Why isn't the Tea Party protesting BP?

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> > From the point of view of investors, there is nothing at all good about
> >that.
> >
> > Wall street doesn't give a hoot about safety. The only thing Wall
> >Street learned from TMI is that engineers in the control room were able
> >to turn a 2 billion dollar asset into a 2 billion dollar liability in
> >about an hour. The dollar amounts involved in the Deepwater Horizon
> >incident are much much larger.
>
> Investors do a lot of things that don't make sense. I can't help that.


No you can't. But you will be affected by the decisions investors make.
What investors do impacts everyone a lot more than what the president
does.


>
> >> The BP incident is an example of when things don't work out properly. Similar
> >> folks made boneheaded decisions but in the end the safety systems weren't
> >> enough.
> >
> > You don't know why this happened. The current picture being painted by
> >the oil industry is intended to make it look like this was an easily
> >preventable accident that won't happen again in order to restore
> >investor confidence. The reality is there is no clear evidence that BP
> >did anything that any other well operator wouldn't have done in the same
> >situation. You may be able to convince the pubic that this was just a
> >boo-boo that will never happen again, but investors are a little more
> >savvy than that.
>
> I don't know why it happened... but there's a considerable amount of evidence
> now that BP knows why it happened. You read the press and nobody even
> mentions the riser pipe having broken... and BP certainly isn't talking about
> that. So the big questions become ones like when the pipe broke and what
> other evidence did they have of the hammering in advance, and I'm waiting to
> see all of that.

The riser connected the rig to the well. The rig bobbed around
uncontrolled for a few days and then sank. It would have been a miracle
if the riser hadn't broke.

Or are you talking about the mysterious 2nd drill pipe?
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-sp...7/post_19.html


-jim



>
> But it's pretty clear that there were a long chain of failures in place,
> the problem now is to identify all of them so they can be corrected. This
> is of course being made as difficult as possible by BP and surprisingly the
> press isn't helping.




>
> >> I think in the end investment in the oil industry will be reduced, in part
> >> due to fears about this sort of thing happening again, and in part because of
> >> fears of added government regulation. But in the end, safety is just a part
> >> of the cost of doing business, and you can pay a little now or a lot later.
> >
> >It has nothing to do with safety. Nuclear energy was much much safer
> >after Three Mile Island and Nuclear has probably always been safer than
> >oil exploration and still no one was willing to invest. It has to do
> >with perceived risks. The magnitude of the potential risk and liability
> >of the investors in oil exploration just got a major revision.
>
> Possibly to the point where they might become a bit more realistic about
> things. Too long the oil industry has been considered some sort of magic
> scheme that creates money out of nothing. It's not that way, it has severe
> risks and liabilities like everything else in this world.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 07:17:20 -0500, jim wrote:


>
> "Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:
>
>
>> Yeah, response is the big thing, and about the only thing a President
>> can really do (in all fairness, if I were the President and someone
>> came up to me three days after a similar disaster, I probably would
>> have said "No thanks", too, and kept a close eye on BP. However, I
>> would have contacted those who offered help once it was seen BP was
>> having trouble. Oil skimmers are most effective when the oil is
>> thick...)
>
> Except that this is all based on your drunken hallucinations. You make
> up fiction rather than deal with real facts.

Yeah. Right. Guess you only know what you've been told:

U.S. Refused Help on Oil Spill

According to Foreign Policy, thirteen entities that had offered the U.S.
oil spill assistance within about two weeks of the Horizon rig explosion.
They were the governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland,
Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway , Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain,
Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations.

Read mo
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...#ixzz0tUYs5lBk


From the Canadian press:

he response from the Obama Administration and BP, which are coordinating
the cleanup: "The Embassy got a nice letter from the Administration that
said, 'Thanks, but no thanks,’" said Geert Visser, Consul General for
the Netherlands in Houston.



> When did the President respond to any offers of help with "No thanks"?

See above. It's been well documented in all but the Main Stream press,
especially in overseas and Canadian news sources.

> When was oil in the Gulf any thicker than it is right now?

You're kidding, right?

