O/T: "Drill Baby Drill"

Page 9 of 15  


Strange, it's been hanging around $2.60 - $2.70 for a month or so here (up a couple of cents, then back down).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Stock up -- gas has gone up 10-15 cents/gal here in the last week.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

Gasoline rose 6 cents a litre here a few days ago.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Jaques wrote:

Please Larry, BP is self-insured, meaning, no, they are NOT insured.
While the ruination of an oil

Right, they lose billions in loss of a platform, law suits and PR and this is good for their business because they will have to raise prices to cover the loss. What are you smoking?
--
Jack
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jack Stein wrote:

Huh? "Self insured" IS insured. You can't lie about the sufficiency of your ability to cover potential liabilities to contractors, employees, or, more importantly, the government who grants the lease.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/06/2010 02:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Think about that for a second. The whole point of insurance is to pay someone else to assume the risk on the behalf of the insured entity. Generally it's done because the entity buying the insurance cannot or doesn't want to incur all the risk themselves.
If BP is "self-insured" it means that they're not actually insured, but rather that they've chosen to assume the risk themselves.
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 06 May 2010 15:00:44 -0600, Chris Friesen

YOU think about it for a second. If they're self insured then they've had to prove to the powers that be that they have the secure funds on hand to pay for whatever amount they're insured for. This secure fund is an insurance entity completely set aside from other day to day operations. In other words, if they went bankrupt immediately for some reason, the money would still be available to pay off their insurance debt.
If all a company had to do to declare self insurance was to put up their company, then everybody would be going into business for themselves, take in millions or billions of investor money and then declare bankruptcy at the first sign of a loss. Self assurance doesn't work that way.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/06/2010 03:19 PM, Upscale wrote:

I still think there's a distinction there since the corporation is directly assuming the risk. This makes any claims a direct loss to the company rather than just a possible increase in insurance rates.
As for having secure funds set aside, it may be different in this particular case but it's easy to find examples of cases where self-insured employers have gone bankrupt and there was no money to pay the claims.
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris Friesen wrote:

"Self-insured" and "Assumed risk" are the same thing. How much is this Gulf business gonna cost BP? A billion dollars? Ten billion? A hundred billion?
BP total assests, 31 Dec 2009: $235,968,000,000.00.*
They can afford the liability, whatever it is.
You may be interested to know that over half the employer-provided health insurance in Maine is "self-insured." That is, the employer pays the claim.
-----------
* http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/FinancialIndustrial.jsp?tkr=bp&period=qtr
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How's Halliburton fixed? The fingers are being pointed -- they finshed cementing the shaft about 20 hours before things went south. This wasn't the first time one of their cementing jobs failed catstrophically.
BTW, the latest conspiracy theories claim a North Korean suicide sub caused the destruction, hoping to force America into detonating a tactical nulear device to fuse the leaks, thereby compromising the US position in upcoming non-proliforation talks. (We haven't heard this on the news because, of course, the government has ordered a blackout on the conspiracy.* And the US has gone to "Cocked Pistol Alert Status". ) Rush is merely blaming "enviromental whackos." Mark Levin says Obama dispatched swat teams as a "presursor" to nationalizing the oil industry!
*Hey -- I don't write 'em, I just report 'em. http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1367.htm http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1368.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/6/2010 3:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Really? Do you seriously believe the government does anything remotely like regular due diligence to ensure that the insurance escrow (or whatever they use) remains consistent with the risk as the project is ongoing? Note that this was also the belief when AIG was insuring CDOs via CDSs and we saw how well that worked out. Trusting the government to be a responsible overseer is a demonstrably bad bet.
I remain firmly in the camp that regulation should be minimized because it actually doesn't work very well, BUT that tort remedies in these sorts of cases should be almost limitless and painful. I know it is a conservative mantra that we need 'tort reform' and some common sense boundaries probably do make sense. But the reality here is that the only thing that will cause needed behavioral change is a sharp financial feedback mechanism. i.e., BP should have to pay for the mess they created. Letting them hide behind limits on their self-insurance (which I'm told do exist) is ridiculous. All that's going to happen is that they'll continue to enjoy the upside of their investments (which I heartily approve of) but lay off the downside to the public (which is profoundly dishonest). BP peed in the pond, they should go clean it up and make things right with the people affected.
I don't think BP did this intentionally or even negligently. It sure looks like an accident. But that doesn't vitiate their culpability. They are a $240B -ish revenue company. Think of how their behavior might change if cleaning this mess up cost them $5-$10B. They'd probably reconsider their safety and engineering practices, not to mention their drilling strategy.
(Bear in mind that I am way, way, way, a pro-business, free market guy, I just hate stealing in all its forms.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 06 May 2010 16:14:44 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

Except as evidenced by your exact words below, that you've admitted when the opportunity for you to steal comes along, you'll do it happily singing all the way to the bank.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/6/2010 4:26 PM, Upscale wrote:

Uh oh, Uppy's awake, however briefly. (And we've already established just who very heartily supports, endorses, and approves of theft on a vast scale, haven't we... [and it ain't me]).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

If it's legal, it's not theft; just good business.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/6/2010 8:45 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Hmm. I read most of your posts and largely find myself in agreement. This is somewhat of a turnabout on your part. There are any number of things that are legal that are still, prima facia, theft. It is legal for the state to use eminent domain to take private property and give it to another private party. Legal? Yes. Theft? Absolutely.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
On Thu, 06 May 2010 21:19:58 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
It's disgusting how you're limited intellect focuses on something as critical as healthcare to label as theft when daily, there's thousands of examples of legal monetary but unsavory practices going on that you're prepared to turn a blind eye to.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/7/2010 12:55 AM, Upscale wrote:

One day, the villagers all show up on my doorstep armed with pistols, rifles, and shotguns. They demand that I put $1000 into their "Village Healthcare Fund". They tell me if I don't they will shoot me but that if I do, later on, I'll be allowed to take up to $100 of it back for my own healthcare needs. I give in because I don't want to get shot.
You're the guy handing them bullets.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

At least HeyBub is being honest and not hypocritical.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/7/2010 7:17 AM, Robatoy wrote:

I never thought he was being hypocritical, not did I intimate this.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
On Fri, 07 May 2010 10:02:30 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

As a whining greedy little baby, your whole existence is based on being hypocritical.
You hate universal healthcare, but you'll take advantage of it when it comes your way.
You criticize whatever political party is under discussion, but you fail in your duty to vote or support anyone.
You are the epitome of hypocrisy. You contribute nothing to this newsgroup except to inflame rhetoric and argument. Quite the disgusting little asshole aren't you?
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.