50% off

Posted by: Leslie

50% off - 07/04/10 10:17 AM

BP stock.
From over $60 to $29. Yikes.
Someone thinks it is a good deal, guess who?

"Middle East financial institutions looking to make a strategic investment in BP"
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/04/10 10:16 AM

A bargain is a bargain, I suppose. Once BP gets past this blowout fiasco, they'll likely recover and move on.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: 50% off - 07/04/10 10:30 AM

That is probably correct, but I would still not buy any.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/04/10 10:52 AM

Nor would I, but then again I've dabbled very little in stocks and bonds anyway. It's not as if I have a lot of spare cash lying around at the moment in the first place.

I am surprised there aren't more Chinese concerns buying up stocks in BP.
Posted by: carp

Re: 50% off - 07/04/10 11:06 AM

I suspect when all the civil law suit hits, their stocks will take another nose dive
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/04/10 11:06 AM

In which case there will be even more bargain hunters cautiously sniffing around that stock. So the game goes. Buy low, sell high.
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 04:30 AM

Who would buy stock in a company you don't trust?J
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 06:13 AM

Trust has nothing to do with it. We're talking opportunities to make money here. I don't know what the smart money says at the moment but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if someone started characterizing BP as "a buy" in the coming weeks. Seems to me stocks and bonds are rarely about things like 'trust' or 'morality.' It's of a game of strategy. Unless BP disintegrates (something I do not expect, given its sheer size), the old adage of what goes up must come down can be turned on its head. If it's low now, rest assured it'll go up again.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 06:28 AM

I doubt BP's image in this corner of the world will rebound any time in the near future, if ever.
Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 07:30 AM

Saw where BB (Blockbuster) may be delisted from the NYSE.

tried a reverse split and the holders didn't go for it...

I assume they're being killed by RedBox and Netflix.

Company didn't keep their eyes open, and many years ago was arrogant as hell. I quit going about 15 years ago over a dispute for a late fee... they got my $5 but it was the LAST they'd ever see ! Stupid people wouldn't be reasonable... dumb fokkers !

Bye, bye BB and good riddance !
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 07:54 AM

MacBozo, you know what's most likely to happen? If the stink over this spill keeps sticking to BP, you can expect them to change their name. That's probably all it will take to get the public to revert back to their customary comatose state.

BP is a huge multinational. They'll change their name for PR purposes and get right back down to business.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 09:10 AM

They could resurrect the Amoco brand here in the states and most people wouldn't get the connection.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 09:29 AM

Quote:
you can expect them to change their name.

A company can't just change its name - are you guys that clueless? It would have to be passed by a special resolution which is not going to happen.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 11:23 AM

I agree Max, when it comes to stocks. Its a money game.

I think trust only comes into it, is when you plan on the long long term, such as will the company be there when you retire sorta thing.
Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 11:32 AM

What do you mean? A company can change it's name any time it wants... or is that forbidden in the UK ? blush

laugh

ValueJet became AirTran after a bad PR crash in Florida back in the 90's.

so they apply to have their stock code changed... BFD !

If they want to do it, watch them. It'll happen !!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 12:09 PM

There could be a change of name by special resolution i.e. it would have to be approved by 75 per cent of ordinary shareholders.

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 01:05 PM

No need to take umbrage and call us clueless, Key. I still think a name change could yet happen. So-called ordinary shareholders might be the very ones most inclined to see their stock perform better due to shedding a name that's taken on some terrific extra baggage of late.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 01:36 PM

Quote:
I still think a name change could yet happen.

Probably because you exaggerate the importance of American hysteria. Since no one has proposed an EGM a change of name is obviously not on the agenda.

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 02:03 PM

It won't necessarily happen straight away. Just because it's not happening now doesn't mean it won't. Trust me... if this thing continues to gush it's going to be epic... they might have little choice... granted, public memory of many an industrial mishap tends to be short and therefore very forgiving. But this is a whopper of an event.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 04:30 PM

There would be no purpose served by changing the name of BP while the disaster is occurring. It would have to be after the fact. The American public has short memories but not that short. A lot of people will still not buy EXXON because of the Valdez. When BP bought up AMOCO and a few other things and changed its name to BP in the 90's Beyond Petroleum it still sold a lot of AMOCO gas. It turns out that people thought AMOCO gas was better. (Kind of weird since on any given day all gasoline goes through a lot of the same pipes. A magic additive is poured in and poof AMOCO.) BP probably still owns the name. I would bet that, especially in the southeast, a few BP gas stations switch back to AMOCO. They might all switch and the BP name disappears from the US. Then it can become something else.

If I had a couple of nickels I would buy some BP in August right before the side wells cap it. And if they don't work I would double down after it got knocked down another 50%.
Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 05:41 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
There could be a change of name by special resolution i.e. it would have to be approved by 75 per cent of ordinary shareholders.

km


With BPs current PR disaster - I'm SURE that'll take a lot of convincing !! laugh

NOT !! grin
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 05:44 PM

Poly: agreed, any name change would have to be after the fact. Big time.

And yeah, the stock is a bargain. Or will be, even more so.
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 08:18 PM

Originally Posted By: DLC
Saw where BB (Blockbuster) may be delisted from the NYSE.

tried a reverse split and the holders didn't go for it...

I assume they're being killed by RedBox and Netflix.

Company didn't keep their eyes open, and many years ago was arrogant as hell. I quit going about 15 years ago over a dispute for a late fee... they got my $5 but it was the LAST they'd ever see ! Stupid people wouldn't be reasonable... dumb fokkers !

Bye, bye BB and good riddance !



That's one of the reasons we have netflix today - the guy who created netflix got pi$$ed off by one too many large late fees from BB. Came up with the netflix model and the rest is history.
Posted by: carp

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 08:34 PM

Yeah, I to was hit with a late fee and never went back. Beside you have to drive there and then drive back for the return. Well that was then, now I believe they have something similar to Netfix.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 10:41 PM

Quote:
With BPs current PR disaster - I'm SURE that'll take a lot of convincing !!

Yeah well at the moment there's about three Mac users who think it would be a good idea and they haven't got a single share between them. No, I mean the BP brand remains strong because most people understand it was Transocean's rig and the company's commitment to the small people has been second to none.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 10:57 PM

LOL

Yes it was Transocean's rig, nobody is denying that - however BP leased the rig and was the sole driver of it. Under their lease agreement BP was in full charge of the rig and its safe operations, hence the reason why BP was able to over ride TransOceans safety procedures.

If you rented a car from Hertz, and you were careless driving it, you would blame Hertz wouldn't you. laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/05/10 11:54 PM

Quote:
Yes it was Transocean's rig, nobody is denying that - however BP leased the rig and was the sole driver of it.

No, you keep saying that but it's wrong - the rig was staffed by Transocean workers.

Quote:
Under their lease agreement BP was in full charge of the rig and its safe operations, hence the reason why BP was able to over ride TransOceans safety procedures.

Override there unsafe procedures, more like.

Quote:
If you rented a car from Hertz, and you were careless driving it, you would blame Hertz wouldn't you.

That's right... I'd blame 'em for hidden defects and of course if they provided the chaeffeur who didn't know how to drive I'd sue their ass for that as well.

km
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 12:42 AM

Interesting. BP can do no wrong. Everybody is out to get BP. BP has no authority to say how their operation is run. They just hand over the cash to drill their well with no authority, no accountability, no oversight, no control of operations, nothing at all to do with anything associated with drilling their well. They were operating as a deaf, dumb and blind trust? You are posing that you truly understand how the oil industry conducts business. Your posts defending a company that has already taken responsibility to the tune of U$20 Billion (so far) are about the only humorous aspect of this crisis.

Chris
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 01:02 AM

Quote:
BP can do no wrong.

I'm not saying that - I was just correcting a few of his misconceptions.

Quote:
Everybody is out to get BP.

Not over here they're not - most of us are reserving judgment. In particular we need to know more about the contractual terms between BP, Transocean and Halliburton and we need to hear BP's account of what went wrong.

Quote:
Your posts defending a company that has already taken responsibility to the tune of U$20 Billion (so far) are about the only humorous aspect of this crisis.

That was under a politically motivated threat of retrospective legislation, of course, but was made without admission of liability as a gesture if goodwill towards those affected.

km
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 01:51 AM

Do you what company man is?

Chris
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 03:57 AM

I am enjoying Key's repeated use of the 'royal we' to embiggen himself.
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 04:09 AM

Mike you are right on.J
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 04:10 AM

BP name is not to strong in the US right now. Almost 3 months and nothing has been solved at all. Guess work. what ever happened to the flake Tony Hayward he disappeared like a mouse into a little hole and has not been seen again.J
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 06:01 AM

Quote:
Tony Hayward he disappeared like a mouse into a little hole and has not been seen again

Oh yeah the witch hunters would love that wouldn't they... no as a matter of fact he's on holiday at his villa in Spain --->

Posted by: ChrisN

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 07:31 AM

He also failed a test of oil industry knowledge by not answering the question in my last post. He probably thought the term company man applied to him being a shill for BP when it has nothing to do with him at all. Oh well.

Chris
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 07:45 AM

Then there's this bit of reportage about the BP/Government Police State. Strange bedfellows, spinning merrily along.
Posted by: Lea

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 08:13 AM


These kinds of incidents have been out there, sporadically noted, so it's good to see them finally getting some real coverage.

And I take 0 comfort in knowing that after British Petroleum "bought" up searches for "oil spill" to redirect to their company web site ~ That our own government has now taken over that site (latest update here).

Creepy doings in the Land of the Free, huh?





Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 08:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Llewelyn
That's one of the reasons we have netflix today - the guy who created netflix got pi$$ed off by one too many large late fees from BB. Came up with the netflix model and the rest is history.


There was a Local movie store -Screen Play- we joined after that which was VERY customer oriented and he got dozens (if not 100s) of customers from BB. One feature he offered was you could call in and hold a movie for 1 hour... saved you wasted trips and gas. He also had waiting lists for new releases... get your name on the list and they'd call you when your name was up- you had 3-4 hours to pick it up. Nice guy too !... Also once a month they sold ticket books- $1.50 a ticket.. 1 ticket got you 2 nights rental... man $1.50 was cheap for the longest - when BB was charging $3.50-$4 + late fees. ScreenPlay's late fee was 99’ a night ! I could handle that ! Also if you rented 3 movies or more, they gave you a free bag of popcorn !

We were members for > 10 years- I was very happy there until they closed last October... Red Box and Netflix finally killed them too. frown
Posted by: Leslie

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 08:35 AM

Originally Posted By: VarmintBlubber
I am enjoying Key's repeated use of the 'royal we' to embiggen himself.


And then says this
Quote:
the company's commitment to the small people has been second to none.


