World Politics

[Hugh Januss]

I had a "business consultant" do a one day evaluation of my business. He looked at my P&L and tax returns and everything. Told me I wasn't paying myself enough. Told me I was paying too much in taxes, and that I should take vacations and write off the travel expenses. I took from this that these bigtime bidnis men don't care so much whether or not they get to keep the money they make just as long as they can keep the gubmint from getting it. I did not hire his firm to help my business.

 

[buckwheat]

Cultural shift, eh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/business/09bp.html?pagewanted=2&hp

 

[patricknd]

Cultural shift, eh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/business/09bp.html?pagewanted=2&hp

Analysts describe Transocean as having a “solid reputation” within the offshore industry, and just two years ago, it received the industry’s top safety award from the federal Minerals Management Service.

Still, it eliminated bonuses for its top executives last year, citing the deaths of four rig workers in safety-related accidents. The move was meant “to promote the goal of an incident-free workplace and, in particular, the avoidance of future fatal accidents,” the company said in its annual report.


i thought this was interesting.

 

[buckwheat]

I thought this said it all.....

Analysts describe Transocean as having a “solid reputation” within the offshore industry, and just two years ago, it received the industry’s top safety award from the federal Minerals Management Service.

Still, it eliminated bonuses for its top executives last year, citing the deaths of four rig workers in safety-related accidents. The move was meant “to promote the goal of an incident-free workplace and, in particular, the avoidance of future fatal accidents,” the company said in its annual report.


i thought this was interesting.

In 2007, an independent review panel appointed by BP and led by James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state, painted a scathing portrait of cultural failure at BP, finding that the company put profits before safety.


Another refinery, in Toledo, Ohio, was fined $3 million two months ago for “willful” safety violations, including the use of valves similar to those that contributed to the Texas City blast.

“BP has systemic safety and health problems,” said Jordan Barab, the assistant secretary of labor for OSHA. “They need to take their intentions and apply them much more effectively on the ground, where the hazards actually lie.”


Seems the previous tragedies didn't get them to adjust their culture.

Willful? What does that mean TFF?

Ahh, but it's not all that black and white, eh TFF? NO, they just had a culture that would let them use the same equipment that led to the initial accident.

Do you guys make the same mistake twice or more? It would seem to be so.....I guess that would be your excuse for not foreseeing mistakes and preventing them.

Feel free to start the personal attacks....

 

[Boeing]

If the tax and spend choice is between:

a. Taxing Americans and spending American money destroying foreign infrastructure and subsequently rebuilding those foreign lands

Or

b. Taxing Americans and spending American money on Americans and American Infrastructure in America


I prefer the latter although it is less romantic and I guess too "socialist" for some

 

[patricknd]

finally some meaningful reform:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-law-forces-ceos-to-humbly-shrug-before-receivi,17380/

 

[Oncearunner8]

In 2007, an independent review panel appointed by BP and led by James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state, painted a scathing portrait of cultural failure at BP, finding that the company put profits before safety.


Another refinery, in Toledo, Ohio, was fined $3 million two months ago for “willful” safety violations, including the use of valves similar to those that contributed to the Texas City blast.

“BP has systemic safety and health problems,” said Jordan Barab, the assistant secretary of labor for OSHA. “They need to take their intentions and apply them much more effectively on the ground, where the hazards actually lie.”


Seems the previous tragedies didn't get them to adjust their culture.

Willful? What does that mean TFF?

Ahh, but it's not all that black and white, eh TFF? NO, they just had a culture that would let them use the same equipment that led to the initial accident.

Do you guys make the same mistake twice or more? It would seem to be so.....I guess that would be your excuse for not foreseeing mistakes and preventing them.

Feel free to start the personal attacks....

It is not a secret that BP has a bad record for saftey. I think that is understood.

WHAT YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND IS. Transocean were operating / drilling this well. There were 6 or 7 BP personel on that rig at the time of the accident. Since your a expert on the BP issues please tell me what those 6 or 7 peoples role was on the rig at that time.

