Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;703120]Look, I am not going to say I trust BP, and I certainly don't trust the Gov't. BUT, they are losing money due to this spill, will they still make a whole helluva lot, yes, but it's ridiculous to assume that BP sees any type of gain by letting this spill go on any longer than necessary. All 4 of your points have basic validity, but even with all of that, any company that has a major accident, is going to do what it can to get the accident site fixed and productive again.[/quote]

Let's defend BP ladies and gentlemen.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

The idea that BP isnt doing everything in its power to stop the underwater oil eruption just flies in the face of reason and logic. If BP makes money off oil, why would they sit idlely by and allow billions (im guessing but the value of the oil lost will probably be in the billions) of dollars float away?

this disaster is a huge nightmare for BP. im guessing when this is all said and done, they will merge with another company and change their name.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=over the mountain;703125]The idea that BP isnt doing everything in its power to stop the underwater oil eruption just flies in the face of reason and logic. If BP makes money off oil, why would they sit idlely by and allow billions (im guessing but the value of the oil lost will probably be in the billions) of dollars float away?

this disaster is a huge nightmare for BP. im guessing when this is all said and done, they will merge with another company and change their name.[/quote]

Because its one mile beneath the sea. You act like corporations maek decisons based on logic. theya re steady trying to suck that oil up think about every attempt so far. No attempt to block the well just attempts to siphon.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

The bottom line is that its been 34 days where basically nothing has been accomplished. That's unacceptable by any stretch of the imagination.

The answer is blatantly obvious. BP stands to lose nothing by delaying anything. Some half-assed attempt at fixing the spill will eventually work due to process of elimination, and then BP and the media will go all "yay for BP" because they fixed the mistake.

People as a whole are dumb and will forget that BP caused the spill, they will just be happy that BP fixed it. That in turn boosts the companies image and the oil industry as a whole.

Especially the poor people down in the gulf affected areas. They will care 2 shits about it once the BP checks start rolling in. There are legitimate people who are suffering and deserve the aid checks, but bet your last bottom dollar that both BP and the government are looking at ways to profitize this somehow.

Did anyone pay attention about the 33 cent per barrel tax? WE WILL PAY HIGHER PRICES AT THE PUMPS. That tax will pay for BP to keep cleaning the spill, so they don't absorb all of the cost from their own money. Gov't and Oil companies go hand in hand, and when we start paying much more at the pump, their profits go up again. And if you don't believe me about the tax look it up. Obama is trying to push it as we speak and they could vote it into law by the end of next week!

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

Where has critical thinking and reason gone in the days of the internet? It truly saddens me that nearly all political dialogue is now so full of ideology, and lacks alot of semblance of rational thought.

JTF - I defended both the gov't (which is a rarity for me) and BP. An accident of this magnitude is not easily managed, and both parties are in fact trying to get control of it.

SS84 - Crude sells at about $80 a barrel right now. 33 cents on $80, is a blip and if it helps clean the environment then it's probably worth it. Every human depends on oil for many various things, a 33 cent per barrel increase ain't gonna kill us. Of course they won't limit it, and the government in the end will collect far more than the clean up cost but still lets not act like the 33cents is an inordinate burden. Of course we will end up paying for it. BP is going to raise prices to cover their operating costs, and maintain the profits their investors expect.

For any other knee jerkers out there: [url=http://www.freeinquiry.com/critical-thinking.html]An Introduction to Critical Thinking[/url]

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=joethiesmanfan;703126]Because its one mile beneath the sea. You act like corporations maek decisons based on logic. theya re steady trying to suck that oil up think about every attempt so far. No attempt to block the well just attempts to siphon.[/quote]

What has BP or the gov't said in response to this? is there a good reason why they wouldnt want to try and block the hole? idk but maybe blocking the hole could make things worse.

i not nearly as up to date on this, but has anyone heard or read a reason why, so far, the curative attempts dont include blocking the leak?

ill look it up.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=SolidSnake84;703128]The bottom line is that its been 34 days where basically nothing has been accomplished. That's unacceptable by any stretch of the imagination.