But km will claim he does not judge - pitiful.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 09:04 AM

British Petroleum?

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 09:07 AM

??
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 09:07 AM

?
Posted by: Leslie

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 09:13 AM

Originally Posted By: ChrisN
He also failed a test of oil industry knowledge by not answering the question in my last post. He probably thought the term company man applied to him being a shill for BP when it has nothing to do with him at all. Oh well.


Oh well is right.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 09:16 AM

One must say BP to be acknowledged by some.
British Petroleum have changed their name once already.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 09:18 AM

Quote:
Quote:
the company's commitment to the small people has been second to none.
But km will claim he does not judge...

You mean when something's sub judice?

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 09:22 AM

Quote:
You mean when something's sub judice?

No.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 09:22 AM

The subs are getting clogged from the oil, too.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 09:27 AM

Yeah well liability is sub judice.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 09:35 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Yeah well liability is sub judice.

km


Yeah well, that's great, but it has nothing to do with this.

Originally Posted By: Leslie
Originally Posted By: VarmintBlubber
I am enjoying Key's repeated use of the 'royal we' to embiggen himself.


And then says this
Quote:
the company's commitment to the small people has been second to none.


But km will claim he does not judge - pitiful.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 09:38 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
the company's commitment to the small people has been second to none.

km


If that were the case, oil would never have reached shore.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 09:51 AM

No I was thinking about the response in contrast to that of Union Carbide in Bhopal and ExxonMobil in the Niger Delta, for example. Liability for the spill itself remains to be determined by the courts, of course, but since Transocean operated the rig and Halliburton was responsible for sealing the well they would appear to be prima facie answerable for the fallout.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 09:53 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
No I was thinking about the response in contrast to that of Union Carbide in Bhopal and ExxonMobil in the Niger Delta, for example. Liability for the spill itself remains to be determined by the courts, of course, but since Transocean operated the rig and Halliburton was responsible for sealing the well they would appear to be prima facie answerable for the fallout.

km


All spun around and upside down.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 09:52 AM

No I'm saying I don't judge that which is sub judice... anything else is fair do's, of course.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 09:55 AM

Quote:
No I'm saying I don't judge that which is sub judice

Yeah well, who said you did?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 10:11 AM

You did.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 10:43 AM

Nope.
It's ok, you can't win them all.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 11:01 AM

So what did you mean by "km will claim he does not judge"?

laugh
km
Posted by: steveg

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 11:38 AM

Hmmm. I thought only the Queen Mum could take a Royal Wee. blush
Posted by: steveg

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 11:44 AM

Hmmm. I thought the Royal Wee was exlusively the right of the Queen Mum. blush
Posted by: steveg

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 11:48 AM

Oops. 'Scuze the double post. Little cache weirdness here.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 11:51 AM

Queen Mum? She's dead.

km
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 01:02 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
No I was thinking about the response in contrast to that of Union Carbide in Bhopal and ExxonMobil in the Niger Delta, for example. Liability for the spill itself remains to be determined by the courts, of course, but since Transocean operated the rig and Halliburton was responsible for sealing the well they would appear to be prima facie answerable for the fallout.

km


Hmmmm.... sounds rather judgemental.

---
(from a previous post)

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Not over here they're not - most of us are reserving judgement. In particular we need to know more about the contractual terms between BP, Transocean and Halliburton and we need to hear BP's account of what went wrong.


And yet you seem to have already judged that TransOcean & Halliburton are responsible. But, BP is not?

I'll ask again and if you do not care to answer, I will leave it alone. Do you know what a company man is?

No, it is not a reference to you being a shill for BP. It has to do with the BP situation.

Thanks in advance for your response,
Chris
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 01:16 PM

Quote:
Quote:
No I was thinking about the response in contrast to that of Union Carbide in Bhopal and ExxonMobil in the Niger Delta, for example. Liability for the spill itself remains to be determined by the courts, of course, but since Transocean operated the rig and Halliburton was responsible for sealing the well they would appear to be prima facie answerable for the fallout.

sounds rather judgemental.

Well you can have the Union Carbide and Exxon comparison as judgmental if you like, although it's not sub judice, and is more or less factually incontrovertible, but you can't have Transocean and Halliburton because 'prima facie' is non judgmental, per se.

km
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 01:18 PM

An online friend in the Gulf region has reported some rather strange stories of what is really going on there as someone living through this. I'll try to elaborate further as time allows.

Chris
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 01:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Leslie
One must say BP to be acknowledged by some.
British Petroleum have changed their name once already.


They've changed their names many times...
- Started life as Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC)
- When Iran nationalized its oil it became British Petroleum Company
- Merged with Amoco and became BP Amoco plc
- And following further corporate aquisitions is now formally BP plc
Posted by: Leslie

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 01:26 PM

Somebody should tell km that.
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 01:28 PM

In other words, you don't know what the company man is. OK

How do the Union Carbide/Bhopal and Exxon Valdez disasters have anything to do with the BP disaster legally or logically?

Chris
Posted by: Leslie

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 01:28 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
So what did you mean by "km will claim he does not judge"?

laugh
km


Ok, this is number 3. Tell me what is confusing to you.

Originally Posted By: Leslie
Originally Posted By: VarmintBlubber
I am enjoying Key's repeated use of the 'royal we' to embiggen himself.


And then says this
Quote:
the company's commitment to the small people has been second to none.


But km will claim he does not judge - pitiful.

]
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 01:31 PM

Well the group has several names on the register but 'British Petroleum' is a separate company so when people use that name to refer to BP it's a case of mistaken identity.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 01:37 PM

I'm going with BP formerly know as British Petroleum.
If Prince can do it, so can I. smile
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 01:47 PM

Quote:
How do the Union Carbide/Bhopal and Exxon Valdez disasters have anything to do with the BP disaster... logically?

Okay, well earlier on I said that BP's commitment to the small people was second to none by which I meant that if you campare their response to that of Union Carb... hey! I've already explained this once!

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 01:51 PM

Bit of a mouthfull don't you think? If everyone started using current and former names all the time it would take all day to get to the end of a sentence... I like BP because it's short.

km
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 02:20 PM

Originally Posted By: ChrisN
An online friend in the Gulf region has reported some rather strange stories of what is really going on there as someone living through this. I'll try to elaborate further as time allows.


Interesting to me is the lack of story on what is probably casing damage/failure below the BOP. I've read they've confirmed damage below the BOP, but I find a rather surprising lack of reporting about potential consequences.

If there's casing damage, with oil forcing out into the surrounding sediments I'd think total collapse of the well head a very real possibility, which of course means there's no stopping it until all the oil is released. I've read comments about people saying it looks like the BOP is leaning.

Any thoughts?
Posted by: Leslie

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 03:22 PM

Yea, well ok.
Must have missed your reply to the "judge" issue.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. Sometimes you choose not to answer.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 06:28 PM

Quote:
Sometimes you choose not to answer.

I probably wouldn't answer a leading question, or a stupid one, for example, or one that's disingenuous... but I usually try to cover sensible inquiries if I've got time.

km
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 06:31 PM

It is possible the casing has problems and this could be why they stopped the top kill. According to experts in the industry who have been watching this from the start the BOP is not leaning any more or less since the blow out started. There are so many wild ass rumors out there, sometimes parroted in the MSM, it is hard to know what to believe. It does not appear that the collapse of the wellhead is likely anytime soon.

The big concern now is that the relief well will be difficult because the drilling mud weight required to stop the flow is close to what could cause the geologic structure around the wellhead to fracture. The good news is the guys drilling the relief well are the very best in the business with the best record for successful relief wells. No doubt the BP company man on the rig and the BP bosses on shore are letting the drillers call all the shots and are giving them whatever they need to get this job done right. There is speculation that the second relief well may be needed. Let's hope for the best.

Chris
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 06:53 PM

Your usage of circular arguments, irrelevant appeals, evasion, ignoring direct questions, twisting of statements made by others and dogmatic defense of the indefensible makes it impossible to carry on an intelligent dialogue regarding this topic with you. That is too bad.

Chris
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 07:05 PM

Quote:
Your usage of circular arguments, irrelevant appeals, evasion, ignoring direct questions, twisting of statements made by others and dogmatic defense of the indefensible makes it impossible to carry on an intelligent dialogue regarding this topic with you. That is too bad.

Okay let's take this one point at a time. Circular arguments? You mean an argument for which you have no answer, right?

km
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 07:04 PM

Name one.

Chris
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 07:14 PM

For example that BP's response in the Gulf shows a greater commitment to the small people than Union Carbide showed in Bhopal or Exxon Mobil in the Niger Delta?

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 07:28 PM

BP stocks plummet!
defending lawyer tries ruse~
seeks to change subject
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 07:32 PM

Too childish - he asked for an example, now he's got one.

grin
km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 07:43 PM

Actually no, your Bhopal/Niger ruse was the circularity but I can see how you'd come around to thinking otherwise with those... proclivities of yours. Ahh well.

I wonder how low the stocks will go before they start to come back up... or before the company is taken over. Rumours of that already. Looks like the Arab money is propping up the company advance of a possible takeover by rivals. Will we be saying bye-bye to BP sometime soon and greeting some new hydra-headed monster to the fold of big bizzers?

That's the problem with these things. The names may change and a few new logos and slogans are dreamed up but the offenses, like sticky spilt crude, remain.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 07:44 PM

Quote:
No doubt the BP company man on the rig and the BP bosses on shore are letting the drillers call all the shots

No BP are calling more of the shots now because of the retrospective legislation twist.

Quote:
There is speculation that the second relief well may be needed. Let's hope for the best.

That's not speculation - that's going to be finished in August 2010.

km
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 07:50 PM

"For example that BP's response in the Gulf shows a greater commitment to the small people than Union Carbide showed in Bhopal or Exxon Mobil in the Niger Delta? "

That is a perfect example of an irrelevant appeal. These disasters have nothing to do with each other. You are merely attempting to make BP look better than Union Carbide and Exxon Mobil when the topic has absolutely nothing to do with Union Carbide or Exxon Mobil.

This is also an example of your dogmatic defense of BP by bringing up companies that are American owned or associated in an attempt to make BP appear to look better. Let me be clear, these two companies have not taken proper responsibility for two of the worst man-made disasters ever. They also had nothing whatsoever to do with the BP disaster which is the topic at hand.

Chris
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 07:53 PM

True, true.

There are also rumors of China being interested.

Chris
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 08:07 PM

Quote:
That is a perfect example of an irrelevant appeal.

It's not irrelevant. DLC argued that the company was likely to change it's name. I made the point that BP's commitment to the small people was second to none precisely because the company's reputation had a bearing on his prediction.