Feel free to mix in something other than what you have read in the newspaper.

QQ more.

 

[Oncearunner8]

If the tax and spend choice is between:

a. Taxing Americans and spending American money destroying foreign infrastructure and subsequently rebuilding those foreign lands

Or

b. Taxing Americans and spending American money on Americans and American Infrastructure in America


I prefer the latter although it is less romantic and I guess too "socialist" for some

Try not to let it get you down.

 

[buckwheat]

It is not a secret that BP has a bad record for saftey. I think that is understood.

Yes, and I think my main point was that the "accident" was most like foreseeable and predictable. If you remember the example ChrisE brought up to prove me wrong......well it kind of backfired on him and it was an example of exactly what I was saying.

WHAT YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND IS.

Mind reading is one of your skills now? I understand completely.

Transocean were operating / drilling this well..

Who hired Transocean? You see, prior to the accident I was so impressed by BP's green PR campaign that I only bought their product. Plus I trusted that their advanced formulations were good for the stripped down POS Ford Focus I'm driving. I was a very loyal customer so the fact that the drilling was conducted under their auspices and safety standards had me reassured. I'm sure they vet their subcontractors very carefully and expect them to follow the sterling example set by BP. Actually, I'm joking.

There were 6 or 7 BP personel on that rig at the time of the accident..

Tragic.

Since your a expert on the BP issues please tell me what those 6 or 7 peoples role was on the rig at that time.

You're being sarcastic?

As I've repeated, I'm not an expert at all. Apparently you are, so stop playing games. I have my ideas about what they were doing, why don't you tell us.

Feel free to mix in something other than what you have read in the newspaper.

QQ more.

The point, which you are completely missing btw is, that you don't have to be an expert, to understand that this was an accident waiting to happen which makes it even more inexecusable than it appeared at first.

The more revelations which are revealed in the press, the worse this thing is getting.

Now they're looking under the MMS rock and that doesn't look pretty either.

You do realize why outside consultants are often brought in by companies in any industry? It's not that the problems aren't known, it's that the culture won't allow necessary changes to be made by people already in the company because of political or other bs reasons.

You also act like it's a bad thing that I'm informed by the newspaper or media.

Hello! That's the whole point in a Democracy. How in the hell am I going to vote a POS the likes of Cheney out of office.

How am I going to decide that rather than spending trillions on a failed space program perhaps we should be putting a Nader in office and feeding the poor b@stards out on the street.

I know, I know, TFF said the Great Society social programs were a failure because a couple of his students were inculcated with the rugged individualist, pulling yourselves up by your bootstraps, rah rah, hoo haa, Reagan bs.

You sound like one of these people who don't think there should be civilian control of the military either. The whole point is that information is transmitted to John Q. Public. The more transparency in everything the better. That way we're not dropping fire on people or torturing them so we can steal their oil or install our tyrants. It's not ideal that there are secrets that only special people like you are privy to.

 

[Anonymous]

It is not a secret that BP has a bad record for saftey. I think that is understood.

WHAT YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND IS. Transocean were operating / drilling this well. There were 6 or 7 BP personel on that rig at the time of the accident. Since your a expert on the BP issues please tell me what those 6 or 7 peoples role was on the rig at that time.

Feel free to mix in something other than what you have read in the newspaper.

QQ more.

I can see from your quote of Buckwheat's post that he has a difficult time understanding the "ignore" function. In the future, if you would delete any of the inane comments directed at me, I would appreciate it.

I am sure he thinks he knows more than you because he thinks he knows more about everything than everyone else in the world. Some people never rise above a 16 year old's mentality. Sad really.

 

[Boeing]

Try not to let it get you down.

it never trickeld down that far....

 

[Oncearunner8]

I guess I understand you now. You believe the accident was predictable. Your bent out of shape over some comparison made by Chris. I get that.

