yeah bankruptcy out of business is really what a careless company like
BP deserves with its historical record of lax safety leading to
disasters. like the texas oil refinery explosion and the alaska
seeing the shareholders losing everything and the copmpany ceasing to
exist will hopefully some managers in prison.
it will be a stern message to other big companies who cost cutting
profit first can lead to national and possibly world
shareholders will suddenly ask hows safety and accept a smaller return
for safe operations.......
selling off the BP assets should pay all claims. Preferably breaking
up the assets to help competition
Translate the BP disaster, the result of say as few as 20 managers behaving
*very* badly to the WTC disaster with a similar number of men behaving
*VERY, VERY* badly. It's why the Chinese say "when you set out on a journey
of revenge, first dig two graves."*
WTC was not Pearl Harbor no matter what spin meisters tried to make it into.
It was caused by us getting far too careless with very dangerous technology
(jetliner "missiles") and allowing something very bad to happen. It was
instantly forgotten that these a&&wipe terrorists had no weapons of their
own. They used our own powerful technology and their own lives against us.
The "war" should have been on our own carelessness that allowed them such
easy access to tremendous power. El Al Airlines locked cabin doors over 20
years ago. The Israelis are more desperate, so they're smarter and
obviously far more vigilant. They would NOT have suffered a 9/11 attack
because they took the simplest of precautions. They locked the doors.
That's the truth no one wants to face up to.
Disaster in so many areas is simply the result of the holes in the Swiss
cheese lining up. Normally, a series of "filters" catches bad actors, be
they slime ball terrorists, meteorological forces, bad designs or just plain
bad luck. At BP, it was the safety precautions. At WTC, it was the safety
Take your house: If the grounds not treated, if the CATV feed holes aren't
caulked, if there's untreated wood in contact with the grounds, you could
lose your house to termites. Termites and terrorists have the same goal,
ironically - to sneak in unnoticed and do you harm. What are the choices?
Nuke every terrorist/termite on earth? Not really possible. There are
trillions of termites and God knows how many terrorists. They are both bugs
to be guarded against, not warred upon. Think of all the safety plans,
devices and related jobs one trillion dollars could have bought us.
Trader, It's obvious you have the intelligence to figure out what's best for
the country, the world AND BP's shareholders even though it's clearly not
the popular thing to do. If only Bush had had your perspicacity. You had
me worried for a while, but there's hope for you yet. (-:
*On occasion, I have been asked what that means. One for your enemy, one
for yourself for when you get killed seeking revenge.
One side of it was. Now, Grandma gets strip searched if she is the
wrong random number. Tom Clancy often notes that about the only thing
the terrorists accomplished is to inconvenience airline passengers.
The other side of this is that Americans won't let their honchoes
get away without doing "something". Whether or not there is anything
they can actually do is pretty much decide the point. You are seeing
this in the Gulf with Obama. He isn't able to take this really huge cork
down to the site to stop the oil, but he is still being criticized for
standing by, not making things worse by "doing something", and letting
those who might know what is going on do their thing.
Somebody once said in this context that most disasters that get out
of hand are due to a failure of imagination. Nobody imagined that there
would ever be a hijacking that would be for any reason other than
transportation to somewhere (There were locks on the cabin doors, but
the policies in place at the time were--probably correctly with the
experience up to that time--to cooperate with the hijackers to keep
everyone safe. That policy actually helped the hijackers.). Nobody
imagined what would happen if there was no place to move the people in
the Superdome after the initial storm passed. Nobody imagined that ALL
of the safeguards would be ignored or defeated on the oil well.
But that isn't "doing something" so the American Public would not
have stood for it.
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
there was a earler highjacking where the terrorists were stopped
before flying a airliner into the eifel tower.
theres a entire episode of air emergency about this near flying bomb.
authorities just ignored it:(
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 18:12:03 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
"The British government had lost money operating Concorde every year,
and moves were afoot to cancel the service entirely."