Okay, I've dealt with the first two points, now let's set the next one up for tomorrow... "evasion"? Such as?

smirk
km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 08:10 PM

Quote:
Bhopal/Niger ruse was the circularity

Well, you're going 'round in circles because you don't seem to understand the discussion.

smirk

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 08:20 PM

No, Key, 'fraid you're the one stuck in the loop. Nothing new there!

Chris: China... ain't it interested in everything these days? But who can blame them? Really, too much money in oil and gas extraction for a firm of this size to be ignored. Precisely why I figure BP is eventually going to be bought - sliced, diced and repackaged into something new... something without an established - and blemished - track record. Be a good time to buy, too, seeing as their shares are taking a drubbing.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 08:26 PM

Quote:
you're the one stuck in the loop. Nothing new there!

Bit weak, Max, you need to comment on whether a company's response to a catastrophe is germane to whether it might to change its name.

smirk
km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 08:33 PM

Keybie, I don't know for the life of me why you imagine I would wish to defer to you on matters of judgement, or heed any of your unsolicited advice, however germane you personally fancy it must be.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 08:40 PM

Good news for those who own BP stock - it's rebounded! Well sorta. Hmm, still down 47%. The court of public opinion can be so nasty.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 08:46 PM

I'd didn't say you'd wish to, I said you need to... you're doing what Chris calls "evasion".

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 08:50 PM

A little A little dark humour to lighten things up.... thanks to those tireless folks at Digg. Seems good old British Petroleum had access to a crystal ball back in the 70s. Is the irony meter going right off the scale or what.
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 08:51 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
That is a perfect example of an irrelevant appeal.

It's not irrelevant. DLC argued that the company was likely to change it's name. I made the point that BP's commitment to the small people was second to none precisely because the company's reputation had a bearing on his prediction.

Okay, I've dealt with the first two points, now let's set the next one up for tomorrow... "evasion"? Such as?

smirk
km


Flimsy, weak, circular and still irrelevant. Yawn...

Evasion and failure to answer a direct question. You know the question, I said I would not bring it up again. You can answer or evade as you wish.

Funny how things come to mind sometimes. This quote by Mark Twain just popped into my mind.

"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug."

Chris
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: 50% off - 07/06/10 08:55 PM

Quote:
It's not irrelevant. DLC argued that the company was likely to change it's name. I made the point that BP's commitment to the small people was second to none precisely because the company's reputation had a bearing on his prediction.

Well, I think that it would be valid to point out that Union Carbide and Exxon both retained their identity after their horrific debacles. However, it would be equally valid to point out that other companies have in fact changed their names after disastrous events ... so that's probably a toss-up in terms of a convincing harbinger of what may or may not happen with BP moving forward in this instance ...

Using UC and Exxon as a baseline for disaster response is pretty weak, though. Saying that BP's response is "second to none" simply because it sucks less than Union Carbide's or Exxon's isn't really saying a whole lot ...

Using Svanberg's "small people" phrasing is cute, though. More chum makes for tasty chum ;-)
Posted by: carp

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 12:14 AM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52


LOL - Right YoYo

Only Keymaker don't understand, I guess he will circle jerk this too.

Wiki BP history - Right from the top

Quote:
BP plc[3][4] is a British-based global energy company which is the third largest energy company and the fourth largest company in the world. The name "BP" derives from the initials of one of the company's former [b]legal names, British Petroleum


As mentioned many many times, this is NOT ABOUT THE BRITSH (PEOPLE) - it is all about the company that is called BP <----- YES it is British Petroleum = BP

So as soon as keymaker can understand a simple FACT that yes that the B in BP stands for British and we are not against the people of England or UK.

Misconceptions, keymaker your thinking is all your own creation and we are all trying to help you understand. I understand that some people are either to loyal or misguided to a point to where they are blind to facts and reality at the same time. However, just that your circle jerk seems to go on forever, even with the world larger majority believes that BP has wronged the planet and their victims and you still stand here and defend what cannot be defended.

Believe me if TransOcean as you contend is the whole hanging man -- The whole (world) would be after them and not BP <-- Get it Now -- something is seriously flawed with your synopsis and you won't see it.

Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 01:30 AM

Quote:
Well, I think that it would be valid to point out that Union Carbide and Exxon both retained their identity after their horrific debacles.

It would be valid, indeed, and relevant. They were trying to say the point was irrelevant although I think they had lost track of DLC's input. Now I'm not saying that BP will never change its name - only that its commitment to the small people deflates the possibility.

Quote:
However, it would be equally valid to point out that other companies have in fact changed their names after disastrous events ... so that's probably a toss-up in terms of a convincing harbinger of what may or may not happen with BP moving forward in this instance ...

I can't think of anyone doing so over here - maybe a 75 per cent vote isn't needed elsewhere.

Quote:
Using UC and Exxon as a baseline for disaster response is pretty weak, though. Saying that BP's response is "second to none" simply because it sucks less than Union Carbide's or Exxon's isn't really saying a whole lot ...

No I'd say the point is valid a fortiori because UC and Exxon suck and and BP don't but a viewpoint doesn't have to be right to be relevant, of course.

Quote:
Using Svanberg's "small people" phrasing is cute, though. More chum makes for tasty chum

I don't agree with that, old chum. I noticed that quite a few of you lot thought he was insulting the victims but my take was that he was expressing a laudable sentiment in his second language.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 01:48 AM

Quote:
Right YoYo

No, wrong... don't look for 2 question marks, look for one. Leslie says that when one company name derives from another, one should do a Prince and say "the [company] formerly known as [old name of company]". That's particularly important in this instance because the 'British Petroleum Co Ltd' is a different company. Another way 'round it is just to use the current name and forget about the old ones.

whistle
km
Posted by: steveg

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 04:06 AM

He's still harping on that? This is like dragging the old Ford Pinto's exploding gas tank into a debate about Toyota. More to the point, he's attempting to make the case that another entity's guilt/responsibility in a remotely similar incident years before somehow mitigates the presently spotlighted entity's guilt/responsibility.

And a name change would be unacceptable to km because it would be perceived as an unspoken admission of guilt — if not a blatant demonstration of deep shame — which must never ever, heaven forbid, be allowed to occur, lest it dent BPs shining armor, and km's irrational nationalistic denial.

Talk about beating a dead horse with an oil drum!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 04:17 AM

Oy! Mind your own business - as it happens you've completely missed the point.

km
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 04:40 AM

Let him stay there for good and hide his face in shame what he did to those poor animals and people trying to survive in the Gulf.Maybe he will accidentally light up a cigar and fall asleep and bingo no more Tony Hayward.Wishful thinkingJ
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 04:56 AM

Quote:
Let him stay there for good

He's already moved on to Abu Dhabi.

Quote:
hide his face in shame what he did to those poor animals and people trying to survive in the Gulf.

Well we don't know whose liable yet but it would seem that Transocean and Halliburton bear prima facie responsibility.

Quote:
Maybe he will accidentally light up a cigar and fall asleep and bingo no more Tony Hayward.Wishful thinkin

No, I think you're being a bit vindictive there, especially after all he's done to support the victims.

km
Posted by: Lea

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 08:14 AM


I haven't posted this one in awhile, Chris, because I've permanently engaged Ignore This User to spare myself km's circular BS. But having read your km quote and your response, I know you'll appreciate my permanent homage to his Highness' tactics ~





wink
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 08:14 AM

Originally Posted By: ChrisN
Your usage of circular arguments, irrelevant appeals, evasion, ignoring direct questions, twisting of statements made by others and dogmatic defense of the indefensible makes it impossible to carry on an intelligent dialogue regarding this topic with you. That is too bad.

Chris


Welcome to the canteen, Chris . . . or, we're all bozos on this bus. smile

edit: Just in case, let me make clear what hermeneutic circle leads me to say "bus": the argument is circular, wheels are circular, wheels on a bus go round and round, we're on a bus. And as the Merry Pranksters used to say, you're on the bus or your off the bus. I'd suggest getting off the bus. It pollutes, and there's already enough of that.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 08:25 AM

I would suggest you don't post if for another while as well because it's pretty dumb.

grin
km
Posted by: steveg

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 10:25 AM

Ditto that, gal. "Ignore-ance" is bliss. It cracks me up, though, that he'll still respond to us despite his screed being invisible on our respective screens. Oh wait... what he says is for the benefit of the whole forum. Like acne is for the benefit of the pharmacist. sick

BTW, it's His Minus. Gotta get that title right, y'know. grin
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 02:06 PM

Quote:
No I'd say the point is valid a fortiori because UC and Exxon suck and and BP don't but a viewpoint doesn't have to be right to be relevant, of course.


Relevance aside (since I wasn't talking about relevance), making a case that BP's response is great because on a scale of one to ten it doesn't score a zero doesn't really say much more than BP at least is going through the motions. Is that more than what UC or Exxon did? Sure. But what's the point? What makes UC or Exxon useful baselines for comparison?

As for Svanberg's use of "small people," I agree that his sentiment using a second language to him was honorable. English, however, is presumably not *your* second language ... so: nice bait =) Chum, chum, chum ... the water turns red ;-)
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 02:11 PM

Gotta agree here. If you guys are nailing yourselves on the cross of supposedly ignoring KM, responding to what you think he might have said via secondary quotations from other posters is almost as much of a circle-jerk as the rest of these threads.

Either ignore him or don't. Trying to have it both ways just makes you look like you have no self control ;-)
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 02:33 PM

I've seen stranger behaviour on teh internetz before. At least, I think I have. Truth is, I've never felt strongly that anyone deserves the ignore button. I like to think of it as adopting a reverse-Confucianismic mode. With reverb.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 02:34 PM

Maybe I'll take him off ignore and just avert my eyes. laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 02:43 PM

Quote:
Maybe I'll take him off ignore and just avert my eyes.

Oh here we go, the big climbdown... I don't mind you coming back but the diehard founders can stay out for good as far as I'm concerned.

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 02:47 PM

Meaning you want them back!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 02:54 PM

No I don't agree with that... Svanberg coined the phrase which became a convenient byword for more complex phrases such as "those affected by the spill" and so on. What I've noticed here is the hypocrisy of some Mac users that it's alright for some companies such as Anadarko to tell the small people to get stuffed but not for others such as, you guessed it: "British Petroleum".

whistle
km
Posted by: Lea

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 03:06 PM


Nailing to a cross? Really? OK, not. Really.

By leaving the Ignore this User option on, I've saved myself a whole lot of aggravation and I'm really satisfied with the overall user experience. I couldn't resist reposting the Caution Rabbit Circle Jerk Ahead sign, but it was for Chris' benefit. Everybody else has seen it, but since Chris is pretty new to the game, I figured he'd get a laugh.

