|
Subject: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Bobert Date: 28 Feb 08 - 11:24 AM Let me see if I have this correct... Exxon now is arguing that it should not have to pay punitive damages to the thousands of fishermen who lost their businesses because of the Valdez oil spill because... ... the captian of the ship was drunk??? That appears to be what they are arguing before the Supreme Court... And, of course, the Supreme Kangaroo Corporatist Court will go along with Exxon because Exxon gives alot of $$$ to politicans, including the Bush's who have handpicked their fair share of the Supreme Crooks... So this got me thinkin' that after Exxon prevails here that Exxon will just be sure to have drunhk captain's in all their super-tankers in case something bad happens that might cost them some $$$... It is an absolutely brillient idea, I must say... Maybe the airlines will follow... And bus companies... And taxi companies... Beam me up... There is no intellegent life left here... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Amos Date: 28 Feb 08 - 12:58 PM Wait, wait Bobert!! I need a good FIrst Mate!!! My application is in the mail.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: irishenglish Date: 28 Feb 08 - 01:06 PM Just because that's Exxon's argument does not mean that the Supreme Court will support it. There are a few on the Court that I disagree with, but they have been known to go completely the opposite of the perceived wisdom more than a few times. It's bunk, and Exxon will still have to pay. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Peace Date: 28 Feb 08 - 01:13 PM Hell! Does this mean that the ship drunk has to stay sober? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: irishenglish Date: 28 Feb 08 - 01:24 PM I don't know. I also don't know what to do with the drunken sailor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Peace Date: 28 Feb 08 - 01:34 PM I have to ask: "What WILL we do with a drunken sailor?" I was gonna apply for that position, but it seems all those wot's s'posed to stay sober will now be drunk and that then means there won't be any place for a drunk already. What a connrundum/connumbdrum/cronumbdrum puzzle! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Barry Finn Date: 28 Feb 08 - 02:03 PM Exxon is arguing that because the disaster happend out at sea that the state can't rule on punitive damages & that it come under Maritime (Federal) Law, which Exxon clains doesn't have the legal right to hand out punitive damages. Historically this goes against all preceeding maritime law, claims the AG. The courts have reduced the fine from 5 Billion down to 2 1/2 bil. It's also argued that punitive damages exceed 9x the amount of the actuall damage. In this case it's clain that it equals onlt 5x that amount. If the courts see fit to reduce the fine any further of worst to let them off the hook, there should be a national boycott of all things Exxon until true damages are paid in full They're also trying to claim that they can't be held responsible for the Captain's error in judgment as long as the company didn't interfere by redirecting the Captain or giving him orders to follow their instructions (that doesn't hold much water) They're also trying to claim that they didn't know the Captain had strayed from the strait & narrow (they're slick). This has been debunked though, they failed at that. Barry "What do you do with a drunken sailor (3x) Put him in charge of an Exxon tanker" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Sandy Mc Lean Date: 28 Feb 08 - 02:07 PM I think that they made over 40 billion in profit last year. They pushed the price of crude above $100 per barrel and then drove up the price of gas because crude was so high. Then they sued Chavez and Venezuela because he wanted to keep some of the profit for the people who owned the resource. I think that they found some stupid damn court in Britain to agree with them on that so they will probably find another court of that ilk to help out with this. Welcome to the global economy where corporations are richer than some governments and are not slow to flex their muscle. It has 19 years since this disaster and "JUSTICE" is not only blind but stupid as well! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: bankley Date: 28 Feb 08 - 02:18 PM well, I don't know if they'll qualify cuz the two crew on the bridge of B.C. Ferry's 'Queen of the North' were only smoking dope and making out when she struck a rock and sank in the Inside Passage..... maybe they can get work with Exxon now... pump this, pilot that , avast .... hic |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Bobert Date: 28 Feb 08 - 02:31 PM Exxon is making $2.5B every 3 weeks... This is a case where rich people just think that seein' as they bought the governemnt that the government shoould always protect them against the peasants... And Exxon isn't denying that it knew that the Captain had relapsed and was drinking... Heck, he had been drinking with Exxon execs prior to that assignment... No, what this is ia a grossly arrogant corporation whcih feels that rules don't apply to it... Remember Enron??? Same mindset... Same play book... Same theivery... Same anti-human, anti earth thinking... Same greed... Waht we are seeing is more and more of Dcik Cheney's energy policy unfolding... Okay, it might end up a 4-4 split since one of the Supreme Crooks has had to recluse himself because of his dirty little conmnections wuith Exxon but I'll guarentee the two Shrub Crooks will side with Exxon... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Charley Noble Date: 28 Feb 08 - 10:33 PM And Exxon's lawyers will need a supertanker to haul away all their ill-gotten gains. Exxon did acknowledge that they had rules against drunk captains being in chrage of their supertankers. However, they claim that they had no reason to believe that the captain in question, a known alcoholic, was still a practicing drunk. Well, I'll drink to that! Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: kendall Date: 29 Feb 08 - 01:40 PM Well, Hell! all those years I could have been drinking! (retired Captain) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Peace Date: 29 Feb 08 - 02:01 PM "pump this" Well, Ron if they were smokin' dope and makin' out, I'd say they were already doing that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: gnu Date: 29 Feb 08 - 02:09 PM I was on an oiler docked in Newfoundland. Three attempts at docking in poor weather. I could smell the booze as I went through the door of Cappy's office. The bottle of gin was on his desk beside the empty one. I have never seen eyes that red. And, Cappy's eyes were worse than the ship's cat that drinking out of Cappy's glass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: GUEST,leeneia Date: 29 Feb 08 - 06:18 PM It was established in Congressional hearings that the crew of the Valdiz was suffering extreme sleep deprivation. It was that, not alcohol, that caused the accident. It is hard to get good crew for ships. Most normal, healthy people want to spend their lives with family and friends. Result - crews are understaffed and overworked. When I watched Connie Chung (news reporter) hammering the question of drunkenness over and over, even though the response was always 'No, the captain wasn't drunk,' I wanted to spit on her. Then the result of the Congressional hearings got a few lines in the back pages of the paper, weeks later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: kendall Date: 29 Feb 08 - 09:23 PM Drunk or sober he had no business going to bed with a green seaman on the helm in coastal waters.He was the Captain, so, it was his fault. Period. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: heric Date: 29 Feb 08 - 09:49 PM 20% of the victimized class is already dead. (Leenia's right he wasn't drunk.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Barry Finn Date: 29 Feb 08 - 11:42 PM Part of the reason a ships company can't get a good crew is that for yrs they've been beating down the numbers of deck hands that they want to crew the ships. When they want to hire a skeleton to do the work of a full crew not only do they work longer hrs & extra watches, but they also become phycially exhusted as well as mentally fatigued. Don't go blaming the sailors & accusing them of being drunks & saying that that's the problem. The union's no longer have the power to enforce saftey for their members or the safety of the ships. That's now in the powers of the ship's owners & the government regs that allow ships at sea that should've been scrapped & sold off as rust. An example would be the recent sinking of the eco tour cruiser in the Antartic who's hull had over the yrs worn thin but pasted inspection. Or singled walled tankers & non water tight compartments. A drunk captain can sink a ship just as quick as a rusted out propeller shaft. He was the captain & in dangerous waters navigating a channel known to be a nasty waterway, that's his error, drunk or not. If he'd had the crew he would've been allowed to carry 25 yrs ago he could had a proper watch on deck instead of a greenhand, that's the fault of the powers that be for legaly allowing tankers to sail shorthanded. This doesn't come up because it now legal to sail with less crew than is actually needed so where's the fault there? Yes, crews are understaffed and overworked but they're just as normal & healthy as any construction crew you'd find on dry land, most are professional sailors with the exception of a few captains. These are not your sailors of yesteryear, they may be a rough lot but so are the ones that build the high rise offices buildings