Deepwater Oil Spill - Oh Shit...

[JosephKK]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:41:14 -0500, "amdx" <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:3dc8cf08-35f0-4778-a677-570da7141661@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com....
On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Grumps wrote:

"George Jefferson" <phreon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hvg8j6$4ie$1@news.eternal-september.org...
snippy snip snip

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Mike

Yo Mike. The fall in stock prices is damages to the stockholders, not
the company. BP cash and assets and debits are largely the same as
before the spill. The stock price drop is mostly the disappearance of
imaginary money. Now that $20 billion escrow fund may weaken them a
little, but not much or they would never have agreed to it. They know
more and are covering themselves if the problem escalates past $100
billion.

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:46:43 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:53:19 -0700, Winston <Winston@bigbrother.net> wrote:

On 6/19/2010 7:30 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
assets.

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

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

Corporations are only considered people WRT rights,
not responsibilities.

Nonsense.

Really? Consider Love Canal. Consider Bhopal.

 

On Jun 20, 5:53 pm, krw wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:12:22 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 20, 5:29 pm, krw wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

Speaking about processing efficiency, how long will it take the government to
pay the first dime to those who need it? It's been a couple of months now,
and Obummer still can't come to skipping a round of golf.

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

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

But *will* BP be liable for the rest?  AIUI, their liability is capped at
something ridiculous like $75M.  If BP decides to say "screw you, Obummer",
how long would it take to get another dime?

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

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

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


--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Joe Chisolm]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:30:34 -0500, amdx wrote:

"Winfield Hill" <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hvfue5018tj@drn.newsguy.com...

If you like, a little background.
An Introduction to Drilling Offshore Oil Wells
http://www.treesfullofmoney.com/?p=1610

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

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

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


--
Thanks,
- Win
One thought about the cracks in the well casing, the casing is open
at
the top,
this would make me think most of the oil is flowing from the top of the
casing and
not flowing into the geological formation.
Once the relief wells are drilled and they can relieve the flow from
the
original well
they should be able to seal the casing with concrete and stop any flow
from cracks
in the casing. But that's just thinking from someone in the seafood
business on the
gulf coast.

This mornings newspaper headline "Significant oil 32 miles away"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Joe Chisolm
Marble Falls, Tx.

 

[Copacetic]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:28:48 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:

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

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

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

It is called a downward spiral.

It behaves just like your grasp of this situation does. Ever
diminishing returns.

 

[Copacetic]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:28:48 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:

The needs of the many.

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

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

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

And no, it simply "being absorbed by others" would not "smooth
everything out".

 

[Copacetic]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:28:48 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:

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

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

No, you retarded, presumptuous dumbfuck.

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

Dude, that one placed you below Johnny on the IQ scale. Yours matches
the year the stock market crashed... 29

 

[Perenis]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:43:38 -0700 (PDT), linnix <me@linnix.info-for.us>
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Perenis]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:43:38 -0700 (PDT), linnix <me@linnix.info-for.us>
wrote:

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


Your logistic sense is nil as well. That means that you are a meth

head or crack head or both, a recent HS grad, and you wear your pants
down past your asscrack. I say this because regardless of what your
numeric age may be, you have the brain and worldly knowledge of a fucking
uneducated punk, at best.

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

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

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

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

Your brain is obviously contaminated. Stay off the meth, and buy pants
that fit correctly and wear them correctly.

 

[linnix]

On Jun 20, 4:35 pm, Perenis <Pere...@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:55:02 -0700 (PDT), linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us
wrote:

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

 If 40% of their hold is water, then processing it AT the extraction
point is the right way to go.  

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

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

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

 Too late for that stuff now though.  

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

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

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

  The standard of living in the US has gone WAY down.  Do not expect it
to get back up to that old comfort zone any time soon, if ever.

 

[Perenis]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:59:03 -0700 (PDT), linnix <me@linnix.info-for.us>
wrote:

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

No shit, Dip Tracy! That is what *I* said!

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:59:03 -0700 (PDT), linnix <me@linnix.info-for.us>
wrote:

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

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

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

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

You not only have offered the wrong non-solution, you offered NO
solution. You have no sense of practicality. None.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:59:03 -0700 (PDT), linnix <me@linnix.info-for.us>
wrote:

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

Then build it.

You retarded FUCK! That is NOT the fix!

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:59:03 -0700 (PDT), linnix <me@linnix.info-for.us>
wrote:

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

Sepeculation.

Come back (in your next life) when your brain hasn't been addled by
huffing sprays, idiot. The word is SPECULATION. And with you, they are
easy, and very likely accurate.

 

[linnix]

On Jun 20, 11:29 pm, Perenis <Pere...@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:43:38 -0700 (PDT), linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us
wrote:

If the pipe is big enough, water content doesn't matter.  With 30% oil
coming out of the 20" well, a 48" pipe can handle 80% to 90% water.
  It isn't "coming out of a well" you retarded fuck,ithat is a hundred
miles away from the barges being discussed.

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

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

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

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

Then build it.

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

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

Irrelevant.

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

Sepeculation.

 

[JW]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT) dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
Message id:
<15473ffb-3bb1-4034-a5c6-3dd7b77d3e59@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:

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

Great minds think alike.

 

[amdx]

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:4C1EDC70.DFA52948@Hovnanian.com...

Copacetic wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:30:53 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

Mike

 

[amdx]

"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:v7pt16tqhvadkchqj6k6jolvcb26fk640q@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:41:14 -0500, "amdx" <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:3dc8cf08-35f0-4778-a677-570da7141661@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Grumps wrote:

"George Jefferson" <phreon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hvg8j6$4ie$1@news.eternal-september.org...
snippy snip snip

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Mike



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

Let's see, if I have a company with $180B in stock market assets and
you have a company with $10B in stock market assets, which of use
could issue $10B in new stock without harming the company.
I bet I could get the $10B long before you, that should tell you that
a fall in stock prices damages the company. Especially one under pressure
from increased expenses.
Mike

 

[MooseFET]

On Jun 21, 1:34 am, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:

"MooseFET" <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote in message
[....]

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

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

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

I have come to believe that Obama wants it to be a government program.
I think it more likely that you started off with that belief and then
looked for evidence to support it.

No that's not true, I am not one to go with any conspiracy nonsense, but
just
as of recently I'm starting to believe that Obama does want to fundamentally
change
the type of government that we have. In fact the statement above which I did
put some
thought into before I wrote it, was the start of a turning point for me.
With the
Healthcare bill that included the takeover of the college loan program,

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

the
ownership of
a large part of GM and Chrysler,

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

Cash for clunkers,

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

the $8,000 to first time
home buyers,

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

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

He is for everything that America stands for.


> Mike

 

[MooseFET]

On Jun 21, 5:24 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:34:03 -0500, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:

"MooseFET" <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:1cefe7a4-ddd0-422b-a51a-f78988489231@s6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

snip

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

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

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

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

After the record of the republicans on crony capitalism, his hiring

practices will be a breath of fresh air. For once competence will
matter.