones are obviously in place, whether the last is set with counterbalancing mud or with seawater at pressure is irrelevant as after the third plug is set whatever mud is used is removed and replaced with - guess what - Yep you got it in one seawater under pressure. According to Mike Williams, what happened was that they had been ordered to test the blow-out preventer when a crewman accidentally moved a joystick, applying hundreds of thousands of pounds of force, apparently damaging the "annular," a ring of rubber. Pieces of rubber were found in the drilling fluid, which he said indicated damage to a crucial seal. But a supervisor declared the find to be "not a big deal," and to press on regardless. Transocean employee fuck-up and it would be the Transocean Supervisor or the Cameron Supervisor who would declare it to be "no big deal". By the bye at this stage in the process they are beyond the point of no return, they can only proceed. Time to test BOP's is before you start not during drilling operations. All the focus on the blowout preventer is a distraction from figuring out what went wrong with the well in the first place. Why was gas able to surge up from the well onto the platform, where it ignited into a fireball? This is obviously based upon you buying into Reuters impossible timeline of events. Go and ask your Sri Lankan pal. The BOP operates automatically, or it should do, on a surge in pressure from below. Nobody has to operate it, but it does have to be connected to the surface, however if the driller on the drill floor notices a sharp and sudden rise in pressure he can in conjunction with the mud.man increase pressure on the column of mud in the hole or he can operate "Choke" lines which also seal the well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 26 Jul 10 - 01:33 PM "....BP's expertise in offshore drilling will be needed..." Hopefully, never again! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Les from Hull Date: 26 Jul 10 - 01:43 PM Perhaps it might increase BP's popularity in the USA if they went back to their former name: Anglo-Iranian (heh-heh-heh). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 26 Jul 10 - 02:58 PM "Reuter's impossible timeline" has been verified by other sources. And I might also remind you that Reuter's is a British news service. I knew that if I quoted an American news service, you and a few others of the British persuasion would be all over me like a tent. You folks are doing back-flips trying to shift the blame from BP to an American company, and you're making yourselves a bit ridiculous in the process. Look! Haliburton! Dick Cheney, the (thank God!) former Vice President of the United States, the man who was manipulating the hand puppet most people thought of as George W. Bush, and thus was, in effect, the real President of the United States during the Bush administration, had been the CEO of Haliburton. When he became Vice President, he was required by law to divest himself of his investments in Haliberton. He didn't. He had his investments put in trust, to be held for him until is term of office was over. In the meantime, those investments could continue to grow if Haliburton prospered. And those investments, plus the increases, would revert to Cheney when he was no longer in office! For some strange reason (!!!), during the Bush administration, Haliburton was awarded an unprecedented number of no-bid government contracts. All government contracts are supposed to be open for bids from any company that wants the work, but this was not the case under Bush (Cheney). Haliburton got the lion's share. So—if Haliburton was to be declared at fault for the Gulf blow-out (as some Brits here in this thread are trying to claim), I, personally, would not at all mind seeing Haliburton—and as a result, Dick Cheney—take it in the shorts!!! But that's obviously not the way it happened. Unfortunately~ I'm surprised at you guys!! NOW HEAR THIS!! Apparently you missed the point of what I was saying in my post above. The FIRST bore-hole was going well until the BP manager insisted that the Deepwater Horizon crew "bump up" the drilling—which the drilling crew knew to be unsafe. Yet, at BP's insistence (and threats of being sacked), they did speed up the drilling. And what they feared, happened. But fortunately, no blow-out occured with THAT hole. But they had to abandon that bore-hole and start another. And that's the hole where everything went wrong and the blow-out occured! If the crew had been allowed to complete the first bore-hole at a reasonable pace, and hence, safely, the second hole would not have been necessary. BP's profit minded micro-managers and bean-counters should have kept their big noses out of the details of the drilling operation in the first place. Up to that point, the drilling had been routine. But it's when, under BP's orders, the drilling was speeded up that it got screwed up—as the crew was afraid it might. And that necessitated abandoning the first bore hole and starting another And it was on the new bore hole that things went bad! Get it? Got it? Good!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:22 PM By the way, would you fellows' noses be this far out of joint if it were still a British-based company, but went by the name of "Acme Petroleum?" I don't give a damn whether the company is British, American, Kuwaiti, Estonian, Indonesian, or Martian. According to all the evidence, they are the primary cause of the disaster and the ones ultimately responsible. Turning this into a question of patriotism is just plain ridiculous. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:49 PM "Reuter's impossible timeline" has been verified by other sources. Other sources? Name them, if they are press sources then they as ill-informed as to the set up and operation of a BOP Stack as your Sri Lankan friend "who worked on rigs". Just a logical question taking into account this "verified timeline". IF there was a fire and an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon on the 20th of April, and the Deepwater Horizon itself sank two days later on the 22nd of April, who and what determined that the BOP failed on the 25th of April? Who and what was there to monitor it? NOW READ THIS How A Blow Out Preventer Works For Dummies Relevant piece of information from above: During the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion incident on April 20, 2010, the blowout preventer should have been activated automatically, cutting the drillstring and sealing the well to preclude a blowout and subsequent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but it failed to fully engage. Underwater robots (ROVs) later were used to manually trigger the blind shear ram blind shear ram preventer, to no avail. As of May 2010[update] it is unknown why the blowout preventer failed. Now as to the situation at the time of the blow out: At the time of the explosion, it was drilling an exploratory well at a water depth of approximately 5,000 feet (1,500 m) in the Macondo Prospect, located in the Mississippi Canyon Block 252 of the Gulf of Mexico in the United States exclusive economic zone about 41 miles (66 km) off the Louisiana coast. Production casing was being installed and cemented by Halliburton Energy Services. Once the cementing was complete, the well would have been tested for integrity and a cement plug set, after which no further activities would take place until the well was later activated as a subsea producer Then we have this from Don Firth who knows the square root of fuck all about offshore drilling: The FIRST bore-hole was going well until the BP manager insisted that the Deepwater Horizon crew "bump up" the drilling—which the drilling crew knew to be unsafe. Yet, at BP's insistence (and threats of being sacked), they did speed up the drilling. And what they feared, happened. But fortunately, no blow-out occured with THAT hole. But they had to abandon that bore-hole and start another. And that's the hole where everything went wrong and the blow-out occured! If the crew had been allowed to complete the first bore-hole at a reasonable pace, and hence, safely, the second hole would not have been necessary. Complete and utter load of crap. The rig was engaged in setting production casing every bloody report tells you that so drilling had been successfully completed, because you cannot set casing with the drill string still in the hole. They had actually started cementing so they had even completed running the casing. Drilling and the speed of drilling has, got and never did have any connection to the blow out. The cement job failed (Haliburton responsible), the BOP failed (Cameron/Transocean responsible depending upon who owned the piece of equipment), THEN there was the fire and the explosion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:53 PM Turning this into a question of patriotism is just plain ridiculous. (Don Firth) What is totally unjust is scapegoating a "foreign" Company that has stepped up to the plate and offered from day one to do the right thing an let two US Companies and the US regulatory body off the hook when it was their part of the operation that failed in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 26 Jul 10 - 07:28 PM Do the right thing? The day BP pays the cost of the spill, will be the day heaven opens its gates to gamblers, sinners, hypocrites and Tony Hayward. The Associated Press reports today that BP estimates $30 billion, Bloomberg est. $33 billion on July 7, and the cost eventualy will reach $40 to $100 billion when loss of tourist revenue, and failed businesses, are taken into account. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 26 Jul 10 - 08:33 PM Don T: "Of course the second link has exposed your total ignorance, Gone from Sanity. You haven't noticed that Gordon Brown no longer has a brave new world, nor a cabinet position. In fact there's a new government over here. Still, nice try I suppose, if totally ineffective." That just shows what a short, media fed mind you have....during Gordon Brown's position, and even to the one now, wasn't there supposed to be trade sanctions on Iraq?? I guess the game of media distraction works great on you, and others of your ilk. The question is, "Who is BP that they can circumnavigate the foreign policies, of both the U.S., and of Britain??????...and set their own policy, while thumbing their nose at their 'home' country? Pretty cool trick, eh?..and why is nobody calling them on it??...Do you suppose they own the right politicians for the right price? I'm surprised you didn't bring this up, already.......well, sorta surprised. The corruption machine has you looking in the wrong direction. Interesting that Obama, who is characterized as 'anti big corporations' hasn't swooped down on this one!....Probably because Fox news isn't reporting it, either, eh?????? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:02 PM Where the hell do you get your "facts," Teribus? Are you a BP stockholder? That would explain a lot. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:15 PM Just a point, Teribus. I live thousands of miles from the Gulf of Mexico, and I don't own any American oil company stock. And, frankly, with the way this country has been going of late, I can't really say that I'm very patriotic. I just follow the news and try to keep abreast of what's going on in the world. Other than general concern for the state of the environment, I have no emotional (or financial) involvement in this matter. Obviously, you do. So fuck you very much for the pleasant discussion. I'm through wasting my time arguing with ill-tempered fanatics like you. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 27 Jul 10 - 12:28 AM Where do I get my facts Don? As far as BOP's and subsea hardware goes I have worked with them for long enough. And for the last ten years have worked for the people who got the first Remotely Operated Vehicle down to take a look at the Stack after the Deepwater Horizon sank. At present two of our ships are supporting the efforts to kill the well and clean up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jul 10 - 01:27 AM Okay, Teribus, acknowledged But now let me cut to the chase here. What I have already said a couple of times and which you keep ignoring—either not reading very carefully or studiously avoiding, is the following: The Deepwater Horizon crew bored two holes. The first hole was well on it's way when the BP manager insisted that they "bump it up" and drill faster. Reluctantly obeying orders, and in preference to being fired, the DH crew obey the order. What they feared might happen, did. The hole shattered, the drilling mud leaked out, and they lost tools in the hole. This necessitated abandoning the hole and starting all over again. And that's when everything started going wrong. What I am saying is that if the BP manager, instead of whining about how much it was costing and ordering them to speed it up, had simply kept his nose out and let the DH crew do their job with the first hole, this whole mess would probably never have happened. So you work for BP, then? Or a least for a company under contract to BP. Ah, SO! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 27 Jul 10 - 01:41 PM Watched a program on the 30-year-old Alyeska pipeline. Several fines have been levied against this BP- majority-owned (47%-51%) line. No real maintenance since it was built. At least one major spill, several others. The line has become "dangerously corroded" according to news reports. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jul 10 - 03:50 PM Tony Hayward, CEO of BP, upset by the "inconvenience" the Gulf oil spill has caused him, complained bitterly that he "wanted to get his life back," and showed the depth of his concern over the matter by participating in a yacht race (the "J.P. Morgan Asset Management Round the Island Race"--!!???) off the coast of England. They've canned his ass and sent him to Russia. Siberia, perhaps? But I wouldn't worry about Tony. He's departing with millions in pensions and severance pay. [Man!! That's the way to do it!! If you can finagle a job as a CEO, when you figure you've had enough and would like to retire early and have a little fun, screw up bigtime, get 'em to sack you, and you walk off with enough money to whoop it up and live the rest of your life in luxury!!] But here's the kicker: they're replacing him with an American!! Oh, HORRORS!! Don (No, thanks! I don't want the job!) Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:16 PM Better than that Don, Hayward has a claim in for compensation from the 20 Billion US$ Fund for loss of earnings and top up of his pension due to the Gulf Oil Spill. Doubt if two separate holes were actually drilled. Most likely solution would be that they would have "kicked out" from the first one using a directional drill, judging by the drilling times, for them to have pulled out entirely re-spudded and started all over again would have taken months, but that is only my guess. The relief wells being drilled started in June and will not be completed until mid-August, they I believe are targeted at intersecting the existing hole again using directional drilling techniques. And in drilling those relief well holes they will be going flat out to get them drillied as quick as Christ will let them, to do that they will be using the drilling data from the Deepwater Horizon - Nothing wrong with the manner in which the operation you call "the second well" was drilled. Do I work for BP, no I do not, I did once upon a time and during that time there was not a single accident that was before Lord John Browne's time, before BP took over US Oil Company AMOCO who ran those refineries that had all the safety issues. The two ships we have there were called in from other work although I do believe they did work for BP in the GOM on "Blind Faith" and "Thunder Horse" both deep water fields that have been put into production without incident. What went wrong Don - 1) The cement job failed (Halliburton) and 2) The BOP failed (Transocean/Cameron). Only once the well has been secured and the items of equipment recovered from the seabed will there be any detailed reasons given for the cause of the BOP failure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:21 PM PS: The opening bit about Tony Hayward was a joke. PPS: Tony Hayward took part in one sailing race during Cowes Week - How many games of golf did your President play? As both were only ever going to be kept informed and were not required to actually do anything - who gives a flying fuck what they do in their spare