Ignore KM or don't ~ Isn't the question. I do, and as stated, it's really made a difference. I enjoy the Box a lot more lately. Perhaps the question might instead be ~ Why would he respond directly to somebody who's made it clear they aren't reading his posts?

Availing myself of the benefits of the Ignore This User Option obviously seems silly to some peeps. I suggest that KM responding to my posts is vastly sillier.

Oh, my. I believe I have the makings of a Python sketch here.

wink
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 03:16 PM

Quote:
Meaning you want them back

Yeah, like a hole in the head... meaning I don't want them back.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 03:13 PM

Quote:
Svanberg coined the phrase which became a convenient byword for more complex phrases such as "those affected by the spill" and so on.


It has become a convenient byword for who? After the reaction Svanberg received after he used it, I'm doubtful this has become part of the mainstream lexicon ...

[edit - The original content of this post asked how this phrase has become a common byword as KM described and which mainstream outlets have used it. Posted because KM replied as I was editing this post]
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 03:18 PM

I never said a 'mainstream byword' but a 'convenient byword'.

Edit: Oy, don't start changing your posts after people have already replied.

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 03:21 PM

Key, methinks you doth protest too much. With their bitter absence, your unchecked loneliness would swell and engulf you.

Six: I can't imagine anyone seriously using "the small people" in mainstream media.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 03:26 PM

Who's protesting?

cry
km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 03:30 PM

Of course you're protesting... your strenuous denials tell me so.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 03:34 PM

Strenuous denials? I only wish you'd join 'em... mainly because you add so little of substance to the discussions.

laugh
km


Posted by: six_of_one

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 03:42 PM

So basically, it's a convenient byword for *you* ...

Heh ... chum, chum, chum ... =D

And Oy! Yourself. You replied as I was editing. This forum and this iPad don't work as smoothly as my Mac and this forum do =)
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 03:44 PM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
Gotta agree here. If you guys are nailing yourselves on the cross of supposedly ignoring KM, responding to what you think he might have said via secondary quotations from other posters is almost as much of a circle-jerk as the rest of these threads.

Either ignore him or don't. Trying to have it both ways just makes you look like you have no self control ;-)


I would only disagree with the "almost". It is ten times more the circle jerk when one ...

shiit, I have no idea how to describe these train-wrecks and am surprised that Max is sucked into them as echo filler.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 03:50 PM

Well it saves a few words for everyone.

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 04:42 PM

1
echo filler or
carping commenter, eh?
~it's all the same jam

2
tarred by the same brush
all as flies trapped in amber~
yet some would play god

3
this one comfy thread
no one is spared the backwash;
all posts spawn more posts
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 04:52 PM

Quote:
carping commenter, eh?

Absolutely and the circle jerk is complete. Never said I wasn't part of it. The ones who don' think they are part of the problem are the funniest. Not sure what I am although assuredly part of the problem and so I bow out of this one. I got self-control. HAHAHA. As if.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 05:50 PM

are you guys that clueless?
I was just correcting a few of his misconceptions.
I'd didn't say you'd wish to, I said you need to.

No, you keep saying that but it's wrong.
No BP are calling more of the shots now because of the retrospective legislation twist.
No I'd say the point is valid.
I don't agree with that, old chum.
No, wrong.
No, I think you're being a bit vindictive there, especially after all he's done to support the
victims.
No I don't agree with that.

The above is a snippet of your replies in this post only. It is all so negative or belligerent.
How unfortunate.
Posted by: steveg

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 07:32 PM

Um... a bit off the mark, six. I can choose to ignore his posts and still participate in the thread and respond to posts that may or may not be related to anything that he's posted. And if it does, that's hardly having it both ways. If I had no self-control, I'd be chasing his crap up and down these threads — kinda like you are.

I'm just sayin'.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 08:48 PM

Quote:
I can choose to ignore his posts and still participate in the thread and respond to posts that may or may not be related to anything that he's posted. And if it does, that's hardly having it both ways.


Well, if you're supposedly ignoring KM, and ironically crowing about the fact as you indirectly reply to something he's written, then what you just described is pretty much the definition of having things both ways. But really, I couldn't care less if you really plan on actually ignoring KM or not. I just find it amusing that you guys can't seem to go cold turkey on him.

As for me, this will be my sixth post in a 128-reply thread, two of which actually agree with KM ... not exactly "chasing" him up and down these threads. Plus, I'm not the one bragging to the whole board about how wonderful the Ignore button is while seemingly incapable of actually using it to effect ...

Just sayin' ...
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 08:58 PM

You know, it feels like this has turned into one great cosmic joke of a thread. Seems no one is spared. It reads like something Samuel Beckett might have penned - had he lived long enough to grok today's internet.
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 09:27 PM

Or, add video from the spill, from key players and locations in the thread, shuffle the actual times... you have Tarantino's next movie. "Pulp Oil"

Seriously, trying not to take myself too seriously while still being somewhat serious about information being thrashed about in a thread like this, I suppose, whatever that means. Sometimes it seems like a delicate balance between discussing important topics and information or:




Chris
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 09:27 PM

Quote:
You know, it feels like this has turned into one great cosmic joke of a thread.


My work here is finished, then ;-)
Posted by: Leslie

Re: 50% off - 07/07/10 09:44 PM

And km chuckles.
Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 03:50 AM

ROFL


wow and the stickman is a nice likeness too !! laugh
Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 03:52 AM

This is also posted in another thread- apologies for the duplicate, but I think it's pretty important news.


Heard another scary story on last night's The Ed Show.

There are 27,000 abandoned oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico. BP owns a bucket load.
They may be a ticking time bomb if any start leaking. They also may account for random tarballs before the BP disaster.

ONE question posed is that there are NOT 27,000 permits for oil drilling in the Gulf, so this is another indication that the oil companies do whatever they damm well please.. BP being only 1.
Up front, they appear to be following regs and rules, but behind the scene s they are rogue and wreckless companies. eek
Posted by: steveg

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 04:08 AM

Painting with a broad brush much? Ignoring what one individual specifically has to say does not preclude participating in the thread in general. If Lea and I and anyone else using this feature were to follow your prescription, we'd have to ignore the forum altogether. I suppose I could turn that back in your direction by pointing out that you've consciously spent some effort opining about something you "couldn't care less" about.

As for "bragging" or "crowing", you can file it under Don't knock it 'til you try it. Or, you could always apply "Ignore this User" to Lea and I. It's very calming, really...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 04:35 AM

Quote:
Ignoring what one individual specifically has to say does not preclude participating in the thread in general.

His point is that you're not ignoring what the individual has to say... what you're actually doing is guessing what that individual's saying - and getting it wrong.

km
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 04:39 AM

KM what did he do to help the victims in the Gulf dismiss what they feel and he saw and heard and said I want my life back again.This is selfish and heartless on his part. J
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 05:08 AM

Quote:
what did he do to help the victims in the Gulf

Well, he made and honoured assurances that no expense would be spared to restore the Gulf to its former state and he put in place a fund of $20bn which was unprecedented in the history of oil exploration. The fund was volunteered irrespective of legal claims against corporate third parties which all started trying to creep out through the back door hoping no one was going to notice.

Quote:
... dismiss what they feel and he saw and heard and said I want my life back again.This is selfish and heartless on his part.

No that was deliberately or ignorantly misinterpreted by all the big mouths and know-alls who suddenly turned into amateur mind-readers about what he meant, and got it wrong. What he actually meant was - that he wanted no one to doubt he was working tirelessly and sparing no effort to remedy the problem with all the resources at his own and BP's disposal.

wink
km
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 05:47 AM

You really are the king of bullsh!t. :P
Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 05:46 AM

Originally Posted By: SgtBaxter
You really are the king of bullsh!t. :P


King ?


I think Fuhrer is a better title ! wink
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 06:04 AM

Which bit don't you like then?

km
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 07:28 AM

As you wish.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 07:58 AM

Originally Posted By: VarmintBlubber
It reads like something Samuel Beckett might have penned - had he lived long enough to grok today's internet.


"We blame our soles for the faults of our feet."

Not quite an exact quote--don't have the play here with me, alas!
Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 08:15 AM

All of it.

Sorry, I don't care for your mantra of defending BP and its CEO.

I do NOT want to get into a" pissing match" with you, I've seen enough threads to know it's a big waste of f-ing time.

I'd rather have a root canal . . . .

wo any anesthesia ! laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 08:38 AM

My statement stands then.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 08:42 AM

Quote:
What he actually meant was


You are the only who knows what he "actually meant". Wow!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 08:47 AM

Well you lot are all straining to put an absurdly malicious meaning on his words - all I've done is put the natural meaning on them.

laugh
km
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 08:54 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Well you lot are all straining to put an absurdly malicious meaning on his words - all I've done is put the natural meaning on them.


You're correct, as bullsh!t is completely natural.

Of course, nobody's straining to do anything. The way it was said implied he was tired and annoyed with the situation and simply wanted it to go away, which were backed up by his actions afterwards. If he truly wasn't whining as you suggest, then as the CEO of a company his couth is terribly lacking as he should be more intelligent then to utter words so easily misinterpreted.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 09:30 AM

Quote:
Of course, nobody's straining to do anything.

Yep, straining. One sentence has been isolated and pored over in the most negative way to get to a meaning that's contradicted by more or less everything else he has said. He said, for example, that "When I learned that 11 men had lost their lives in the explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon, I was personally devastated". Oh! So he only cares about himself then? How devastated does he think the families are, bastard. Oh, but wait: "I attended a memorial service for those men and it was a shattering moment. I want to offer my sincere condolences to their friends and families – I can only imagine their sorrow". Anyone can take a statement out of context and misrepresent a person's sentiment with a deliberately mean and nasty interpretation - and that's what you lot are all doing.

Quote:
The way it was said implied he was tired and annoyed with the situation and simply wanted it to go away, which were backed up by his actions afterwards.

The way it was inferred more like - by the "BP BP BP BP is to blame for everything" movement.

Quote:
simply wanted it to go away, which were backed up by his actions afterwards.

What actions? He was dealing with the response almost non-stop until he was replaced by the company.

Quote:
If he truly wasn't whining as you suggest, then as the CEO of a company his couth is terribly lacking as he should be more intelligent then to utter words so easily misinterpreted.

Too judgmental. People had the option of taking a positive or negative view of his words and they blew it.

km
Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 09:45 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
My statement stands then.

km


It can "stand" all you want-

doesn't mean it's true or has a sliver of reality.

"flat earth", "spontaneous generation", "earth center of the universe" also once "stood"...


they were complete BS too ! laugh

contrived by biased, simple minds that had no desire to see the truth.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 10:07 AM

Exactly but I'm the globalist and you're the flat-earther. BP put up $20bn did they not? That was one of my statements.

km
Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 10:24 AM

And I gave them some credit for that... but their disaster not been fixed yet. $20 B may not be enough. . . and it doesn't cover their negligence.