The accident was not a normal occurrence. It was an anomaly of methane gas. (I mentioned this the morning of the accident to some folks via email, one of those persons is on this message board) Maybe you do not understand how that could be but it is one of the reasons for the accident.
Real debate is where the safety factors or assurances of safety all covered. I will say that in my opinion the current regulations were followed. The gray area will be were or are these regulations sufficient. My opinion would be that they are not.
If you was really impressed by the green campaign of BP then you would have noticed that it was all fluff and that in the time after the initial campaign they basically scrapped all funding for green energy. Something the public does not fully understand even today.
I am not playing games regarding those 7 BP personnel on board the Horizon. They all made it safely home BTW.
It very well was a accident waiting to happen due to the lack of regulations regarding wells, NOT JUST DEEP WATER. You have mentioned before that Deepwater wells were somehow have more risk. That is just not a true statement and I am not sure what rag you got that information from.
Your understanding of who is drilling and operating a well is poor. I would be willing to help you out but you just want to argue about how correct you may be on the subject that resides in your “logical cranium”.
Parting words so you do not feel so alone this evening. “Challenger”

 

[Oncearunner8]

it never trickeld down that far....

lmao ok then ... take it easy triple 7

 

[Hugh Januss]

I guess I understand you now. You believe the accident was predictable. Your bent out of shape over some comparison made by Chris. I get that.

The accident was not a normal occurrence. It was an anomaly of methane gas. (I mentioned this the morning of the accident to some folks via email, one of those persons is on this message board) Maybe you do not understand how that could be but it is one of the reasons for the accident.
Real debate is where the safety factors or assurances of safety all covered. I will say that in my opinion the current regulations were followed. The gray area will be were or are these regulations sufficient. My opinion would be that they are not.
If you was really impressed by the green campaign of BP then you would have noticed that it was all fluff and that in the time after the initial campaign they basically scrapped all funding for green energy. Something the public does not fully understand even today.
I am not playing games regarding those 7 BP personnel on board the Horizon. They all made it safely home BTW.
It very well was a accident waiting to happen due to the lack of regulations regarding wells, NOT JUST DEEP WATER. You have mentioned before that Deepwater wells were somehow have more risk. That is just not a true statement and I am not sure what rag you got that information from.
Your understanding of who is drilling and operating a well is poor. I would be willing to help you out but you just want to argue about how correct you may be on the subject that resides in your “logical cranium”.
Parting words so you do not feel so alone this evening. “Challenger”

At the risk of being accused of continuing to beat a horse which has previously expired, I think while the initial odds of something bad happening in a Deepwater well may not be that much higher certainly what is needed to control it is made more difficult by the nature of these wells, isn't it? Maybe that is what buckwheat meant?
Buckwheat, if I agree to state publicly that IMO you owned ChrisE in the long running Challenger debate will you promise to never speak of it again?
What we should be concentrating our incredible intellects on here is the question of government control of private enterprise. How much is enough, how much is too much? If an industry insider (may I call you that?) who seems fairly middle of the road politically (may I call you that?) says more was needed then is that enough to suggest we should have had more in this case? Do we always wait until post disaster to heighten regulations, if so how many disasters in any one line of endeavour is acceptable?

 

[buckwheat]

I can see from your quote of Buckwheat's post that he has a difficult time understanding the "ignore" function..

Ignore function? Whatever.

In the future, if you would delete any of the inane comments directed at me, I would appreciate it. ..

Would you like a crying towel or a blindfold?

I am sure he thinks he knows more than you because he thinks he knows more about everything than everyone else in the world. Some people never rise above a 16 year old's mentality. Sad really.

Evidently I don't know more than him. Apparently it's his field. From what I've heard and read, the depth of the water makes containing this accident more difficult than it would be in shallower water and redundancies that are utilized in other countries were not utilized here. I made a very simple statement a while back which is being proven to be correct and your nonsense about my position being too "black and white" is being shown to be wrong. That's all. I know you were stung by my appraisal of your moronic opinion of the Great Society programs, but you of all people, with your snarky comments of others opinions, should be able to take the kind of crap you regularly dish out.