time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Greg F. Date: 27 Jul 10 - 06:07 PM Good to see Teribus taking over as head BP apologist now they'e got Hayward out of the way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jul 10 - 06:57 PM "How many games of golf did your President play?" That depends on which President you're talking about. I don't know of any President who went golfing when there was a major emergency going on. With the possible exception within the past few years of George W. Bush. But as far as I know, he wasn't that much into golf. He did start a totally unnecessary and illegal war with Iraq, then hopped aboard Air Force One and flew (at the taxpayers' expense) down to his ranch in Crawford, Texas to cut brush (really essential to the good of the nation, of course. . . .). '. . . who gives a flying fuck what they do in their spare time." I believe that one of the emperor Nero's main niches in history is "fiddling while Rome burned." Whether they can do anything concrete or not, it's just plain bad PR to run out and play while something dire is going on. Shows a certain "What? Me worry?" attitude. On the two bore-holes matter: I've heard and read that from a number of sources. I'll try to find you some documentary proof—assuming you will actually accept an authoritative source or two. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 28 Jul 10 - 12:38 AM I think the number of rounds of golf played by Barack Obama was seven. BP apologist GregF? No not apologist, I have always said that BP are the responsible parties because of their position as the Operator. What you lot have done is to confuse responsibility for something with fault. Instead of concentrating on solving the problem of the leak which BP HAVE DONE, and DID DO, by the way, your Government went into hyperdrive on the blame game. Barack Obama's speciality "Grandstanding" to the electorate, he is a man of great show and no substance, who puts himself and his public image before everything else. What failed onboard Deepwater Horizon was not the singular fault of BP. If you are aportioning blame then the net gets cast much wider and includes Halliburton, Transocean, posibly Cameron and definitely the US Regulatory Authorities. The legal wrangling over this will take years and make a lot of lawyers very wealthy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jul 10 - 01:54 AM There is a slight dirrerence here. Obama is not the CEO of BP. Tony Hayward is (was). Obama and VP Joe Biden played golf for four hours on the afternoon of Sunday, June 15th. "Father's Day" in the U.S. I know, I know, there are those who think that the poor, harried Tony Hayward needed a bit of relief from the general stress while Obama should have put on a wet suit, taken a cork in his teeth, and swam to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico and plugged the bloody hole personally. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Jul 10 - 11:51 AM Jeez...am I the one who needs to point out that it's gotten a bit petty in here? While it is true, that Obama has spent a lot of his time in re-recreational activities, amid the national crisis we are in, I'd prefer he just take a permanent vacation, and play lots of golf! I mean, it sounds like, "They're out of bread?..Let them eat cake!" Other than that, I don't want to engage in the 'wonders of Obama' rap. If your like him, you look the other way...if you hate him, or fear for what is happening, you'll point out every little thing. The left doesn't give a shit about what the right is saying, even when it's true, and vice-versa... We have become so polarized in this country, and most of it stems from flat out ignorance and stupidity.......but those participating don't care, they love it that way...and they hope that the bad times are here to stay! It's idiotic! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 28 Jul 10 - 12:02 PM The history of the Macondo well is rather complex. It was spudded Oct. 7, 2009 from Transocean Marianas. The rig was damaged by Hurricane Ida in November, and had to leave. The Transocean Horizon rig resumed drilling February 8, 2010 when they landed the BOP stack. I am not clear of the details involved in the resumption; someone with the Oil and Gas Journal issues of that time may be able to post them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Jul 10 - 12:12 PM BY THE WAY, Has anyone heard from Little Hawk? Are you O.K? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 29 Jul 10 - 06:06 AM Drilling Operations started 7th October 2009 from Transocean Marianas. Operations halted when the Marianas was damaged by Hurricane Ida on 29th November 2009 by which time they had spudded in and succeeded in drilling to a depth below seabed of 4023 feet. Drilling operation resumed by Transocean Deepwater Horizon on 8th February 2010. As production casing was being run and the well being prepared for temporary abandonment when the "Blow-Out" occurred it would be safe to assume that drilling operations had halted before 20th April 2010 but to get to a point where the well could be handed over for production it took 3 months. BP ordered the drilling of two relief wells to kill the Macondo Well the first started 2nd May 2010 by Transocean Development Driller III and the second on 16th May 2010 by Transocean GSF Development Driller II. Estimated time to drill relief wells 3 months. The timings reported above would lead to suggest that Deepwater Horizon DID NOT drill two separate holes. Timing suggests that they did in fact kick-out from the first to reach target depth. The drilling played no part at all in the blow-out, nor was it a factor in the accident or the spill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 29 Jul 10 - 06:09 AM PS: In case it hasn't escaped anybody's notice the relief wells are being drilled by the same players with the same equipment as drilled the well that blew. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Patsy Warren Date: 29 Jul 10 - 07:40 AM As I see it the folks in Louisianna and surrounding areas are understandably very angry as any one would be who's livelyhood depends on fishing and seasonal tourism etc. If Obama attacks a big business fatcat empire like BP then so be it. All BP cares about is the profits they make at the end of the day no matter who they walk on. Having lived in an area here in the UK where tourism and fishing is the main source of income I can appreciate how devastating a disaster like that would be. As in most seaside towns the work available in the winter is minimal and generally not paid terribly well so they can't afford to lose money earnt during the summer. I remember an oil tanker spill back in the late 60's early 70's and although nowhere near as bad as the BP spill it was still devastating enough for some of the seaside towns around the Solent including the Isle of Wight. Although people assume the inhabitants are middle-class and well heeled the other-side to the island shows something completely different (that's another story). The effect on the wildlife was tragic and it had quite an effect on summer tourism for the ordinary folk who need this to make a reasonable living. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:56 PM Guest Patsy, the attack on BP is based on evidence of short-cuts and hasty decisions, not on size. This has been discussed over and over, and whether believed or not has little to do with size (fat cats). If one examines the balance sheets of BP, Shell, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron etc., after allotments for shareholders large and small (many of us), and expenses, the profit in good years is 10% or less; many smaller concerns do better than that. The total take means no more for the books of big companies than it does for the small local store chain with 20 employees and 3-4 premises. Of course, large concerns affecting the livelihoods of millions can yield political and legislative clout- that is another matter; better legislation is needed. This also is the subject of several threads. Regulatory bodies should see that companies play by the rules and operate safely. No one disputes that the U.S. bodies were lax and the hope is that the reorganization will help. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: dick greenhaus Date: 29 Jul 10 - 02:03 PM 10% of a hell of a lot is still a hell of a lot. Net profit is one of the poorest metrics for a business' performance |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 29 Jul 10 - 07:02 PM Profit is necessary for a company to grow. No one will buy shares in a company that is profitless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Greg F. Date: 30 Jul 10 - 09:07 AM Well, there's profit; then there's a lot of profit, and then there's obscene profit. Was a time folks were content with a reasonable return on their investments. Now, unless they get an unreasonable return, they ain't satisfied. Talk about the "Me Generation" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Sttaw Legend Date: 30 Jul 10 - 09:29 AM Look like the shares are on the up again....maybe time to buy in!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Teribus Date: 30 Jul 10 - 10:16 AM Was Tony Hayward right after all? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Jul 10 - 11:39 AM What a downplay!!!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jul 10 - 02:59 PM Sterling example of biased press coverage. Let your dog shit all over your neighbor's front yard, and then get snarky when the neighbor complains about it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 30 Jul 10 - 03:30 PM New York Times, July 30. The lawyers are meeting in Boise, Idaho, asking for decisions on which court ought to be asked for to hear the case for damages against BP. The federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation meets there this month- a different site is selected for each of these gatherings. These suits will go on for years. "Choosing the right venue for the cases, to avoid any potential conflicts of interest for the judges or jurors, is essential." E. J. Cabraser, the lawyer who represented plaintiffs in the Exxon-Valdez case. Lawyers present their case to a panel of seven judges; they will issue decisions in August. BP prefers Houston; plaintiffs mostly have other choices. "Lawyers, Far from Gulf, Skirmish on Spill Claims," John Swartz; NY Times, July 29, 2010. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: mousethief Date: 31 Jul 10 - 12:38 AM "Choosing the right venue for the cases, to avoid any potential conflicts of interest for the judges or jurors, is essential." Pity the SCOTUS didn't think of that in Bush v Gore 2000. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 Jul 10 - 05:12 PM Q: ""Lawyers, Far from Gulf, Skirmish on Spill Claims," John Swartz; NY Times, July 29, 2010." Today's lawyers..tomorrow's politicians....can't trust any of them! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 31 Jul 10 - 08:14 PM Who should one trust? Musicians? Bartenders? Grocers? Duhhhh |