The answer is blatantly obvious. BP stands to lose nothing by delaying anything. Some half-assed attempt at fixing the spill will eventually work due to process of elimination, and then BP and the media will go all "yay for BP" because they fixed the mistake.

People as a whole are dumb and will forget that BP caused the spill, they will just be happy that BP fixed it. That in turn boosts the companies image and the oil industry as a whole.

Especially the poor people down in the gulf affected areas. They will care 2 shits about it once the BP checks start rolling in. There are legitimate people who are suffering and deserve the aid checks, but bet your last bottom dollar that both BP and the government are looking at ways to profitize this somehow.

Did anyone pay attention about the 33 cent per barrel tax? WE WILL PAY HIGHER PRICES AT THE PUMPS. That tax will pay for BP to keep cleaning the spill, so they don't absorb all of the cost from their own money. Gov't and Oil companies go hand in hand, and when we start paying much more at the pump, their profits go up again. And if you don't believe me about the tax look it up. Obama is trying to push it as we speak and they could vote it into law by the end of next week![/quote]


This is going to look biblical when it's over. Those dispersants are killing everything it comes in contact with. Any industry that controls the life blood of all the country should be under governemnt control in my opnion. When you have 300 million peopl dependant on a business owned by 3 corporations, the coproporation take on a role simiilar to government.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;703130]Where has critical thinking and reason gone in the days of the internet? It truly saddens me that nearly all political dialogue is now so full of ideology, and lacks alot of semblance of rational thought.

JTF - I defended both the gov't (which is a rarity for me) and BP. An accident of this magnitude is not easily managed, and both parties are in fact trying to get control of it.

SS84 - Crude sells at about $80 a barrel right now. 33 cents on $80, is a blip and if it helps clean the environment then it's probably worth it. Every human depends on oil for many various things, a 33 cent per barrel increase ain't gonna kill us. Of course they won't limit it, and the government in the end will collect far more than the clean up cost but still lets not act like the 33cents is an inordinate burden. Of course we will end up paying for it. BP is going to raise prices to cover their operating costs, and maintain the profits their investors expect.

For any other knee jerkers out there: [url=http://www.freeinquiry.com/critical-thinking.html]An Introduction to Critical Thinking[/url][/quote]

I agree with your comments to me. I feel though, that making US pay for something we didn't bring on ourselves is wrong. BP should pay for this in full, all of the cleanup costs, and the aftermath. And if it kills them as a company, then so be it.

The American people have suffered from this enough. We shouldnt have to pay 1 cent for something they did.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bp-unveils-fifth-strategy-to-plug-gulf-of-mexico-oil-leak-1982091.html]BP unveils fifth strategy to plug Gulf of Mexico oil leak - Business News, Business - The Independent[/url]

i googled "why hasnt BP tried to block oil leak" and came up with a zillion articles re. BP's efforts to block/plug the oil leak.

the one above i read, it covers the steps and attempts BP has taken so far. its from england and glosses over things but im sure an inquiring mind could read more detailed articles re. their efforts to plug the hole.

So,the idea that BP hasnt tried to plug or block the hole is far from the truth it seems.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

I think it's safe to say everyone involved has a strong interest in getting the leak fixed sooner rather than later. The idea that BP isn't losing anything or will quickly recoup the costs of this is ridiculous.

I heard the latest idea for a fix is to shoot Rush Limbaugh into the leak. He should have no problem plugging it up. :)

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=SolidSnake84;703136]I agree with your comments to me. I feel though, that making US pay for something we didn't bring on ourselves is wrong. BP should pay for this in full, all of the cleanup costs, and the aftermath. And if it kills them as a company, then so be it.