 

[buckwheat]

I guess I understand you now. You believe the accident was predictable. Your bent out of shape over some comparison made by Chris. I get that.

I'm assuming, (and this may be a gigantic assumption) that people are fairly paying attention to the content of what others write. When I contend (and it was a simple contention) that this BP accident was predictable, and preventable, and a guy tries to disprove what I'm saying by using a textbook example of something that in real life was proven to be foreseeable and preventable.....well, isn't this obvious? He keeps arguing and I get $hit for pointing out what's entirely obvious. Then he changes his argument and talks about cultural change, and again, the reason there was another accident 17? years later is that the culture did not change. I point this out and I get abuse? Not that I really give a damn, but it's Alice in Wonderland stuff.

The accident was not a normal occurrence. It was an anomaly of methane gas. (I mentioned this the morning of the accident to some folks via email, one of those persons is on this message board) Maybe you do not understand how that could be but it is one of the reasons for the accident.

That could very well be and I have absolutely no understanding of that. I understand that accidents do happen but if this thing happened in 200ft, 500 ft, 1000 ft, 2500ft, are there different probabilities of containment? If you're going down a mile and have no idea wtf you're going to do in a worst case scenario, IMO that's pretty poor assessment of things.

Real debate is where the safety factors or assurances of safety all covered. I will say that in my opinion the current regulations were followed. The gray area will be were or are these regulations sufficient. My opinion would be that they are not.

And knowing what we know now, anyone who would say those regs are sufficient would have to be judged insane. I've heard that for a half million dollars there could have been additional measures that might have stopped the blowout. Is that true? Why weren't they implemented.

If you was really impressed by the green campaign of BP then you would have noticed that it was all fluff and that in the time after the initial campaign they basically scrapped all funding for green energy. Something the public does not fully understand even today..

I wasn't impressed. I was joking which I wrote in the post. My point was that Transocean is effectively BP because they were hired by BP. If Transocean commonly works for the other oil companies and has a good reputation, then the CEO of BP should not have disassociated BP from Transocean and thrown them under the bus.

I am not playing games regarding those 7 BP personnel on board the Horizon. They all made it safely home BTW.”

That's good.

It very well was a accident waiting to happen due to the lack of regulations regarding wells, NOT JUST DEEP WATER. You have mentioned before that Deepwater wells were somehow have more risk. That is just not a true statement and I am not sure what rag you got that information from.”

Again, and you may correct any misconceptions, is it easier to contain a blowout in shallower water or not?

Your understanding of who is drilling and operating a well is poor. I would be willing to help you out but you just want to argue about how correct you may be on the subject that resides in your “logical cranium”.
Parting words so you do not feel so alone this evening. “Challenger”

Of course it's poor, but it probably would be better if we were all riding bikes instead of cars so the geniuses in the oil industry wouldn't be compelled to put a whole ecosystem at risk.

I don't really enjoy having my very simple arguments contorted so I try to keep it simple. Obviously not simple enough if the majority here can't understand that an example that I didn't even bring up, was completely inappropriate to advance the idea that hey, $hit happens, and there's nothing we can do about it until afterwards. The example happened to prove that tragedies can be averted. Pay attention.

 

[buckwheat]

At the risk of being accused of continuing to beat a horse which has previously expired,

Are there any dead horses in politics? I thought FDR put trickle down economics in its grave but Reagan revived the voodoo. David Stockman? I mean I'd be laughing if I wasn't crying.

I think while the initial odds of something bad happening in a Deepwater well may not be that much higher certainly what is needed to control it is made more difficult by the nature of these wells, isn't it? Maybe that is what buckwheat meant?

Yes, there's only a few simple concepts I understand here. The distance, the pressure, the temperature. It apparently will take 3 months to drill a relief well. How long would it take in shallower water? Would that cap thing have worked in shallower water? In short, would a similiar blowout at a lesser depth be more easily contained? What is the difficulty in answering these questions.

Buckwheat, if I agree to state publicly that IMO you owned ChrisE in the long running Challenger debate will you promise to never speak of it again??