And seeing the historical information on their wrecklessness and lack of conscience on safety, that's like me getting drunk, killing several members of your family, and then saying, "oh well, sorry KM - here's a million for their lives." (now go away - Gee, I wish I could get my "life" back !! )

Does that really cover it ?
is $ the only answer ?
Am I supposed to walk away scott - free? just pay the fine and throw some money at it!

That thinking is so shallow and cold-hearted.
That's the problem with your mantra. . .that's the problem with BP and many other industries. They've been doing it for years and most often get away with it. When they get nailed - this is their response.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 12:16 PM

We don't know whether they were negligent. There's certainly a prima facie case of negligence against Transocean and Halliburton but the case against BP seems pretty weak. The management team at BP is not the same now as when the Texas City refinery blew up in 2005 so no real conclusions can be drawn from that incident. Overall you seem to have been reading too many biased US sources - you need to break away and try to get a more balanced view in my opinion - here's what Eddie Izzard <--- thinks, for example.

wink
km
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 01:31 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
We don't know whether they were negligent. There's certainly a prima facie case of negligence against Transocean and Halliburton but the case against BP seems pretty weak...

wink
km


Please provide your evidence to back up that statement.

Chris
Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 01:48 PM

Who cares what Eddie Izzard "thinks"... it's irrelevant... that's why you can't see the facts... you're avoiding them with diversions like this.

We DO know that BP didn't apply the 3rd mud plug (standard procedure in the industry) before trying to move in the pumping station... we DO know that they have a horrible history of safety violations... we DO know they could have had a better BOV if they were really concerned with safety - the ones REQUIRED on rigs in the North Sea that they have to use there.... geez wouldn't want the UK beaches covered in oil and polluted !

There was a post on this site from some one who worked in the oil fields and he cited many red flags BP ignored in their rush to production and pad the bottom line..

AND their Federal application to drill and how they'd deal with spills was just company BS... they fabricated the whole thing ! They didn't have a F-ing clue and they LIED on it !

sorry if that's not deliberate negligence, I don't know what is.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 01:52 PM

Evidence? We don't know whether BP was negligent because we haven't heard their account of the incident and because it hasn't yet been considered by the courts. The case against BP seems weak because the rig was owned and operated by Transocean, the blowout preventer was manufactured by Cameron International and Halliburton were responsible for cementing the well. If you let me know which if any of those you disagree with I'll try to point you to a relevant resource.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 02:16 PM

I keep saying this over and over again: It's been well documented that most of the risky if not outright non-compliant measures that the subcontractors undertook were at the insistence of BP, and in several cases under noted disagreement. If you tell someone in your employ to ignore industry regulations and/or best practices, you own the consequences — and the lion's share of the responsibility.

The insensitive remarks made by some of the top BP people — whether out of hubris or poor judgment or an unfortunate accident of language — are not really germane to the bigger issue, which is who was calling the shots on that rig. BP. Period.

As for their response plan being totally bogus, I lay that mostly at the feet of the MMS. We've already seen that the response plans offered by virtually all of the big oil companies were identical — down to walruses in the Gulf of Mexico — save for the logos on the covers. How could that be? Simple. IMHO, some MMS lackey made copies of one bidder's response plan, and handed them out like candy, saying "Just put your logo on this and submit it."
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 02:19 PM

Chris, Chris, Chris. He never provides proof. His word is all the proof he needs.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 02:26 PM

Quote:
Who cares what Eddie Izzard "thinks"...

The editors of the Guardian.

Quote:
it's irrelevant...

No it's not irrelevant. The article pointed out, for example, that most of BP's violations relate to just one previous incident but you're still going on about it's "horrible history". If anything is irrelevant it's that because it has nothing to do with Deepwater Horizon.

Quote:
We DO know that BP didn't apply the 3rd mud plug...

We haven't heard BP's account of that yet so we can't draw any conclusions from the allegation.

Quote:
we DO know that they have a horrible history of safety violations...

Already dealt with - irrelevant.

Quote:
we DO know they could have had a better BOV if they were really concerned with safety - the ones REQUIRED on rigs in the North Sea that they have to use there.... geez wouldn't want the UK beaches covered in oil and polluted

No, they're just as concerned about the Gulf as the North Sea - obviously they need to have regard to the regulations wherever they operate and they're not necessarily the same from one place to another.

Quote:
There was a post on this site from some one who worked in the oil fields and he cited many red flags BP ignored in their rush to production and pad the bottom line..

That was tainted by bias - the authors were competitors whose attention to detail was such they couldn't even get the name of the company right - no credibility there whatsoever.

Quote:
AND their Federal application to drill and how they'd deal with spills was just company BS... they fabricated the whole thing ! They didn't have a F-ing clue and they LIED on it !

No you're inserting your own invective there and taking advantage of the benefit of hindsight... lying is what most of the pundits are doing as far as I can see - or let's put it this way: being highly creative with the facts they chose to discuss and those they chose to conveniently ignore.

Quote:
sorry if that's not deliberate negligence, I don't know what is.

No I think we need to leave that to the courts.

km
Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 02:36 PM

Yes Steve it has been well documented BP was driving the bus when it wrecked... that was my point too. "You know who" ignores ALL these facts. He must either own stock, be defending anything British, or is a stubborn, ignorant fool who's too arroghant to admit he was mistaken. blush
However, the response plan IS in a big part MMS fault- someone should be fired there, possibly many(and possibly prosecuted if it can be documented they received favors or $)... but BP owns a good chunk of that too. They signed off on it.. if there were lies or untruths - they should have either (1) changed it to correct the facts, or (2) NOT signed the document. Honesty !! Geez- what a concept ! wink
It's another FACT that if someone will LIE, they'll also cheat (safety regs) and steal ! And we all know they have been about as transparent as the leaking oil about the whole incident. H3LL a blind man could see this.
We're on the same page Steve.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 03:08 PM

Quote:
driving the bus when it wrecked...

Driving the bus doesn't necessarily imply negligence - depends whether there was anything was wrong with the bus when it wrecked and if so whose fault that was.

Quote:
"You know who" ignores ALL these facts.

No one's ignoring 'em... some of us are giving them appropriate weight whilst it seems that others are blowing them up out of all proportion.

Quote:
He must either own stock, be defending anything British, or is a stubborn, ignorant fool who's too arroghant to admit he was mistaken.

It's not actually British and, no, I don't own stock... what other reasons can you dream up for someone taking a rationale point of view? As for being stubborn, mistaken, whatever - you're skating on pretty thin ice supposing that BP are going to be found solely responsible just because Obama, competitors, and big mouths all say so.

km
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 06:42 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Evidence? We don't know whether BP was negligent because we haven't heard their account of the incident and because it hasn't yet been considered by the courts. The case against BP seems weak because the rig was owned and operated by Transocean, the blowout preventer was manufactured by Cameron International and Halliburton were responsible for cementing the well. If you let me know which if any of those you disagree with I'll try to point you to a relevant resource.

km


Did BP make decisions regarding rig operations?

Chris
Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 06:47 PM

Quote:
Driving the bus doesn't necessarily imply negligence -


it does when you're driving it wrecklessly and ignoring safety regulations... you're ignoring lots of facts that have already been publisized. BP manager told TranOcean NOT to bother with the 3rd plug they were in a rush,--like speeding in the Bus, KM !! They were also cutting cost and sacrificing safety in the process - 11 workers DIED as a result - HOW hard is that to comprehend ?? ... and with their record you think it's just coincidence !

Quote:
As for being stubborn, mistaken, whatever - you're skating on pretty thin ice supposing that BP are going to be found solely responsible ...


I rest my case.. wink
Posted by: steveg

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 07:01 PM

Is a duck waterproof?

Does a bear crap in the woods?

Same answer.
Posted by: Lea

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 07:48 PM


Waiting for a credible link? Solid information? Been there, done that.





wink
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 11:41 PM

Yes.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/08/10 11:56 PM

Quote:
it does when you're driving it wrecklessly and ignoring safety regulations... you're ignoring lots of facts that have already been publisized.

What hasn't been published is what BP say which I should have thought would be quite pertinent.

Quote:
BP manager told TranOcean NOT to bother with the 3rd plug they were in a rush

BP has denied being in a rush.

Quote:
like speeding in the Bus, KM !!

Well, what were the brakes like on the bus? Gaskets?

Quote:
They were also cutting cost and sacrificing safety in the process - 11 workers DIED as a result - HOW hard is that to comprehend ?? ... and with their record you think it's just coincidence !

No I think you're exaggerating their record - one previous incident of any significance and all of a sudden they overtake all American competition for irresponsibility - much worse than Union Carbide, Exxon Mobil - do you even know how many people died in Bhopal?

km
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 12:48 AM

Thank you. An honest answer.

The interaction on the rig between the company man (from BP and his onshore BP bosses) and the OIM from TransOcean during the critical time will be crucial evidence.

To me the case for BP does not look good considering past safety problems and a corporate culture known for giving bonuses to reward cost cutting and coming in under projected budgets. This well was already over budget and past projected time for completion. Several cost cutting measures took place that could have contributed to this disaster in the 24 - 36 hour period before the blowout. The crews on the rig were almost ready to move on and this well was very close to being done. In a stroke of irony there was a party on board the night before the blowout to celebrate TransOcean's safety record. Somebody monitoring the well on the rig or onshore should have noticed one or more of the warning signs that caught in time could have saved the lives of the eleven men and prevented the disaster that we have now. Experienced industry experts who have seen what limited evidence that is available now cannot believe that these warning signs were missed.

I contrast the corporate culture at BP which has been described as unsafe and scary by many long time oil people who I know, to that of Getty Oil, for example. In my previous career I was associated with Getty Oil for over ten years as a supplier of safety equipment and they valued safety over everything from the top to the bottom of the company. They spent so much money that the other oil companies at the time thought they were crazy. If you were unsafe, you did not work with them. Nowadays, believe it or not one of the known to be safest in the industry oil companies is Exxon/Mobil. Probably a positive result of one the worst oil disasters, they got safety now. Too bad they did not get it sooner.

You mentioned Halliburton. Cement jobs can fail and that is not an infrequent occurrence. That is why you test and test until you are sure. Surely as you say, Halliburton will be sued, but ultimately the responsibility to test and to know when to proceed is up to the operators.

If there was negligence, will it be shared? If BP wanted TransOcean to do something potentially unsafe and TO went along with it, who is to blame? If BP wanted TO to proceed and TO did not have all the information to know that proceeding was unsafe, then who is to blame? This is a complex case, my opinions are only my opinions and don't mean squat. My opinions, such as they are, are based on the experience of industry people whose judgement I trust, but I will keep an open mind as more details and evidence comes out. Nobody knows how the legal wrangling will turn out for sure and it is likely to be going on for many years.