Personally, I think they hate things with sharp points. Kinda like
knives and sticks.
There are 33 rigs facing immediate shutdowns. This involves about 45,000
laborers directly (about 1,400 per rig). Then there are those jobs directly
related to the rigs in supplying food, supplies, and transportation. Each of
these jobs has a domino effect and best estimates are that in excess of
100,000 people will be affected.
Heck, even one strip club has applied for compensation due to a severe
drop-off in business.
No, this whole enchilada will go down as Obama's Bay of Rigs.
Agreed. When it's obvious that all the plans for disaster are horribly
flawed, it's pretty standard to stop everything and do a complete process
inspection since it's clear it's never been done correctly before.
But unlike those other two, it is already fairly well established
that the process flaws were largely in the areas where BP actually
deviated from industry norms, if not regulations. Don't see a real need
to close down the industry, since all that needs to be done is not cut
corners. Doubtful that will happen, at least for a couple years, until
the memory of what happened to BP fades.
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
<If you follow the news, polls show those in the affected area are in
favor of continuing offshore drilling. In fact, the Gov of Louisiana
has taken on Obama over the issue.>
Polls. I can poll 1000 crackheads and they'll say "crack is good for you."
S.O. F$cking what?
The Gulf is a resource shared by not just the nation, but the world. I
couldn't care less what a bucnh of Alabamans that actually own telephones
have to say about something happening outside their jurisdictional limit.
That's FEDERAL oil that belongs to everyone leaking into an ecosystem
important to far more than just Alabama.
<That's comparing apples to oranges.>
Ironically, in one of the most perfect proofs of Flanigan's law, you're the
one comparing wildly different things.
<We have a few shuttles. We have 30,000 or so offshore oil wells that have
been drilled without
We only have one Gulf of Mexico is the proper analogy, and we know now that
the device that we've been relying on to avoid massive spills, the blow-out
preventer, may be wholly inadequate to do the job. How much oil can leak
into the Gulf before it spreads up the coast? We don't want to find out by
experience by having another well fail dramatically, hence the need to shut
down and inspect, if only to see which rigs CAN shut down.
< In the case of delaying the shuttle re-launch, there was little downside.
You weren't putting tens of thousands of people out of work and potentially
making things LESS safe.>
Easy. Mandate the companies pay their salaries anyway if the rigs fail to
pass inspection, proving that the shutdown was the right thing to do.
Obama's got the will of an angry, angry populace he can direct against the
oil companies. Joe Barton confirmed that for us. (0: He's already
allegedly extorted $20B from BP. I am sure he can squeeze some millions
more out of the other rig operators.
< That's right, less safe. The industry experts that Obama consulted before
decree told him that they thought it was a mistake to do the ban.>
Ah, yes, the same experts that approved the disaster plans that were so
laughable they included plans for the Gulf's walruses. In the case where a
disaster of epic proportions is occurring and where it's clear the disaster
plans approved by Federal and industry experts were bogus, there's almost no
choice but to shut down and inspect.
<With the shuttle, I don't recall any experts recommended immediate
When I worked for one of the nation's largest product liability law firms,
we had rolodexes full of the names of highly credentialed, well-spoken
experts who, for a fee, could make a presentation so persuasive that you
would believe down was up and in was out. That's my way of saying experts
should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when their advice flies in
the face of experience and common sense.
<Only IF a specific safety issue appears to be the involved. And
then, that specific aircraft type is usually only grounded long enough
for inspection. Cases in point, there have now been several fatal
crashes in the last year or two with total loss involving A330s. Yet
no safety agency has grounded them. I'd like to see a case where a
fleet of planes was grounded for 6 months after a crash.>
I'd like to see a plane crash that can create perhaps $50 billion in damages
and destroy and entire region's eco-system. You're up to your neck in
apples, oranges and oil rigs. Your analogies are plagued with scaling
errors. This is pretty straightforward risk evaluation. How much damage
could another blowout cause?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.