I won't bring it up. If some jerk off gives me that club again though, I'll beat him with it. Forget it, I'll restrain myself.

What we should be concentrating our incredible intellects on here is the question of government control of private enterprise. How much is enough, how much is too much? If an industry insider (may I call you that?) who seems fairly middle of the road politically (may I call you that?) says more was needed then is that enough to suggest we should have had more in this case? Do we always wait until post disaster to heighten regulations, if so how many disasters in any one line of endeavour is acceptable.

From my uneducated perspective, I think there is a lot more known, "rolling of the dice" than is necessary, but the question wasn't addressed to me.

 

[Boeing]

lmao ok then ... take it easy triple 7

Dude; I folded on a triple 7 Saturday night. Turns out I coulda taken the pot

phuck me

 

[ChrisE]

And knowing what we know now, anyone who would say those regs are sufficient would have to be judged insane. I've heard that for a half million dollars there could have been additional measures that might have stopped the blowout. Is that true? Why weren't they implemented.

You wrote this in an earlier post as well. Where did you hear that from? I don't feel like going back and sifting thru 20 pages looking for something that may or may not be in here. If I wrote it it was spur of the moment thing right after this happened, and was not thought thru clearly. My first kneejerk reaction was to question why there wasn't a redundant shut off mechanism at the surface. Me saying that was not thought thru clearly, either.

After thinking about this the last few weeks, there are several complexities that I see involved with making this system redundant at the surface. I will clarify this by saying I am not involved in the design of these things nor have I ever studied any of this in detail, and I am not a petroleum engineer nor have I spoken to one. But just want to throw some things out to think about....

1) If there is a valve at the surface to cut the flow of oil, then the riser to the seabed from the surface would have to be designed to take the pressure exerted from the oil and gas beneath the surface. The riser would have this internal force up to the surface. This is difficult to design with unknown pressures, and even if known building/installing a mile long conduit to resist would seem to be very difficult. Plus, the pressures are probably enormous judging from what I have read about the spewing on the rig deck.

2) If a relief system was put in place (to negate the issue in # 1) to relieve the internal pressure in the riser if it is capped at the surface, then there is the complexity designing some relief system with the unknowns of what will be encountered in any particular situation. With the hydraulic dynamics of exactly what the substances would be, the effects of changes in temperature and pressure as these substances move from the earth, and how they would act under potential variable conditions of the riser, designing this seems particularly difficult to me.

3) You would need instrumentation to work this thing at the surface. Also, the rig would need to structurally be designed to handle this. These are minor issues IMO.

3) The thing that happened with the box would seem to be an issue with any system in an uncontrolled situation. If changing temps and pressures make methane or other gasses solidify when they leave the seabed then obviously this would be a problem in the riser, especially if it designed to be relieved.

4) If the rig is damaged in such a way to disable it's positioning mechanisms, then it would drift off the well and "tear away" from the riser and surface mechanism. The end result of that would be obvious.

In summary, by far the best thing to have would be a shutoff mechanism on the seabed thus making these issues above mute, which is what a BOP is. Maybe these issues above, plus many more that I am ignorant about, makes a redundant surface system impossible to design. All I know if it could be designed, it would be well north of $500k.....this is not just slapping a valve with an actuater on the riser as is at the surface. If you heard this number by maybe doing something cheap to the BOP then please enlighten us, but I find that hard to believe solely because a company like BP would not run from this small amount of money to protect them from this economic and PR catastrophe.

Unfortunately, I have not seen anything in our press where some "reporter" has asked BP why there wasn't a redundant system at the surface. This seems like an obvious question to ask to me. Maybe the general public knows the complexities of this more than I give them credit for, and thus the press feels no need to ask this stupid question.

 

[buckwheat]

You wrote this in an earlier post as well. Where did you hear that from? I don't feel like going back and sifting thru 20 pages looking for something that may or may not be in here. If I wrote it it was spur of the moment thing right after this happened, and was not thought thru clearly. My first kneejerk reaction was to question why there wasn't a redundant shut off mechanism at the surface. Me saying that was not thought thru clearly, either.