Chris
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 03:26 AM

That's the first time I can recall you conceding there might by multiple liability. It seems that you, poly and I are on our own with that, however, since everyone else has got BP down as liable for everything - big, bad BP, evil-minded Tony Hayward.

wink
km
Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 03:59 AM

Quote:
...much worse than Union Carbide, Exxon Mobil - do you even know how many people died in Bhopal?


this is why you can't see the facts, KM... you're mired in irrelevant BS.. WTF does Bhopal have to do with this ? Absolutely nothing... that was Union Carbide, this is BP ! (BTW- I know hundreds died- it was horrible, but that doesn't make this any less a disaster !). Stick to the subject and forget Bhopal, Eddie Izzard, and the Queen Mary !!

Furthermore there were indications of gasket leaking days, if not weeks, before the blowout... BP managers ignored all the and went ahead... red flags were flying up all over the place - they were ignored for expediency and cost savings- that's NEGLIGENCE, dude !!

Lastly, "BP denied being in a rush".. many others don't corroborate those statements... are you that gullible? i.e. still waiting for that check from Nigeria ? whistle
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 04:26 AM

No I was saying that your preoccupation with BP's past record is overblown because it relies on the false assumption that the company is associated with an above average number of disasters so as to suggest a culture of indifference. If in fact their record is comparable or even comparatively good contrasted with that of other large corporations it undermines your point. The minimum death toll at Bhopal runs into thousands by the way, not hundreds. Now the people who are not corroborating BP's position are the very same as those who are trying to pass off a one-sided assessment of the disaster as an objective account in some cases to conceal their own culpability or responsibilities towards the victims - what a surprise... and what a surprise that Obama has fallen for it, hook, line and sinker.

km
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 05:25 AM

KM do you really believe in your heart he cared about the people in the Gulf when he made that comment I mentioned to you?J
Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 05:35 AM

Just look at the past 3 months.. BP has LIED over and over again about many things.. 1st they lied on the drilling applications, making claims they knew they couldn't achieve,
Then they first said the flow rate was 1000 gallons per hour when internal memos show they knew it was much higher... that estimate over the next few months went from 1000 to 60,000 ! They have a pattern on lying and that's the present... so what convinces you they changed anything from their past behavior ?

Quote:
Now the people who are not corroborating BP's position are the very same as those who are trying to pass off a one-sided assessment of the disaster ....

There are people who once worked for BP who have come forward to describe how they faked safety tests.. I've hear others on many radio and TV shows.. heard another guy who worked for BP in Alaska who said they're repeating the same SOP up there they did in the gulf and it's a ticking time bomb. Where have you been ? Many of these are oil field workers who are POed about BP (and other oil companies) cavalier attitude towards safety and the value of their workers. These aren't network or newspaper talking heads. They KNOW what they're talking about.

There may be others who are also liable, but I think BP owns at least 75-80% of the responsibility from all the information I've heard.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 07:27 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
What actions? He was dealing with the response almost non-stop until he was replaced by the company.


I'm sorry, where exactly did you say he was vacationing again?

Of course he was dealing with the response, he was obligated to do so. If he truly cared about the "little people" as you so put, he'd volunteer to be on a Louisiana beach today collecting tarballs, or out on a boat tending to booms.

Or, perhaps he could have organized the response much better, oil wouldn't have reached those beaches and marshes, and replacement wouldn't have been necessary.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 08:11 AM

Yes - when people you work with in a common endeavour suddenly die in a tragic accident it's only natural to feel the sense of loss and devastation of which he spoke.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 08:23 AM

Quote:
I'm sorry, where exactly did you say he was vacationing again?

Spain - he's back at work now.

Quote:
Of course he was dealing with the response, he was obligated to do so. If he truly cared about the "little people" as you so put, he'd volunteer to be on a Louisiana beach today collecting tarballs, or out on a boat tending to booms.

No well he's got management responsibilities so he can't just do whatever he likes.

Quote:
Or, perhaps he could have organized the response much better, oil wouldn't have reached those beaches and marshes, and replacement wouldn't have been necessary.

I don't think anyone's come up with a better way of doing it - he was replaced because of all the anti-British flak that was flying around. In fact there's been no real change to the operations since Bob Pudley took over except they're now being described by someone with an American accent

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 08:32 AM

It would seem you're too ready to accept any crackpot allegation as necessarily true as long as it's anti-BP. How do you know the internal memos concerned verified calculations that were communicated to their spokesmen? Or that the accusations of faked safety tests aren't themselves completely bogus and malicious? You accept all that but show not the slightest interest in what Eddie Izzard has to say. Why? Because it's not anti-BP, that's why.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 09:26 AM

Quote:
If Lea and I and anyone else using this feature were to follow your prescription, we'd have to ignore the forum altogether.

My prescription if I wanted to ignore somebody on this forum would be to actually ignore them and not care or respond to what they have to say. How this would require me to ignore the forum altogether is a form of logic with which I am unfamiliar ...

Quote:
I suppose I could turn that back in your direction by pointing out that you've consciously spent some effort opining about something you "couldn't care less" about.

I suppose you could indeed if I had gone around bragging at length about it -- that would make me look pretty silly. ;-)
Posted by: Lea

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 09:35 AM


Oh, please. I haven't responded to a single km post since I took advantage of a particular forum feature. Yes, we've laughed about it. Bragged? No, I didn't see it that way, but everybody lives with their own prism, it's cool.

An interjection from time to time, expressing my opinion about km's Rabbit Circle Jerk tactics, is tantamount to commenting on the latest comedy show.

Example of a Comedy Show ~ This thread. Started off as an observation about stock prices and now? Six pages later? The subject is KM? Over and over?

If it's anybody's fault, it's everybody's fault. But I'm not going to avoid the occasional snark, simply because it might be interpreted as responding to km. Gotta keep up that douche bag dancing monkey rep*.




Edit: *snark




Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 10:10 AM

Quote:
An interjection from time to time, expressing my opinion about km's Rabbit Circle Jerk tactics

Actually, circle jerks are on the decline since you diehards went into exile. They only threaten a comeback when your leader starts trying to guess what I've said.

Quote:
This thread. Started off as an observation about stock prices and now? Six pages later? The subject is KM?

No it's been mainly about BP and diehard practices.

km
Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 10:12 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
It would seem you're too ready to accept any crackpot allegation as necessarily true as long as it's anti-BP. How do you know the internal memos concerned verified calculations that were communicated to their spokesmen? Or that the accusations of faked safety tests aren't themselves completely bogus and malicious? You accept all that but show not the slightest interest in what Eddie Izzard has to say. Why? Because it's not anti-BP, that's why.

km


OK I'll digress for a minute... here's why KM . . . WTF is Eddie Izzard?

a comedian...

did he ever work in the oilfields for BP ?

NO!

Did he ever even work for BP ?

NO!

is he an oilman with any expertise ?

NO!

Did he do any detailed technical analysis ?

NO!

so who is Eddie Izzard?

a comedian !!

This argument is pure dribble, KM.

Eddie Izzard has NOTHING of substance to contribute to this argument... he's an comedian !

Lastly is he making a biased opinion... absolutely ! His Dad worked for BP... he grew up with it... so it's not like he's objectively going to analyze all the information. This is why they don't let Drs and lawyers have family members as patients and clients.

AS many have said - IF you have Data to support BP not being the major culprit - POST IT ! You don't want to accept information from American sources - You're in the UK- where's the data from the BBC ? you keep avoiding this request over and over because you know there isn't ANY !! What does that tell you ?

I can tell why you never made the Debate Team KM !! laugh
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 10:15 AM

Well, at this point when I participate in these ring-around-the-rosies it's mainly for my own amusement and occasionally I do learn something from them. But since it became fairly obvious they are more exercises in linguistic swordplay and focused more on who "wins" than any real exchange of ideas, i've tried not to take them too seriously, if at all -- I mean, a comedy show is supposed to be entertaining, right? =)

But yeah, I wouldn't wan't you to stop snarking ... but I get to point out what seems to me to be someone hoisted on their own petard, too, which is equally fun ;-) (And yes, it did seem like bragging from my bleacher seat; but as you say, it's all cool)
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 10:32 AM

Well, I love Eddie and he's certainly entitled to his opinion ... and having grown-up with BP he does bring a different viewpoint. Although he did say BP has a share of the blame in this, which is counter to the attitude that it's all the fault of the subcontractors. I actually think his take on the situation is the reasonable one: there's enough blame to go around for all the parties involved. The legal wrangling will merely determine how much of the responsibility goes to whom.

Personally, from what I've read and heard, at this point I'm of the opinion BP should at least get a major portion, if not the lion's share, of the responsibility for this catastrophe. But we'll have to see how the facts shake-out when all the dust has settled in a decade or so ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 10:46 AM

I wouldn't dismiss someone's viewpoint just because they're a comedian. As a matter of fact he made several valid points including his observation that all the blame is being directed at just one party despite the clear implication that others had a hand in the catastrophe. As for evidence to prove a negative - the points I've made in defence of BP are based upon the facts that 1. the rig was owned and operated by Transocean; 2. the BOP was manufactured by Cameron International and 3. Halliburton was responsible for cementing the well. If you let me know which if any of those suppositions you take issue with I'll try to point you to a relevant resource. Now if you don't mind I'd like you to produce your evidence that no other party apart from BP was in any way at fault and culpable for the tragedy. See the point?

grin
km
Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 11:00 AM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one


Personally, from what I've read and heard, at this point I'm of the opinion BP should at least get a major portion, if not the lion's share, of the responsibility for this catastrophe. But we'll have to see how the facts shake-out when all the dust has settled in a decade or so ...


No disrespect intended to Eddie as a comedian... I'm sure he's great.

but your take IS my take... BP is not 100% responsible (I've never claimed that)... but I bet 75%+ is their fault. Since they clearly bear the majority (>50%)- make them pay and fix it, and they can settle the rest of the issues with their contractors in the courts.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 11:08 AM

It's all about percentages then - at least to Chris and poly, you and I. Everyone else has got BP down for the whole lot.

wink
km
Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 11:15 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
I wouldn't dismiss someone's viewpoint just because they're a comedian. As a matter of fact he made several valid points including his observation that all the blame is being directed at just one party despite the clear implication that others had a hand in the catastrophe. As for evidence to prove a negative - the points I've made in defence of BP are based upon the facts that 1. the rig was owned and operated by Transocean; 2. the BOP was manufactured by Cameron International and 3. Halliburton was responsible for cementing the well. If you let me know which if any of those suppositions you take issue with I'll try to point you to a relevant resource. Now if you don't mind I'd like you to produce your evidence that no other party apart from BP was in any way at fault and culpable for the tragedy. See the point?

grin
km

1. Ownership doesn't mean as much when the BP Operator on the rig overrules your decision and decides NOT to put in the 3rd plug (Standard Procedure). BP was calling the shots, NOT Trans Ocean !