The American people have suffered from this enough. We shouldnt have to pay 1 cent for something they did.[/quote]

Let's say I agreed with your statements - I don't but I will set that aside for this discussion. The US government declares BP has full fiscal responsibility for cleanup and aftermath costs. BP agrees, and further agrees that the US citizens should not pay for it. They set aside xxx billion dollars, out of their profits. Now they continue selling oil, and processing it. How do you figure out that they didn't pass the costs down the line through normal operating costs?

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

Another beauty of capitalism, the costs always get passed down to the consumer.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

Exactly right.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

:doh:
[url=http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GULF_OIL_SPILL_WASHINGTON?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-05-25-11-49-44]IG report: Meth, porn use by drilling agency staff[/url]

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

It just looks like they won't have this thing plugged anytime soon - or at least soon enough. The damage one to the sea life along the floor of the Gulf is unimaginable at this point.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

latest word from the BP twitter is that they have delayed "Top Kill" again indefinatley , and their hope now is that the relief wells fix the problem. They said there is too much reasonable doubt, and that a failed attempt could make the spill worse.

20,000 barrells a day are pumping out and a failed attempt could make it 100,000 gallons or more per day.

The relief wells wont be finished for 2 to 3 months....yay for BP

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

When it's all said and done, this incident should be the text book example of the do's and don'ts for drilling in the future.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

doing the math here, in 60 days, when the relief wells are finished, and assuming they work,(Dont assume anything with Bastard Petroleum) We are looking at about 5 to 6 million barrels of oil spilled in the gulf, which is about 24 times the amount of the exxon valdez, which was previously the worst oil disaster in World History

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=12thMan;703161]When it's all said and done, this incident should be the text book example of the do's and don'ts for drilling in the future.[/quote]

Just like the bubonic plague was a lesson on higene for the future. We can't afford these types of mistakes. Busineses pride themselves on risk management. That goes out the window when people know that the American tax payer got everybody's back.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=SolidSnake84;703162]doing the math here, in 60 days, when the relief wells are finished, and assuming they work,(Dont assume anything with Bastard Petroleum) We are looking at about 5 to 6 million barrels of oil spilled in the gulf, which is about 24 times the amount of the exxon valdez, which was previously the worst oil disaster in World History[/quote]

Your math may be a bit off, this is what I read this morning:

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has dumped over 6 million gallons of oil into the ocean, according to the [URL="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/05/25/2010-05-25_white_house_bp_gulf_coast_oil_slick_is_worst_spill_in_us_history.html"][COLOR=#800080]New York Daily News, [/COLOR][/URL]but scientists believe that the actual number could be more than twice that, according to the [URL="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5h9YdcHPTGPhEf9_2GmoRtfQO-rWw"][COLOR=#0000ff]Associated Press.[/COLOR][/URL]

The Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, dumped 11 million gallons into the ocean. The difference, proximity. The Deepwater Horizon spill is only 50 miles off of the coast of Louisiana.

[url=http://indyposted.com/24074/worst-oil-spill-in-us-history/]White House Says The Gulf Oil Spill Is Worst In US History – IndyPosted[/url]

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=Mattyk;703166]Your math may be a bit off, this is what I read this morning:

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has dumped over 6 million gallons of oil into the ocean, according to the [URL="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/05/25/2010-05-25_white_house_bp_gulf_coast_oil_slick_is_worst_spill_in_us_history.html"][COLOR=#800080]New York Daily News, [/COLOR][/URL]but scientists believe that the actual number could be more than twice that, according to the [URL="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5h9YdcHPTGPhEf9_2GmoRtfQO-rWw"][COLOR=#0000ff]Associated Press.[/COLOR][/URL]

The Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, dumped 11 million gallons into the ocean. The difference, proximity. The Deepwater Horizon spill is only 50 miles off of the coast of Louisiana.