you work in & the towering bridges that you drive across. If there's a structural flaw don't blame the ones who built it blame the ones who designed it & instructed & recorded how it was built. Next time you fly, think about the stewartess. Does the plane crash if they're drunk? If the captain's short handed & has to come out of the cockpit to serve you meals & drinks & the plane crashes but the law doesn't allow the captains more than 2 crew & one of them was at the controls at the time are you gonna look for a drunken passanger or stewart & blame? Barrty Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: kendall Date: 01 Mar 08 - 08:35 AM Barry, as far as I'm concerned, you just spoke the last words on this subject.Republicans hate regulations. They cut into profits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: kendall Date: 01 Mar 08 - 08:47 AM There is humor even in this situation: The last I heard of Captain Hazelwood, he was teaching navigation in a college! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Bobert Date: 01 Mar 08 - 08:54 AM Well, now wait a minute here... Exxon's argument is not that the ship was understaffed but that the captain, having fallen off the wagon and back to drinkin', acted improperly because of it and... ...therefore they (Exxon) should not be help accountable. Facts of the case, as I understand them, is that Exxon execs knew the captain had fallen off the wagon after being treated for alcoholism... I heard on NPR that one of these execs actaully had been with the captain when both that exec amd the captain were drinking... The under-regulated aspect, however, is very much part of the story, as well but it isn't part of Exxon's arguments to the Supreme Crooks... What they seem to be arguing is that the captain, not them, had acted irresponsibly because of the drinking... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Charley Noble Date: 01 Mar 08 - 11:43 AM Here's a link to the current Wikipedia bio of Capt. Hazelwood: Click here! It makes interesting reading. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Sandy Mc Lean Date: 01 Mar 08 - 04:01 PM Found this: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/18/1034561314709.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: GUEST,ALCAN1 Date: 01 Mar 08 - 04:46 PM I have mixed feelings on this one. I was 17 years old when the Exxon Valdez spill happened. I live in the very town it took place...Valdez, Alaska. I was here when it occured and I personally know all the people who played a role in the response and clean up. I also used to be a fisherman here as well and worked on a small fishing vessel called the ROALD. Within 2 months of the spill that vessel was drydocked and he owner of that vessel was paid over $1/2 million by Exxon as were all the other fishermen in the area. He retired, left his family and headed for Hawaii. This was the case for hundreds of fishermen. The fact is that Exxon paid these people multi times for the same claim. Then to top it all off Exxon paid them to help clean up the spill at a rate of $25 a hour working 84 hours a week. The money Exxon threw at this town was amazing. Exxon brought in hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment that was tossed into the city dump. The city had to install fencing and gates so the locals wouldnt salvage what was being put in that landfill. Everything from generators, welders, inflatable boats, lumber etc was discarded. Prior to the gates being put up, I personally got 5 truck loads of stuff. We collected enough material to buil a friends house from the ground up. All that material was paid for by Exxon. When Exxon pulled out, the large complex that was build for them to house their offices was given back to the company who built it. Exxon sold it and the land for ONE DOLLAR and the company who built it turned it into a hotel. Ive been working for that company since they opened the old Exxon HQ as a hotel. Exxon paid alot. But they have gotten a raw deal in many ways. I would submitt that the Coast Guard, Alyeska, the union contractors, the State of Alaska itself as well Rikkie Ott (president of Cordova District Fishermen United) as the many enviormentalists that were protesting in the first 3 days of the spill are the ones to blame for it not being contained in time and it doing the dammage it did. They all stood point fingers at each other and nothing happened. As a result it led to the biggest economic boom this state has seen since the construction of the pipline in the 70s. Hell the local gas station was built with funds made on the oil spill and the owner named it "Captian Joes" after Joe Hazelwood himself as a tribute. Come on people it was 19 years ago. They paid for it then and kept giving out money to people for years after. When is it going to end? Exxon wasnt the only one to blame. I hope the Supreme Court will finally put this to an end. Now here is something that is reassuring. There wont be another spill like that on the water with another tanker here again due to the measures in place today. However the sad thing is the next major spill will be on the land because all efforts are on prevention on the water and Alyeska has cut back on maintaince on the pipeline and the terminal itself. The line is 30 years old and needs work. Trust me...its not if there is a proplem with the pipeline. Its only a matter of time. I just hope this whole town doesnt blow up as a result of the lack of maintaince. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 01 Mar 08 - 05:33 PM Thanks for your post, Alcan1. A little sanity, soon to be eclipsed by more codswallop. Some posters just like to mindlessly pile on unsupported suppositions and judgements, each trying to outshout the other. The whole premise of this thread is nonsense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: heric Date: 01 Mar 08 - 05:41 PM According to the LA Times, Bobert's version seems to be right. The punitives are apparently based on letting a drunk captain the shipL "But Stanford law professor Jeffrey L. Fisher, representing the Alaskan workers, said Exxon deserved to be punished for 'putting a drunken master in charge of a supertanker.'" It sems very strange, since a jury rejected that he was drunk at the time, and Leenia says Congress concluded the same. He was a drunk but not drunk at the time? http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-scotus28feb28,1,2553954.story |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: heric Date: 01 Mar 08 - 05:50 PM Oh look at this: ``He was the person who decided on behalf of Exxon that it was safe to leave port the night of March 23, 1989,'' Fisher argued." He probably was drunk when they left at 6:00 pm with a pilot, and probably was not drunk when the accident occurred at 11:00 pm. THAT's probably the hook. Bloomberg Seems a bit disconnected. He couldn't very well sit there for weeks? waiting for the icebergs to all float away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Bobert Date: 01 Mar 08 - 06:51 PM Thanks, heric, for the additional links... Yeah, this is the argument that Exxon has presented to the Supreme Crooks... Sounds purdy rediculous to me but that is the argument... What is more rediculous is that the two flunkies that George Bush has appointed to the Supreme Crooks seem to love Exxon's arguments... Beam me up... There is no intellegence left in the Supreme Court... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: kendall Date: 01 Mar 08 - 07:31 PM There are certain facts that no amount of money can wash away. EXXON knew ths Captain had lost his drivers license for drunk driving. They knew he was not on the bridge when the grounding happened. And finally, we are told that the cleanup was at best a token effort, and the oil is still present in the soil of the shore. I still say, screw EXXON, I will never buy any of their products again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Bobert Date: 01 Mar 08 - 08:26 PM Right'o, Capt'n... I haven't bought Exxon products since the oli spill and I'd highly suggest that Mudcatters don't either... Exxon sucks!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 01 Mar 08 - 08:41 PM 3.5 billion spent on cleanup and payments for damage. Token effort? Maritime law lacks any serious precedent for the award of damages. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 01 Mar 08 - 11:04 PM To correct another kneejerk comment far above about Exxon-Mobil, the prices of crude are set by demand and the Commodities Market. West Texas crude often is used as the indicator; it was $101.4 today. Middle East oil is a bit lower (not the cheapest to refine). In Venezuela, Exxon-Mobil was just one operator. They objected to yielding a 60% stake to PDVSA (the Venezuelan company) and thought about suing, but now have sold their interests to Repsol (a Spanish-Argentine company) which agreed to Venezuelan terms. Others who have agreed to terms are Royal Dutch Shell, Petrobras (Brazi), and China National Petroleum Co. Total and Enl refused and are now nationalized. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Sandy Mc Lean Date: 02 Mar 08 - 12:16 AM "To correct another kneejerk comment far above about Exxon-Mobil, the prices of crude are set by demand and the Commodities Market." The problem is that big global companies like Exxon are both the producer and the purchaser and the wholesaler and the seller of the product. In other words they are pumping the crude and then charging the refiner wharever they wish for it. The refiner then sells gas diesel etc. to the distributer/wholesaler who then sells to the retailer. This becomes a problem when they are all one and the same. The law of supply and demand fails and corporate greed rules supreme. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie Date: 02 Mar 08 - 12:36 AM Hey man, this is Mudcat. Just because Alcan1 was there doesn't mean anybody except Q will listen to him. I'm with you two, but you're swimming upstream around here. I remember the one-liner at the time: "How many men does it take to command an Exxon tanker?" One and a fifth. Now there are equal parts of sanity & silliness. Take your pick. :) CC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Bobert Date: 02 Mar 08 - 09:12 AM $20B in annual profirs ougtta, at the very least, say something about just how stacked the deck is in protecting Exxon's ability to redistribute wealth away from the working class toward the obscenely rich... What we are seein' unfold is Cheney's ***secret energy plan***... You know, the plan that Bush has used executive order after executive order to protect the crooks for the consumers... "Government for the people, by the people" my butt... The only people that this corrupt government is for is for the super rich... And in the words or Walter Cronkite, "That's the way it is..." B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: kendall Date: 02 Mar 08 - 03:15 PM I'm going to contact a friend who lives in Alaska and see what she thinks. If I'm wrong I apologize, but there are two people here who sound like EXXON shills. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 02 Mar 08 - 04:09 PM Sandy forgets that OPEC also has something to do with oil prices; adjusting production to keep prices within a range. Saudi Arabia and Iran, with the two largest production companies, Saudi Aramco and NIOC, along with the Emirates and Kuwait, are the OPEC members that control in that group (Venezuela has quit). Exxon Mobil, with decreasing reserves, buys much of the oil that it refines. It does share ownership of some important refining companies, but shares this market with other biggies. It prefers to invest, and let others control, a change in policy that has taken place. Many changes in rank and importance in the past five years. World Petroleum Liquids Production- 2006 1. Saudi Aramco 11035 (thousands bbls/day) 2. NIOC (Iran) 4049 3. Pemex (Mexico) 3710 4. PDV (Venezuela) 2650 5. KPC (Kuwait) 2643 6. BP (British Petroleum) 2562 7. Exxon Mobil 2523 8. PetroChina 2270 9. Shell 2093 10. Sonotrach (Algeria) 1934 (Seldom mentioned, but widespread interests) Seven of those ten are state-owned, and all have a share in refineries. Source: "Energy Intelligence Research," 2007 ed. The largest corporations, as economic entities: Wal-Mart, British Petroleum, Exxon Mobil, and Royal Dutch Shell in that order. All three oil companies make much of their profit in refining and manufacturing. PetroChina soon will surpass Exxon Mobil and British Petroleum. A mistake in my previous post- ENI, the Italian company, has made peace with Venezuela, and plans to invest $4B in new fields. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: kendall Date: 02 Mar 08 - 04:50 PM There is no way to spin away the hard cold fact that EXXON pulls down profits in the billions every quarter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 02 Mar 08 - 05:46 PM Exxon Mobil is big, but Wal-mart is bigger than any of the private oil companies. There is nothing wrong with making a profit from their industries. Exxon Mobil 2006 Financial Statement Revenue- 49 billion Return on capital- 33 percent Capital expenditures- 756 million, with plans ongoing for a petrochemical plants in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, as well as a petrochemical complex in Singapore. Total revenue- 377,365 million Total costs- 310,000 million Income taxes- 28 millions (Sales-based taxes included in costs) Net Income- 39 millions. Not too bad an annual report; should satisfy most of the many shareholders, large and small, including pension funds. Ends up at $6.62 net income per common share. (Share price about $87.00). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Peace Date: 02 Mar 08 - 05:50 PM Q, that's true. Companies have a right to a profit. Three days ago gas was $.99 a liter. Today it's $1.07. How many businesses can jack up their prices by 7% because they are 'moved by the spirit'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 02 Mar 08 - 06:06 PM The price increase follows the market. Exxon doesn't determine that. Crude oil futures are the most heavily traded commodity on the market. Futures trade in units of 1000 US barrels (42000 gallons). If you feel like gambling on continuing price increase, buy a few. The price should drop this summer, that will be the time to buy (don't follow this advice). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Peace Date: 02 Mar 08 - 06:15 PM LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: kendall Date: 02 Mar 08 - 07:16 PM When Bush TOOK office, the price of gasoline was $1.50. Seven years later, it's well over $3.00 a gallon. In northern California it's $4.00 a gallon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Peace Date: 02 Mar 08 - 07:17 PM I wish it was $3 a gallon here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 02 Mar 08 - 07:46 PM In 1980, a gallon of gasoline cost $1.13. In 2007, adjusted for inflation, the cost would be $3.19 (calculator 3), or $2.84 (calculator 1). These calculators are at education-world.com. Nothing out-of-line at $3.00 /gallon, kendall. What's the problem? Do you need a government subsidy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Sandy Mc Lean Date: 02 Mar 08 - 07:47 PM Back when Trudeau was Canada's Prime Minister he had the balls to take on the big oil companies. He created Petro Canada as a crown corporation with the belief that one honest company in fair competition would force the others to follow. Unfortunately there was such hell raised by Alberta that he had to back off and Petro Canada was eventually dumped back into the private sector. If his plan had been allowed to stand I believe that our prices would have been much fairer today. Canadian prices should be determined and set here. We should not be slaves to the so called global economy because we produce and export far more than what we import. OPEC be damned! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Peace Date: 02 Mar 08 - 07:48 PM Good one, Sandy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Bobert Date: 02 Mar 08 - 08:13 PM Ahhhhhh... Bush, former oilman... Cheney, former oilman... Condi Rice, former oilwoman... $1.50 a gallon in 2000 and pushin' $4.00 a gallon now??? Q, Please send me some of the drugs you have... Tnis is not explainable... I don't give a rat's ass about Exxon's story... Fine... If they wanta charge $4.00 a gallon then bring back thwe wind-fall-profits taxes and take that money and provide national health care with it... We could all live with that... But to have Cheney and his secret buddies profit from this is anti-American... Yes, you all heard it here first... It is anti-American... On some level it's terrorism... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: kendall Date: 02 Mar 08 - 08:59 PM Right on, Bobert. Q, the cost of living has shot up since 2000, but my income hasn't.How about yours? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon: Drunk Ship Captains Wanted... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 02 Mar 08 - 09:16 PM Sandy, I was hired in Alberta when Petro-Canada was formed. Most of the industry opposition came from companies who had no interest in research, or exploration in virgin territory such as the East Coast and Arctic, and British Columbia. Trudeau's actions not only formed PetroCanada, but provided tax relief for research, and exploration in new areas. Only the major companies, such as Imperial (Exxon affiliate), Texaco, Shell, Chevron, and some research companies took advantage of this break. All of these companies had labs which employed many people (Imperial perhaps 200 at their Calgary lab). Professionals published results in international journals. A large percentage of the research costs could be deducted from taxes. Petro-Canada, because of its mandate, was interested in offshore and Arctic oil exploration, and set up exploration and drilling programs. Companies like Imperial also had their eyes on these possibilities, but company economists, etc., would shoot down proposals for wildcat drilling offshore as too expensive, or 'unlikely to show profit.' They did approve joint projects with PetroCanada, with shared costs. Trudeau took on the oil industry- but his measures allowed for cooperation. Shared projects went forward that would have been too expensive for PetroCanada alone (Parliament would have rebelled) or considered uneconomic by the majors. Important discoveries were made, although their potential is still mostly in the future. Research on large scale models of ice islands, joint research with Imperial, made it possible to drill offshore in the Beaufort Sea. Experiments with oil sands have led to today's production. The majority of the oil company work force in western Canada, however, worked for concerns that 'did not think outside the box,' hence were not aided in their production programs, and were not a part of the programs with PetroCanada, hence are still heard complaining and cussing Trudeau today. Many of today's employees of the majors know nothing of this history, and join those demonizing Trudeau. The return to Conservative government, much of it orchestrated from Alberta as suggested by Sandy, spelled the end of this small golden age. Opposition was from all sectors of business, not just disgruntled small oil company employees. |
