Posted on 06/09/2010 2:46:44 PM PDT by dennisw
Edited on 06/09/2010 2:58:27 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Every other company manages to do it right, only BP has problems.
“Emotion trumps facts?”
What emotion? Every other oil company manages to deal with the insane requirements. If BP couldn’t do it safely with those requirements then they shouldn’t have started drilling.
BP is a huge BO support, can’t understand why you would support them. I understand why muawiyah does because he always supports BOs agenda.
I'm looking at the reality of a situation that killed 11 people and is now wiping out the pensions of tens of millions of people.
You're not. Obamas not.
Obviously BP has engineers and equipment assembly people who can set up some fantastic stuff quick as a wink and they have the robots to take it down and stick it in place.
Presumably there's a technology base for this stuff that's fairly widely shared.
However, we are talking about one very little item in a very long process ~ and that's the use of "brown mud" at the final stage where a new well is finally set up to produce ~ that is, send oil to storage facilities.
Obama necessarily is against letting any of that brown mud get tainted by oil lest some dainty wildflower somewhere get smudged. This is because he backs his environmental extremists at EPA who set BPA up to have this happen.
I think the amount of contamination brown mud might cause is so miniscule, sacrificing safety and lives of the workers to avoid it is MIND NUMBINGLY INSANE. There are people at EPA and the White House and at OSHA this very day who should be tried for murder in this case.
So, driftdriver, does that sound like I'm supporting Obama, or that YOU ARE SUPPORTING OBAMA?
If BP had only drilled one well ever then you would have a point. But they drill dozens every year without incident, like the other companies, so the logic you’re trying to apply to other companies applies to them too. But when you eschew proving your case because you “think” you’re right that is emotion over facts.
That is a really lame debating tactic. I never said I supported BP. Straw-man. The argument that BP gives "huge" support to BO is false anyway. What they gave him was nothing to BP and peanuts to BO. BP gave to many other politicians too.
That sounds absurd. I have read literally hundreds of muawiyah's posts and have never seen anything supportive of BO or any liberal position. I don't suppose you could source that accusation with one example either!?!
Hopefully there will be many ear and eye witnesses to those conversations at the inquest.
You only imagine that everybody else is always successful with the EPA/OSHA standards of performance.
They did this with malice aforethought because they want to shut down big oil.
BTW, there's a far higher probability of the North Korean navy having sent out a miniature submarine from a cargo ship beyond our 200 mile zone, and then used that platform to launch an attack on the well-head itself ~THAN~ there is of BP intending to blow up their own rig.
To have anti oil fanatics in EPA and OSHA come up with a scheme that makes a well blow up is exceeding more likely than either of those two eventualities.
It's an absurd notion.
There are plenty of examples and he’s never refuted the charge.
This discussion was between him and I. So go pick an argument with someone else.
” you have to prove that BP blew up the rig. “
Who controlled the rig? Ahh it was BP.
“They did this with malice aforethought because they want to shut down big oil”
Prove it
“THAN~ there is of BP intending to blow up their own rig.”
I never said they did it intentionally; they did it through poor management and work practices.
I just wonder who’s bright idea it was to sink the rig? It would not be leaking like it is if the rig had not been sunk. I mean think about it, you don’t put a fire out on a boat by sinking it it is the same with a rig. Whoever responded to the fire scr*ed the pooch royally!
“work practices” dictated by EPA and OSHA ~ which takes us right back to the party responsible for the catastrophe.
“So, driftdriver, does that sound like I’m supporting Obama, or that YOU ARE SUPPORTING OBAMA? “
You are protecting BP. BP is a huge BO supporter.
““work practices” dictated by EPA and OSHA ~ which takes us right back to the party responsible for the catastrophe.”
Again, the other companies manage to do it without dumping 100,000 barrels of oil a day into the gulf.
You addressed the remarks about muawiyah to me. Are you conceding now that you have nothing substantive or logical to say about BP or muawiyah?
I was trying to be polite to you. Its obvious you just want to start an argument. Bye
muawiyah knows addresses and the post office policies, he doesn’t know BP or oil.
Point to conspiracy theories on the internet doesn’t do a thing to build his credibility.
I'll take that as a reference to your unsubstantiated allegations against BP. I pointed out your logical inconsistencies and you got nasty. No argument necessary in response to that nonsense.
I just wonder who’s bright idea it was to sink the rig? It would not be leaking like it is if the rig had not been sunk. I mean think about it, you don’t put a fire out on a boat by sinking it it is the same with a rig. Whoever responded to the fire scr*ed the pooch royally!>>>>>>>>>>
Was the rig intentionally sunk? I thought it sunk by itself after the fire burned for a day or two
The folks over at the much maligned BATF go through exercises just like I went through ~ they look for someone with an motive ~ evil or not. They see if the evidence on hand combined with that motive leads to other evidence, and then they issue findings for use in legal proceedings.
So far I haven't heard of BATF getting involved in this one, but is the FBI involved? If neither agency can be trusted, how about Postal Inspectors or the Postal Inspector General? They have their own specialists in fire and structural integrity questions and could investigate this.
This is a fire, an explosion, deaths, loss of property,....... and a dozen other major elements of concern.
I'm happy to lead any investigator to what I found ~ real law suits, newspaper and internet articles dated long before this event but focused on one of the major aspects of the case.
Frankly, I think it's a cut and dried case and there are EPA people who can point to the person or persons who came up with the idea of tightening the brown mud rules to the point where a blow out would happen!
Little waterboarding of Mr.Hamel might well advance the case far beyond our wildest dreams eh!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.