Damn, it was you that put that thought in my head?

Maybe I have a couple Cipro.

 

[ChrisE]

Damn, it was you that put that thought in my head?

Maybe I have a couple Cipro.

Does reading normally cause you to break out in bacterial infrections?

 

[buckwheat]

Does reading normally cause you to break out in bacterial infrections?

Ah, you're right, it won't work on a Trojan Horse.

 

[Bala Verde]

Fortunately, David Cameron is 'one of us'... he is a cyclist:

A real one, who ignores the rules (like us :

Conservative leader David Cameron has apologised after being photographed ignoring red lights and cycling the wrong way up a one-way street.

and most importantly, a privileged cyclist, or perhaps a posh one...

he cycles to work - but then has his car follow with his briefcase

 

[Anonymous]

So, as of yesterday (May 11, 2010), we in the USA have added about $637 billion to our national debt since January 1, 2010;

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Then I read this:

"Fannie Mae has again asked taxpayers for more money after reporting a first-quarter loss of more than $13 billion."

"Fannie and Freddie play a vital role in the mortgage market by purchasing mortgages from lenders and selling them to investors. Together the pair own or guarantee almost 31 million home loans worth about $5.5 trillion. That's about half of all mortgages.

The two companies, however, loosened their lending standards for borrowers during the real estate boom and are reeling from the consequences."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100510/D9FK02U00.html

And this:

"Fannie Mae’s request on Monday for another $8.4 billion in federal aid comes at a politically inconvenient time for the Obama administration, which is pressing to pass sweeping financial legislation without resolving the company’s future. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/business/11fannie.html

And this:

"Fannie Mae lost $11.5 billion in the first quarter while Freddie Mac lost more than $6.7 billion. After posting those massive losses, they asked for a combined additional sum of nearly $20 billion in government assistance.

"Are they losing money as a matter of policy or are they losing it as bad judgment?" asks Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who calls the Fannie and Freddie the elephant in the bailout room."

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/backdoor-bank-bailout-fannie-and-freddie-may-be-%22losing-money-as-a-matter-of-policy%22-483857.html?tickers=fre,fnm,xlf,%5Edji,%5Egspc,xhb,faz&sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=

This was a day after the Euro bailout package which includes one-third trillion dollars (about 17% of which are from the US taxpayer) and while the trustworthy politicians are saying there is very little US taxpayer risk, I'm thinking I've heard that BS before;

"The US is a participant in the IMF, which has agreed to work with the European Union to help countries that come under debt duress.

The IMF has pledged a one-third share of the 750 billion-euro ($952 billion) rescue package—typical of the fund's arrangements with central banks in such cases.

That would come to 250 billion euros, though that is only a rough figure and dependent on a variety of circumstances, according to an IMF official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the uncertainty still involved.

The US would be responsible for 17.09 percent, or $54 billion, of the cost using a quota contribution system the IMF uses in such instances."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37084075

I have been very concerned about entitlement spending and debt since well before Bush signed the Medicare prescription drug legislation. It is becoming increasingly clear the govt etitlement countries don't work (Denmark notwithstanding). Greece, Portugal, Spain and probably Italy are going to have to go through painful austerity measures to remain economically viable.

So, today I was incredibly glad to see this;

"The Obama administration threatened to veto parts of its own health care bill after budget scorekeepers found that the package would add at least $115 billion more to government health care spending.

President Obama's budget office charged Congress with finding $115 billion in spending cuts or tax increases to offset the price tag hike."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/12/health-overhaul-law-potentially-costs-billion/

So after the knock-down fight in congress this administration is going to veto parts of it's own legislation! I'm curious how they can do this now that the bill is actually law... but I digress.

My faith in our system continues to erode.

 

[Oncearunner8]

So, as of yesterday (May 11, 2010), we in the USA have added about $637 billion to our national debt since January 1, 2010;

My faith in our system continues to erode.

For god’s sakes Scott try to drink more beer and chill!