EFFECTIVENESS OF OIL SPILL RECOVERY SYSTEMS
Robert L. Watkins
Watkins Associates
P.O. Box 417, The Grindleville Road
Blue Hill, Maine 04614
The measure of the effectiveness of an oil spill recovery system is the ability of the system
to recover the most oil in the least time. Because of the rapid spreading and thinning of
spilled oil, it is essential that oil recovery equipment be tested and rated using realistic oil
encounter rates and spilled oil thicknesses. ASTM standards F631 and F808 define
encounter rate (ER), throughput efficiency (TE), and oil recovery efficiency (ORE). Using
these definitions and testing using realistic slick thicknesses, encounter rates, and
environmental conditions makes ranking the effectiveness of oil spill recovery devices
possible.

The rapid rate at which oil spreads and thins complicates the mechanical recovery of spilled oil.
No matter how efficient an oil recovery device, the fundamental limit to
its effectiveness (the ability to
recover the most oil in the least time) becomes the ability of the
skimming system to encounter an ever thinning sheen of oil at an
appreciable rate.


Since the initial incident, oil has been spilling out and dissapating,
making it...uh...thinner...

>
> Here is a live feed from the ship "Boa Deep C":
>
> mms://a214.l9789245685.c97892.g.lm.akamaistream.net/D/214/97892/v0001/reflector:31499.asx?bkup=31500
>
>
> That live video feed is from a Norwegian ship with a Norwegian crew that
> has been involved in the subsea work at the site of the spill since
> April. Many other foreign ships have been long involved in this
> including Pemex oil skimmers from Mexico.
>
>
> As for the effectiveness of the response. The BP gusher is now and has
> been through out June leaking at least as much oil every week as the
> entire Exxon Valdez oil spill did. Yet the damage to shoreline from the
> Exxon Valdez oil spill was 100 times worse than the damage that has
> occurred so far to the Gulf of Mexico shoreline. After the Exxon Valdez
> spill there was 1300 miles of coastline that was buried in crude oil.

Guess Obungler should have accepted help sooner, when it would have been
more effective...

=?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= > wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:23:04 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> I think in the end investment in the oil industry will be reduced, in part
>> due to fears about this sort of thing happening again, and in part because
>> of fears of added government regulation.
>
>And this is the real reason *I* think Obama is dragging his heels. He
>hates the oil industry and made campaign noises indicating such. (even
>though BP ponied up $2M to get him elected...). He also said he would like
>to see gasoline prices at $4-5 a gallon.

Well, he'a got a point. It would in fact be better to have gasoline prices
rise to the point where they actually reflect the whole cost of producing
gasoline. That's how free markets are supposed to work. You do like free
markets, right?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
>The riser connected the rig to the well. The rig bobbed around
>uncontrolled for a few days and then sank. It would have been a miracle
>if the riser hadn't broke.

No, I was actually referring to the well pipe having broken underneath
the ground beforehand. Trying to do too many things at once.

>Or are you talking about the mysterious 2nd drill pipe?
>http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-sp...7/post_19.html

No, that's another and still different issue, but again not a good sign.
Part of the issue is that I don't know what the actual history of the well
is, and what was done before the problem was first noticed. I know a few
of the things that seem to have been done in the week or so afterward, before
the explosion, but BP and the press are not exactly bending over to explain
how the well got so messed up in the first place.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:17:02 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= >
> wrote:
>>On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:23:04 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> I think in the end investment in the oil industry will be reduced, in
>>> part due to fears about this sort of thing happening again, and in part
>>> because of fears of added government regulation.
>>
>>And this is the real reason *I* think Obama is dragging his heels. He
>>hates the oil industry and made campaign noises indicating such. (even
>>though BP ponied up $2M to get him elected...). He also said he would
>>like to see gasoline prices at $4-5 a gallon.
>
> Well, he'a got a point. It would in fact be better to have gasoline
> prices rise to the point where they actually reflect the whole cost of
> producing gasoline. That's how free markets are supposed to work. You do
> like free markets, right?
> --scott

I ain't sayin'....

"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 07:17:20 -0500, jim wrote:
>
> >
> > "Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Yeah, response is the big thing, and about the only thing a President
> >> can really do (in all fairness, if I were the President and someone
> >> came up to me three days after a similar disaster, I probably would
> >> have said "No thanks", too, and kept a close eye on BP. However, I
> >> would have contacted those who offered help once it was seen BP was
> >> having trouble. Oil skimmers are most effective when the oil is
> >> thick...)
> >
> > Except that this is all based on your drunken hallucinations. You make
> > up fiction rather than deal with real facts.
>
> Yeah. Right. Guess you only know what you've been told:
>

There has never been any believable evidence federal government turned down any offers of help. All offers made to Washington
were passed on to BP. BP has purchased and hired the systems based on their expertise. Not based on stupid opinions from drunks
and bloggers.