2. The BOV manufacturer may be off the hook too (or partially) because the 3rd plug was never installed and there were indications there were seal leaks days before but BP said "NO we don't have time to stop and replace them - damn the risk, full speed ahead !!" (2 strikes on BP)

3. Halliburton - again may be off the hook becasue BP didn't let them COMPLETE the job ! It's like if a garage is putting tires on your car and only put on 3 and ready for the 4th BUT you insist you don't need it and you're in a rush and drive away. Then you have a wreck - WHO's fault is it ?

BTW I never said it was ALL their fault, just 75-80%.

DO YOU see the point? (I'm not holding my breath!)
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 11:24 AM

Not really conceding anything. I've felt all along there is a good chance for shared blame even if the majority goes to BP. It's hard to have intelligent discussion with all the dogmatic BP defensive bleating that was going on. Glad we finally got to something more meaningful.

As I've said before, here is to hoping the relief well is successful. That is the most important thing now.

Chris
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 11:32 AM

Quote:
Everyone else has got BP down for the whole lot.


I'd be interested if you can point to even one post here that lays 100% of the blame exclusively on BP ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 11:34 AM

Quote:
It's hard to have intelligent discussion with all the dogmatic BP defensive bleating that was going on.

My perception was the exact opposite - irrational framing and vilification of BP against all the facts. The attacks on Tony Hayward on an isolated quotation in deliberate ignorance of context and everything else he has said has been particularly shameful in my opinion.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 01:08 PM

He can't. Because there is no such post. In this or other related threads. I will continue to point out that he has totally nationalized the issue, and his whining in previous threads about "anti-British sentiments" bears that claim out. Something else that is patently false, because there have been zero anti-British sentiments expressed. And no criticism of Tony Hayward has had a connection to his nationality. I've referred to him as Tony Baloney because he's a bullsh!tter, not an Englishman.

This whole defense is based on an imagined national prejudice. Absurd.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 01:31 PM

It's what they haven't said that the problem. The only person who has said anything in this thread to implicate the other parties is me. Everyone's changing their tune alright at the last minute because they suddenly realised they could be made to look like a complete arse when the hectoring stops and evidence and reason take over in a court of law. But the endless vindictive hounding of Tony Hayward from Obama downwards and the pass that everyone else gets because they happen to be American speaks for itself.

km

Posted by: six_of_one

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 03:17 PM

Quote:
Everyone's changing their tune alright at the last minute


I suggest your recollection of what people have written here is faulty ... I'll make it easier for you: instead of providing a link to a post here where someone lays 100% of the blame exclusively on BP, I'll accept a link to even a single post here where someone gives a complete 100% pass to the subcontractors or even to the government ...

Until then, I'm not convinced you don't have one of these sitting next to your computer ;-)

Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 06:57 PM

The song "If I only had a Brain !! " rings a bell !! laugh
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 08:01 PM

" The only person who has said anything in this thread to implicate the other parties is me."

Oh, yeah. It's all about meeeeeeee.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/09/10 10:06 PM

Quote:
I suggest your recollection of what people have written here is faulty

Nice Try - we're talking about what people haven't written.

Quote:
I'll make it easier for you: instead of providing a link

Oh go on, give us a link... I tell you what I'll make it easy for you - here's the link <--- you're having trouble with.

laugh
km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 01:36 AM

Quote:
Quote:
I suggest your recollection of what people have written here is faulty

Nice Try - we're talking about what people haven't written.

Unless you claim to read minds, the meaning of what people *haven't* written is completely your guesswork; you're currently arguing against not what what people have actually said but with something you've made-up in your own head -- pretty much the definition of a straw-man ...

Quote:
Oh go on, give us a link... I tell you what I'll make it easy for you - here's the link <--- you're having trouble with.

And the circle is complete ;-)

Since you can't actually point to what you're arguing against, I'll just stand over here on the sidelines for now and see how further this really can go with no actual content ;-)

[popcorn]
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 03:11 AM

I don't find any of that very convincing... everyone started trying jump in the shared liability bandwagon at the last minute having only previously attacked BP... or "British Petroleum".

smirk
km
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 04:51 AM

If you have been reading all the BP threads I think you are being disingenuous. Everyone except KM blames BP. Hard to lock down one sentence but when everyone discusses blaming BP and never bringing up Transocean or Haliburton or the entire oil industry as possibly being at fault it seems pretty clear.

What sucks is that the media wants it this way because one villain makes a story. If the entire oil industry is the villain it doesn't sell since then the public might have to blame themselves for being so in love with their oil consuming ways. Telling people they have to cut back and get rid of the SUV is just too unpopular.

This mantra of BP being the villain is also what the entire oil industry wants. They want to get back to drilling off shore. Today. The absolute fastest way of doing that is to do what you are all doing. Take the Samson oil testimony (they want to drill too) and blame BP for a freak accident that could have been avoided.

That's what I mean by being led around by the nose. You are listening to the popular media story, the big oil story, the "BP is at fault and no one else especially not the citizens of the United States who have the highest per capita consumption of oil in the world".

These threads are even worse. Some of this carping seems to be "if I can blame BP and Keymaker for the Gulf Oil spill then I am totally blameless. It's just that British arrogance shown by Tony Howard's gaff that is to blame". It is now only when it finally sinks in how well you have been played that some kind of open mind is being imagined and others might be to blame.
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 04:59 AM

[censored] about what happened in the Gulf.Money is his life.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 07:31 AM

Quote:
Everyone except KM blames BP... the media wants it this way because one villain makes a story

Yeah I see what you mean... so you're saying they've all been taken in by the media - got it, thanks.

km
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 09:16 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Everyone except KM blames BP... the media wants it this way because one villain makes a story

Yeah I see what you mean... so you're saying they've all been taken in by the media - got it, thanks.

km


Which is not to say that BP could be found 100% negligent sometime in the future. I doubt that but as a lawyer would say, the jury is out on the whole thing. What we have right now is pseudo-experts from other oil companies putting all the blame on BP. Way too neat and tidy. There is a reason why that would be a great story. A very convenient story for all involved (except BP.) It smells like all the expert opinion we had abut the tonnage of WMD that Saddam had. I do remember how that one came out.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 11:00 AM

Originally Posted By: polymerase
Take the Samson oil testimony (they want to drill too) and blame BP for a freak accident that could have been avoided.

That's what I mean by being led around by the nose. You are listening to the popular media story, the big oil story, the "BP is at fault and no one else especially not the citizens of the United States who have the highest per capita consumption of oil in the world".


Well keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night, but that's not exactly the story I interpret.

As you say, a freak accident. By running a lab you're in charge of other people's safety, so you should lawfully have the reasoning to understand how accidents happen - and also understand that *you* are ultimately the one responsible if they do.

There is an entire chain of events leading up to this accident. One link in that chain gets broken, the accident doesn't occur.

If we have an outside vendor in our plant come in to do work on presses, bypass a safety switch and he gets crushed in the press is it the outside company's fault? No, it's our fault and we are responsible because it's our legal obligation to oversee his work. We should have taken the time to make sure the press has no power, all safety checks are in place - even if that means it takes an extra day or two and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars extra in downtime. If they come in, do a half ass job and a bearing later breaks in a roller, shoots out and crushes a plant employee, guess what... it's our fault again. It's our equipment, and we have the legal responsibility to check that work and make sure it's up to code before resuming operations.

In fact, we've rejected outside companies equipment before when they've come to install new machinery for us, because we felt the equipment wasn't in good enough order, or wasn't safe enough to operate in our plant. They don't get to start any work until we inspect what they're going to install it with.

In other words - it's our legal responsibility not only to make sure that 3rd party contractor is doing their work properly, but that they are never put into a position where they would have to take shortcuts.

So, if Haliburton did a crappy job with cement, or rushed it - BP should have *SHUT DOWN OPERATIONS*. If Transocean couldn't handle the drilling, or were rushing, BP should have *SHUT DOWN OPERATIONS*. Likewise, Haliburton or Transocean should have never been under pressure from BP to take shortcuts.

Should we let the rest of the oil industry off the hook? No, of course they should be scrutinized and examined as well. Should we let BP off the hook, because Haliburton or Transocean took a shortcut? No, it's their well and they're bound to oversee those sub contractors do that work correctly.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 11:19 AM

Originally Posted By: SgtBaxter

Well keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night, but that's not exactly the story I interpret.


But how do you come by this expert opinion? Oh, right, you read the internet. You are making my point. Everything else you say in the thread is completely true and completely irrelevant.

We are so certain of things because the media and big business tells us so. A freak accident, lets get back and drill deep. How is this any different than the 99.5% certainty of WMD and the point five was ridiculed. Sometimes the half percent are right. Sometimes big oil is looking out for their interests so they very much want it to be a freak accident. Is that too absurd that Samson oil, Haliburton and the rest of big oil is loving this story and getting out there and cheering. I am not saying they wrote the story but they sure do love it. BP is wrong all by itself in fact it was all Tony's fault and one middle manager on the rig. Hang them and then lets get on with business.

I think I will wait until the facts are known before I swallow your expert opinion. Someday you might actually get one right. This one could be your lucky day.
Posted by: garyW

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 11:53 AM

Originally Posted By: polymerase

I think I will wait until the facts are known before I swallow your expert opinion.







The Unknown
"As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know."
—Donald Rumsfeld


Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 12:01 PM

Don't worry, BP will present the facts when it gets to court.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 12:16 PM

Quote:
they are never put into a position where they would have to take shortcuts.

Your shortcuts theory as a test for liability has little merit I'm afraid. People are not required to take all conceivable measures to avoid loss or damage - only reasonable measures.

km
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 12:26 PM

"who are we protecting, what are we hiding here?" The senator's last word on the youtube.

Unbelievable. Don't Republicans ever get embarrassed by how far up their heads are up the asss of big oil?

We don't need no stinking commission to find out what happened at Deep Horizon! MacCentral Forum has already clearly figured out what has happened. Just a series of small mistakes by Tony and a couple people at BP. Let's move on.
Posted by: DLC

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 01:18 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Don't worry, BP will present the facts when it gets to court.

km


Yeah, . . . the same way GW and Cheney presented the facts on Saddam's WMDS !! laugh

OH I'm sure they'll be credible and accurate !! sick


NOT !!!
Posted by: Leslie

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 01:28 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Don't worry, BP will present the facts when it gets to court.

km


I do worry. Not too impressed with the "facts" they have presented so far.
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 01:26 PM

Originally Posted By: polymerase
Originally Posted By: SgtBaxter

Well keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night, but that's not exactly the story I interpret.


