O/T: "Drill Baby Drill"

Page 3 of 15  
Larry Jaques wrote:

I Can, if you can say "return on investment", Larry?

I made it up all by myself, so thanks.
--
Jack
Got Change: Democratic Republic ======> Banana Republic!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote the following:

I'm lazy and use ROI instead.

Jewelcome.
-- All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. --Thomas Paine
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
september.org:

They have to be pressed to consider the disasters and how to prevent them, otherwise they will always be late. Quod erat demonstrandum.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Nope! This only demonstrates that shit happens. The fact that despite massive government regulations shit still happens. QED.
The real incentive to consider the disaster and how to prevent it is the massive amounts of money lost when disaster strikes. Despite the great incentive, shit happens, sometimes by accident, sometimes on purpose, sometimes due to incompetence. My guess is the most competent people on earth to consider this event and how to prevent it did exactly that. Eventually, we might find out what actually happened.
Right now, while Obama has his [Jack] boot on BP's neck, I'm wondering why he didn't implement the contingency plans in place to minimize the impact of this particular disaster?
--
Jack
Got Change: Democratic Republic ======> Banana Republic!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

l-
You should consider a course in Logic, Jack -- TAKING one; not TEACHING one.
The salient question, of course, is: would these problems be MORE or LESS common if regulation were reduced ?
QED, yourself ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/4/2010 9:50 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:

Regulation is by its nature reactive. Once something has gone bust it's easy to pass a regulation about it. And the regulators never say "we screwed up, maybe we need to rethink this".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Neil Brooks wrote:

In a perfect world, there would be very little regulation but massive and swift intervention when something goes wrong.
That is, governments should exist to enforce freely-entered contracts, not write them or establish clauses. And enforce the contracts with an iron hand. In the instant case there is an implied contract that the drillers of oil will not cause harm to anyone due to the company's negligence.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/04/2010 03:09 PM, HeyBub wrote:

An interesting concept. I take it you think the free market would provide competition enough to ensure that the contract terms are reasonable?
What if there isn't any competition in your area for whatever service you desire? The single provider can set whatever terms they desire? This might work for businesses with low barrier of entry, but for things that require a large capital investment it doesn't work so well.
Taking the example of the 'net...what if nobody wants to offer you high speed internet service because you live in a new subdivision and there aren't enough people there to make it immediately profitable? Or what if the phone and cable companies collude to offer similar jacked-up rates for reduced service?
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/4/2010 4:25 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:

You'd either have to live with it or move OR (if you thought a market existed) offer a better service. The underlying principle is the same: Never use government force unless it is necessary to protect freedom.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris Friesen wrote:

Yep. People are always ragging on what MIGHT happen with single-source providers. They fail to consider what actually DOES happen.
A better example than your hypothetical: Consider Standard Oil, the poster/whipping boy for monopoly control. In three years, Standard Oil reduced the price of Kerosene from $3.00/gallon to less than five cents. Of course this put the whale oil people out of business, but it allowed the night to come alive for millions.
Fact is, in almost every non-government controlled monopoly, monopolies have been GOOD for the consumer.
The biggest mistake that anti-monopoly people make is assuming monopolies have not competitors. They do: themselves. If Microsoft didn't come out with "improved" products each year, they'd eventually saturate the market and their revenue stream would stop. By finding ways to make Kerosene more cheaply, Standard Oil got more customers.

You make my point. Most internet service is a government-regulated utility (cable, telephone, etc.). There are even provisions snunk into the pending Wall Street regulation bill to add FTC oversight provisions to the internet. The government's GOT to get it's hand in. http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1054304/pg1
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/05/2010 10:25 AM, HeyBub wrote:

There's a reason for that. Telecomms has a high price of entry, so the tendency is for minimal competition. Once someone gets a foothold in a market they can strangle newcomers. They can then jack up rates to whatever they want because there is no other option.
It's not like corporations are all sunshine and roses. BellSouth took Laurinburg to court for starting a municipal ISP, Time Warner and Embarq sued Wilson for offering better/cheaper service than they did, TDS sued Monticello, etc.
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/5/2010 11:38 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:

Be that as it may, the cost for bandwidth has been pretty steadily declining over the past couple of decades. It is possible today to buy basic DSL service for about the same monthly price as 56K dialup cost in the mid-1990s ... and the DSL is considerably faster. Similarly, cell phone costs keep plunging, at least in the big metro areas.
If/when we can get the regulators out of the way and see real penetration of WiMax or other metro-scale wireless schemes (wherein the "last mile" costs do not exist), I think we'll see a real collapse in pricing and/or better service offerings from more vendors.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Neil Brooks wrote:

The last time I took a course in logic, the TEACHER started the course proving logically that the moon is made of green cheese...

Considering logically the amount of investment at risk if things go awry, the salient answer the that salient question is: No more, No less.
--
Jack
God save us from concerned citizens and the politicians who listen to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually in this case the people doing the drilling are the most likely to create a disaster, they have a terrible track record.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, I think their track record is pretty amazing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, I think their track record is pretty amazing.
Amazingly bad? BP has always had a bad reputation in Houston as being riddled with fines for safety violations and that was before their refineries started blowing up in the Houston area.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote the following:

OMG, I just realized why BP has so many problems. They're Brits so they're using Lucas: Prince of Darkness 'lecterkal items.
-- All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. --Thomas Paine
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Considering the quantities of quite flammable products sold (at amazingly low prices), no, it's amazing there aren't more problems.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Considering the quantities of quite flammable products sold (at amazingly low prices), no, it's amazing there aren't more problems.
What I am trying to point out is that in the Houston area there are probably 50 plus refiners, BP is the only one that I recall having a repeat problem with blowing things up and having safety violations.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Limited thinking.
The RMS Britannic, sister ship to the Titanic, struck a mine on 21 December 1916 and sank. There was NOTHING the Britannic's naval architects could have done to prevent the perfidy of a hostile belligerent.
The BP platform fire and resulting oil spill could have been way beyond the rig designer's portfolio.
For example, if a surfacing U.S. submarine could hit a Japanese yacht in the middle of the Pacific (sinking the boat and killing all aboard), a submarine - either U.S., another nation's, or a drug smuggler's - could have collided with an oil platform in the considerably more crowded Gulf of Mexico.
Bizarre? Sure. Improbable? To the extreme. But until we get more facts, it's premature to conclude design oversight, mechanical failure, or human incompetence.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    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.