[url=http://indyposted.com/24074/worst-oil-spill-in-us-history/]White House Says The Gulf Oil Spill Is Worst In US History – IndyPosted[/url][/quote]

my math could be off...let's assume that the rate of flow is the 50,000 barrell a day figure that the government is projecting right now. To flow uninterrupted for 60 more days, during which time the relief wells are being drilled, adds up to 3 million barrels of oil dumped into the gulf. 165,000,000 gallons of oil. Thats assuming a constant 50,000 barrel a day rate, and assuming nothing gets worse.

The exxon valdez only released 250,000 barrels total...we will be well past that and climbing to unprecedented levels. All of us on here may never again live to see this kind of oil disaster.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=SolidSnake84;703167]my math could be off...let's assume that the rate of flow is the 50,000 barrell a day figure that the government is projecting right now. To flow uninterrupted for 60 more days, during which time the relief wells are being drilled, adds up to 3 million barrels of oil dumped into the gulf. 165,000,000 gallons of oil. Thats assuming a constant 50,000 barrel a day rate, and assuming nothing gets worse.

The exxon valdez only released 250,000 barrels total...we will be well past that and climbing to unprecedented levels. All of us on here may never again live to see this kind of oil disaster.[/quote]

Yesterday I heard that in Canada they must drill two wells. Relief wells are a part of the risk protection there. Seems like as soon as it happened they started drilling the relief well because they knew the relief well should have already been built (common sense).

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=joethiesmanfan;703165]Just like the bubonic plague was a lesson on higene for the future. We can't afford these types of mistakes. Busineses pride themselves on risk management. That goes out the window when people know that the American tax payer got everybody's back.[/quote]

That makes no sense at all. BP is taking a hit here from 4 different sides.
1: the cost to shut this thing down
2: the cost to clean it up
3: the cost to restore people who depend on the water to make a living
4: lost revenue from the sale of the oil.

Please explain why BP would throw risk management out the window again?

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[url=http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lsuatoni/how_much_oil_is_spilling_in_to.html]How much oil is spilling in to the Gulf of Mexico? And, yes, it does matter. | Lisa Suatoni's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC[/url]

interesting read:
[QUOTE]...
Why the size of the spill matters

BP and the federal government repeatedly argue that measuring the volume of oil entering the Gulf is not a priority, that a more precise measure of flow rate is not important. Their rationale is that it would not influence the response in any way.

We disagree for a number of reasons:

1. Scale. The flow rate estimates differ by a factor of ten. Differences on this scale are not quibbles; they are big, fundamental differences.
2. Response. The discrepancy is sufficiently large enough to influence response strategies. For example, to promote the efficacy of dispersants, they are applied at a specific ratio to the volume of oil. This is not possible if the volume is unknown, by this large of a degree. In addition, the ability to successfully cap the well, engineer a dome, or pump the oil to the surface depends on a good estimate of the oil flow rate (both in terms of volume of oil and the force with which it is exiting the pipe).
3. Law. Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, a natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) must be conducted. This entails assessing the input of oil, its fate (i.e., where it goes, what it coats and contaminates), and the damage it caused. The ability to fully conduct this accounting – or ‘mass balance’ - requires knowing the initial volume of oil.
4. Financial Penalty. Following discharge of oil into a water body, the federal Clean Water Act allows for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per barrel of oil spilled. This penalty can not be calculated to its fullest extent without knowing the total volume of oil.
5. Future emergency plans. Knowing the magnitude of this spill is necessary to inform future emergency response plans. Substantial underestimates of the volume of oil leaking from Deepwater Horizon will leave us unprepared in the future.

There are multiple reasons why BP may not want the true amount of oil to be known. Just take for example, the $1000 per barrel of oil spill civil penalty under the Clean Water Act. Using the “official” number of 5,000 barrels per day, their current tally is $140 million (and counting). Using some of the higher estimates provided by visual analysis of the leaking pipe, BP’s current tally is in the billions (and counting).

The bigger mystery is why the federal government is sitting on the sidelines. Why has the federal government been reluctant - and so slow - to undertake its own assessment of the size of the spill, particularly given the available expertise and alternative methods? [/QUOTE]

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=firstdown;703170]That makes no sense at all. BP is taking a hit here from 4 different sides.
1: the cost to shut this thing down
2: the cost to clean it up
3: the cost to restore people who depend on the water to make a living
4: lost revenue from the sale of the oil.