But how do you come by this expert opinion? Oh, right, you read the internet. You are making my point. Everything else you say in the thread is completely true and completely irrelevant.

We are so certain of things because the media and big business tells us so. A freak accident, lets get back and drill deep. How is this any different than the 99.5% certainty of WMD and the point five was ridiculed. Sometimes the half percent are right. Sometimes big oil is looking out for their interests so they very much want it to be a freak accident. Is that too absurd that Samson oil, Haliburton and the rest of big oil is loving this story and getting out there and cheering. I am not saying they wrote the story but they sure do love it. BP is wrong all by itself in fact it was all Tony's fault and one middle manager on the rig. Hang them and then lets get on with business.

I think I will wait until the facts are known before I swallow your expert opinion. Someday you might actually get one right. This one could be your lucky day.


It is absurd that big oil would be loving this story. Big oil concerns doing business in the Gulf are in the process of losing millions, maybe billions of dollars due to negligence on this rig and the now de facto moratorium. In fact, the opposite is true. The rest of the oil industry is livid about this incident and the pall it has cast on their industry as a whole. Not to mention how they feel about the loss of 11 lives of guys in their industry. Even if there is no love lost for BP, the crippling effect has now spread to evry company doing business in the Gulf and all the citizens along the Gulf Coast whose business also depends on the oil industry directly or indirectly.

btw, As far as I could find out by researching it myself, Samson has no business interest in the Gulf. Their critical analysis came from the POV of oil guys who try to do things safely. All I could find was onshore iterests, not off shore for Samson. And, their analysis was not an MSM story, again, afaik. I posted it here after finding it on an oil related website. The reason I posted it was because so many oilfield professionals have questioned what happened on the rig and how could so many warnings could be missed. That piece was the most concise synopsis available at the time. Normal, accepted safe practices could have prevented this disaster. It was not a freak occurrence. Many wells kick, most do not blow.

My reason for interest in these threads is not to villify BP or to exonerate any other company. Just to seek the truth of what really happened. I spent over 20 years as a supplier of safety equipment to oilfield companies in our locale and have a bit of knowledge about how they operate and an interest to learn more.

BP has made themselves an easy target by their reputation for cost cutting and previous known safety problems. If they had the corporate culture that Getty Oil had towards safety they would probably be receiving more benefit of the doubt now.

I am still awaiting more facts and testimony as to what happened before a final decision of negligence or blame for this incident can be logically or legally made. This is what I told km in a previous post:
"If there was negligence, will it be shared? If BP wanted TransOcean to do something potentially unsafe and TO went along with it, who is to blame? If BP wanted TO to proceed and TO did not have all the information to know that proceeding was unsafe, then who is to blame? This is a complex case, my opinions are only my opinions and don't mean squat. My opinions, such as they are, are based on the experience of industry people whose judgement I trust, but I will keep an open mind as more details and evidence comes out. Nobody knows how the legal wrangling will turn out for sure and it is likely to be going on for many years."

I'm not sure what is right or wrong with regards to deep water drilling. It probably depends on the POV of whomever you would speak with about it. As we have discussed before, the human error factor seems to rear its ugly head everywhere...

Chris
Posted by: lanovami

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 02:48 PM

"The only person who has said anything in this thread to implicate the other parties is me. Everyone's changing their tune alright at the last minute because they suddenly realised they could be made to look like a complete arse when the hectoring stops and evidence and reason take over in a court of law. But the endless vindictive hounding of Tony Hayward from Obama downwards and the pass that everyone else gets because they happen to be American speaks for itself."

Obama has a sock here? Where does he find the time? I thought they took away his blackberry... crazy
Posted by: Leslie

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 02:57 PM

Tony Hayward's theme song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCSNGQpZXBI
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 04:43 PM

Originally Posted By: ChrisN
[
It is absurd that big oil would be loving this story. Big oil concerns doing business in the Gulf are in the process of losing millions, maybe billions of dollars due to negligence on this rig and the now de facto moratorium. In fact, the opposite is true.


You misrepresent what I think big oil is all jiggy about. Sure big oil would like no huge catastrophes as the Deep Water Horizon but once the inevitable happens there is containment. On the sea and in the news.

The story is: BP is at fault possibly a couple of middle managers freaked that their decisions could cost their boss a bonus, end of story.

You are correct that big oil would love this story. But stuff happens. Then they love the deflection that is occurring.

It is all BP's fault. End of story. Let's move on and drill deeper shall we? That is your story. I think it has as much credibility as Saddam's WMD so I am going to wait a tad.
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 09:32 PM

Originally Posted By: polymerase
Originally Posted By: ChrisN
[
It is absurd that big oil would be loving this story. Big oil concerns doing business in the Gulf are in the process of losing millions, maybe billions of dollars due to negligence on this rig and the now de facto moratorium. In fact, the opposite is true.


You misrepresent what I think big oil is all jiggy about. Sure big oil would like no huge catastrophes as the Deep Water Horizon but once the inevitable happens there is containment. On the sea and in the news.

The story is: BP is at fault possibly a couple of middle managers freaked that their decisions could cost their boss a bonus, end of story.

You are correct that big oil would love this story. But stuff happens. Then they love the deflection that is occurring.

It is all BP's fault. End of story. Let's move on and drill deeper shall we? That is your story. I think it has as much credibility as Saddam's WMD so I am going to wait a tad.


Ok, I get what you're saying now.

But, I don't think what I'm saying is that we should get right back to deep water drilling. One of the biggest problems is that the pseudo-scientific cookie cutter cleanup plans sold to MMS to keep everybody happy that all parties signed off on have now been proven totally inadequate. Also, BOPs do not always properly prevent blow outs. What I have maintained all along was that if things had been done safely and properly on the rig we would not have this mess. BOPs are needed when everything else fails. Cleanup plans are only needed when everything fails. We all know the human factor will strike again. It is amazing that this has not happened more often.

So, the industry has some issues to address before resuming, imho. This quote from an experienced oil industry expert says it so much better than I can I will not try to paraphrase, rather will quote directly from a website I frequent:
---
"That's why I have to point a dirty finger at my own industry. BP et al have said they had considered the "worse case scenario". First, a simple fact: BOP fail about half the time. Period...that's the record. Second, wells blow out. Not that often but it does happen. Third, anyone ever develop a plan to deal with a failed BOP in 5,000' of water? No one has jumped up yet saying they did. So what's the obvious WCS: a failed BOP on a blow out in 5,000' of water. Didn't take much effort to figure that out, did it? Obviously every DW operator know what the WCS is now. So how many can stand in front of camera today and say they are ready to deal with the WCS? They may do everything human possible to reduce the risk of a blow out. But if it does happen at such a water depth they will be just as screwed as BP. Can’t argue differently."
---

Can't really be much more clear and honest than that. Even some folks who make their living from the oil industry who are honest enough to look at this issue realistically have doubts about resuming deep water drilling without major changes to regs, equipment and worst case scenarios. Honest big oil execs should sit up and take notice.

Cameron is probably redesigning their BOPs as we speak. Big oil is probably redrawing their designs and looking at all aspects and safety and cleanup. Our govt response will be endlessly evaluated, as it should be. The responsible parties acted as if this would never happen, but it did and likely will again.

Should we deep water drill again? Like I said before, it probably depends on who you ask as to what answer you get. To be honest, I'm not sure what my answer is. Maybe, if there are better contingency plans based on more realistic worst case scenarios and there is better safety equipment. Maybe.

People still have their thirst for oil, companies for their profits. We know the oil is there. Meanwhile nuclear power usage is declining. This disaster is a symptom of a larger problem.

Chris
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/10/10 10:23 PM

Quote:
Not too impressed with the "facts" they have presented so far.

Which ones?

km
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 50% off - 07/11/10 08:39 AM

Originally Posted By: ChrisN
One of the biggest problems is that the pseudo-scientific cookie cutter cleanup plans sold to MMS to keep everybody happy that all parties signed off on have now been proven totally inadequate


Exactly. The heat should be on MMS and the deregulation that occurred. Republicans do not want to do that because it would show their small government deregulation philosophy is what is at fault here. MMS, Republicans who are blocking subpoena powers in the investigation, and tea baggers who just want to dispose of all government regulations should be under fire.

Focusing on BP and the simple freak accident theory is playing their game. As you said BOPs fail 50% of the time. No one knew what to do if one failed one mile below the ocean. So there might be a reason for having a regulation in there that says you can't do it. If regulations allow it big oil and BP is going to do it. That is not BP's fault. It is the lack of regulation by incompetent Bush cronies in MMS. At least that is where I would start to look for changes that would keep this catastrophe from happening again. Calling Tony evil does nothing. It is a distraction that will have devastating consequences if we are so distracted we don't fix the problem.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: 50% off - 07/11/10 08:55 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
People are not required to take all conceivable measures to avoid loss or damage - only reasonable measures.


Shutting down drilling operations because one of your subcontractors raises a flag is a reasonable measure that was not taken.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: 50% off - 07/11/10 09:09 AM

Originally Posted By: polymerase
[quote=SgtBaxter]
But how do you come by this expert opinion?


What expert opinion, that I don't agree with the interpretation you present? Your post makes no sense.

I am not disagreeing with you about deflection. I'm not suggesting hang BP and everyone else go about your business. I'm saying hang BP because they are the evil villain here, since it's their well, their lack of planning, their lack of oversight of their own subcontractors. Force them out of business, and make it excruciatingly clear the same will happen to anyone else.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/11/10 10:09 AM

Quote:
Force them out of business...

No that's wishful thinking in my opinion - too big.

Quote:
make it excruciatingly clear the same will happen to anyone else.

Oh yeah, by letting them off the hook - that makes sense.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: 50% off - 07/11/10 10:15 AM

Quote:
Shutting down drilling operations because one of your subcontractors raises a flag is a reasonable measure that was not taken.

That's rather presumptuous don't you think? Considering that's a question to be determined by the court upon consideration of all the evidence? Obviously the court will be deciding what was reasonable with regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time not with the benefit of hindsight and just one side of the argument - like you seem to be doing.

km
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 50% off - 07/11/10 02:11 PM

What expert opinion? Your expert opinion that BP should be run out of business because they are at fault. You act as if you know what happened on the rig and why it failed. That would be jumping to a conclusion, one that big oil wants you to jump to.

You think putting BP out of business would solve anything? BP employs more than 80,000 people worldwide. Putting them out of business is going to solve what exactly? How to keep us in a recession. That would be solved.

You're jumping to conclusions and coming up with ridiculous solutions to a problem you don't know anything about. That expert opinion.