>
>
> Since the initial incident, oil has been spilling out and dissapating,
> making it...uh...thinner...

Take a look some day when you are sober.

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> >The riser connected the rig to the well. The rig bobbed around
> >uncontrolled for a few days and then sank. It would have been a miracle
> >if the riser hadn't broke.
>
> No, I was actually referring to the well pipe having broken underneath
> the ground beforehand. Trying to do too many things at once.

There are several layers of well pipe, but if casing broke then wouldn't that be
the fault of the manufacturer?
The only mention of broken pipe or casing I have heard of has been due to the
blow out - not the cause of the blow out.


>
>
> >Or are you talking about the mysterious 2nd drill pipe?
> >http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-sp...7/post_19.html
>
> No, that's another and still different issue, but again not a good sign.
> Part of the issue is that I don't know what the actual history of the well
> is, and what was done before the problem was first noticed. I know a few
> of the things that seem to have been done in the week or so afterward, before
> the explosion, but BP and the press are not exactly bending over to explain
> how the well got so messed up in the first place.

It is quite possible BP really doesn't know what went wrong. What we do know
is that this well like all wells had a very detailed well plan, which details
step by step how they would proceed. We know that numerous experts, engineers and
drillers from companies like DrillQuip, MISwaco, Haliburton, Schlumberger, and
transOcean all who were on the rig had reviewed the plan. And of course numerous
drilling engineers from BP and MMS had gone over the plan many times. And as far
as any of these people (with expertise and knowledge of what was going on on the
Deepwater Horizon) knew everything was going according to plan.

Up until 10 minutes before the rig exploded there was no one that thought
there was a problem or that the plan was dangerous or even out of the ordinary.

Unfortunately, the people who would be in the very best position to know what
went wrong didn't survive the explosion.

-jim




>
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article >, says...
>
> Bob Cooper > wrote in
> >
> There's one thing that comes to mind to me with the above: Isn't it
> possible that the authority and responsibility to do the clean up rests
> with BP and no one else to the extent that the government simply *can't*
> get involved or remove them from such?

POTUS can pretty well do what he wants in a case like this.
Call it a code red national emergency or whatever, and go from there.
That fact alone gets cooperation.
The $20 billion payment fund BP set up is an example.

jim > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
>> >The riser connected the rig to the well. The rig bobbed around
>> >uncontrolled for a few days and then sank. It would have been a miracle
>> >if the riser hadn't broke.
>>
>> No, I was actually referring to the well pipe having broken underneath
>> the ground beforehand. Trying to do too many things at once.
>
>There are several layers of well pipe, but if casing broke then wouldn't that be
>the fault of the manufacturer?

It could well be, yeah.

>The only mention of broken pipe or casing I have heard of has been due to the
>blow out - not the cause of the blow out.

No, there were signs it was deforming and bulging some time before the blowout
and the Transocean guys were worried about it. It probably broke before the
blowout but it's possible it didn't break under the sea floor until the
blowout. Figuring out what happened when is a big deal.

> It is quite possible BP really doesn't know what went wrong. What we do know
>is that this well like all wells had a very detailed well plan, which details
>step by step how they would proceed. We know that numerous experts, engineers and
>drillers from companies like DrillQuip, MISwaco, Haliburton, Schlumberger, and
>transOcean all who were on the rig had reviewed the plan. And of course numerous
>drilling engineers from BP and MMS had gone over the plan many times. And as far
>as any of these people (with expertise and knowledge of what was going on on the
>Deepwater Horizon) knew everything was going according to plan.

No, there were reports as early as a week before the blowout that things were
not going according to plan. Some of the information about what wasn't going
right is conflicting, though.

> Up until 10 minutes before the rig exploded there was no one that thought
>there was a problem or that the plan was dangerous or even out of the ordinary.

No, this isn't true, and looking carefully at some of the BP press releases
will even indicated this. Part of the problem is that we need to get a real
timeline.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> No, this isn't true, and looking carefully at some of the BP press
> releases
> will even indicated this. Part of the problem is that we need to get a
> real
> timeline.
> --scott

No, it isnt true.. They had been taking kicks for some time.

People within the industry know more than they are talking about right
now.

But, at the end of the day, it doesnt make any difference. BP is the name
at the top of this heap, and BP will likely take the lion's share of the
blame
UNLESS incompetence, unsafe practices, or faulty equipment can be shown.