Please explain why BP would throw risk management out the window again?[/quote]

They had non-working valves, dead batteries, cracking concrete, and all of this was documented by them. Yet, they did not fix it. Sound like risk management gone wild boys. Waht ahppened ot your [B]eco-terrorist [/B]theory. See, conservatives say the darndest things then hope everyone forgets about them. Free willy!! Free Willy!!! (imagine that to a Luke beat)

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=joethiesmanfan;703172]They had non-working valves, dead batteries, cracking concrete, and all of this was documented by them. Yet, they did not fix it. Sound like risk management gone wild boys. Waht ahppened ot your [B]eco-terrorist [/B]theory. See, conservatives say the darndest things then hope everyone forgets about them. Free willy!! Free Willy!!! (imagine that to a Luke beat)[/quote]

Not sure about all that being document but we sure know who gave them the OK to start drilling without the proper permits.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=SolidSnake84;703167]my math could be off...let's assume that the rate of flow is the 50,000 barrell a day figure that the government is projecting right now. To flow uninterrupted for 60 more days, during which time the relief wells are being drilled, adds up to 3 million barrels of oil dumped into the gulf. 165,000,000 gallons of oil. Thats assuming a constant 50,000 barrel a day rate, and assuming nothing gets worse.

The exxon valdez only released 250,000 barrels total...we will be well past that and climbing to unprecedented levels. All of us on here may never again live to see this kind of oil disaster.[/quote]

You're talking barrrels but I was thinking gallons, nevermind. Either way it's a cluster F no doubt.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=firstdown;703174]Not sure about all that being document but we sure know who gave them the OK to start drilling without the proper permits.[/quote]

Bush and his buddies? That well was there before Obama. LOL!

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=firstdown;703174]Not sure about all that being document but we sure know who gave them the OK to start drilling without the proper permits.[/quote]

[url=http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/j/d/jdf15/2010/05/oil-spill-stunner-bop-had-dead.php]Oil Spill Stunner: BOP had dead battery, leaking hydraulics and 260 design flaws | Jamie Friedland's Blog[/url]


Risk Management?

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[url=http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/j/d/jdf15/2010/05/oil-spill-stunner-bop-had-dead.php]Oil Spill Stunner: BOP had dead battery, leaking hydraulics and 260 design flaws | Jamie Friedland's Blog[/url]

Risk Management?

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

2 good comments from the comment section of JTF's article:
[QUOTE]
user-pic

It was reported that the BOP couldn't cut the joint, which is a small percentage of the pipe area, and there is no reason why there would be a joint in that position. That's why it was acceptable, and that isn't what failed. And the 260 failure modes are simply all the theoretical ways it could fail, that doesn't mean they are design flaws. Like your car could fail to start because the battery was dead, or the car is out of gas, or the fuel pump doesn't work, or the injectors are clogged, or the ECM is shot, etc.
Posted by theCleverBulldog in reply to a comment from Jamie Friedland
May 13, 2010 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
user-pic

That's not exactly right. There is a specific reason a pipe joint might be aligned with the shears: because that's where the pipe happened to be when the disaster struck. Joints make up a specific percentage of the entire drill pipe surface and they pass through the ram shears at regular intervals. Sure, the *odds* are better that it won't be so aligned. But the odds are WELL on this side of "likely" when designing a fail-safe device. And while Jamie doesn't mention it here, there is actually some question if the shears were strong enough to cut the pipe they were using at all. Apparently this rig might have been using a more difficult to cut pipe than the BOP was rated for (in good working order - which this one was not) to handle the depth pressures.

I do think you are correct about the meaning of the 260 failure modes. But there are about a dozen specific modifications that were made to this unit (including hooking up non-working test rams to the circuit that was supposed to be running the shears), and several identified problems such as leaking hydraulics (which needed to be pressurized by ROV). There are also some issues about the BOP reliability in general and types of tests that they routinely fail.

It looks like plenty of ancillary blame to go around - i.e. person [x] could have prevented it at any number of stages along the way if they had just done their jobs better. The whole damn industry needs a serious kick in the ass IMO. But as best I can tell, this is starting to look pretty bad for BP as the final point of critical breakdown. Even if the Halliburton cement job did cause a gas bubble - it was a documented potential problem. Considering the BOP was all fucked up and literally modified, it's hard to blame Halliburton for the backup safety mechanisms ALL failing.
Posted by kgb999 in reply to a comment from theCleverBulldog
May 13, 2010 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
[/QUOTE]

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=firstdown;703170]That makes no sense at all. BP is taking a hit here from 4 different sides.
1: the cost to shut this thing down
2: the cost to clean it up
3: the cost to restore people who depend on the water to make a living
4: lost revenue from the sale of the oil.

[B]Please explain why BP would throw risk management out the window again[/B]?[/quote]The 60 minutes link you posted provides the answer. If BP was losing $ 1M + per day from not being able to get to the oil reserves fast enough and they pressured the TransOcean folks, risk management and safety took a backseat to meeting the estimates to the "Street".

How's the bottom line looking now BP a-holes.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;703190]2 good comments from the comment section of JTF's article:[/quote]

Wow we quoting comments or making comments. I can go to any article about Obama and find comments that prove he is a communist muslim spy that smokes crack and sleeps with men.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;703191]The 60 minutes link you posted provides the answer. If BP was losing $ 1M + per day from not being able to get to the oil reserves fast enough and they pressured the TransOcean folks, risk management and safety took a backseat to meeting the estimates to the "Street".

How's the bottom line looking now BP a-holes.[/quote]



That my friend is called the TRUTH!!!!!

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=joethiesmanfan;703178]Bush and his buddies? That well was there before Obama. LOL![/quote]I can deal with the liberal slant of all your posts, that's all cool, but if you're going to make a statement please have your facts straight:

[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/16/deepwater-horizon-inspect_n_578079.html"]Deepwater Horizon Inspections: MMS Skipped Monthly Inspections On Doomed Rig[/URL]

The Deepwater permit for drilling this well was issued under the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration did NOTHING to fix the lazy inspection process. Don't try to pin this on Bush. His Admin certainly shares fault, he was lucky something like this didn't happen on his watch.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=joethiesmanfan;703194]Wow we quoting comments or making comments. I can go to any article about Obama and find comments that prove he is a communist muslim spy that smokes crack and sleeps with men.[/quote]

We are discussing, those 2 commenters had very good takes, it is no different than quoting somebody here. My comment to you goes back to reading comprehension. I did not claim that they were factual, just good comments. I do think that they seemed to have a good knowledge base, but I don't know that.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

Well the BPGlobal Twitter that i mentioned is apparently fake....whats not fake is they have apparently pushed out again..

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=SolidSnake84;703199]Well the BPGlobal Twitter that i mentioned is apparently fake....whats not fake is they have apparently pushed out again..[/quote]

Wait, you thought that was real? Really? You're talking about @BPGlobalPR?

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=joethiesmanfan;703178]Bush and his buddies? That well was there before Obama. LOL![/quote]

You might want to look that up because its old news that Obama administration tapped that well. You are right that BP cut corners thinking nothing would ever happen because it sure didn't save them any money.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;703191]The 60 minutes link you posted provides the answer. If BP was losing $ 1M + per day from not being able to get to the oil reserves fast enough and they pressured the TransOcean folks, risk management and safety took a backseat to meeting the estimates to the "Street".

How's the bottom line looking now BP a-holes.[/quote]

Ok, I forgot about them rushing things and I even watched the 60min. clip. Now I have to tell JTF that he was some what right but he owes me one so its all good. LOL