• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BP Engineer Called Doomed Rig a 'Nightmare Well'

Re: Documents Show Risky Decisions Before BP Blowout

Obama's slick?

Uh-huh.

Tell me, Mr. "Very Conservative", why would the profits from that rig have belonged to BP, but somehow the losses belong to the government?

Because, Miss/Mrs./Ms. "Slightly Liberal", it's the government's job to look out for the, "general welfare", of the American people.
 
Re: Documents Show Risky Decisions Before BP Blowout

Because, Miss/Mrs./Ms. "Slightly Liberal", it's the government's job to look out for the, "general welfare", of the American people.

I thought the General Welfare clause was meaningless bunk used by liberals to justify unconstitutional welfare programs? Or is that not a problem when you want them to dish out corporate welfare?

BP caused the mess, it's BP's problem. The risk was taken in the name of private profit, and that's fine. But then the losses are also private responsibility. You can't have it both ways.
 
Re: Documents Show Risky Decisions Before BP Blowout

I thought the General Welfare clause was meaningless bunk used by liberals to justify unconstitutional welfare programs? Or is that not a problem when you want them to dish out corporate welfare?

Actually, it doesn't add up to the misinterpretation that Liberals lend to it. Ripping off the working class to make sure the welfare class has health insurance doesn't fall under, "general welfare". Deploying the might of the American government and all the expertise that comes with it, to prevent hundreds of thousands of jobs from being destroyed, does fall under, "general welfare".

BP caused the mess, it's BP's problem. The risk was taken in the name of private profit, and that's fine. But then the losses are also private responsibility. You can't have it both ways.

So, since this was in the name of private profit, the government should sit back and allow Americans to ****ed over however? IOW, if there's a poltical profit in it for the Leftists, then that's what the government should do. New Orleans was built in the name of private profit. Did you possess that attitude when Katrina made landfall? Or, was there too much political capital in saying that the government should have been johnny-on-the-spot 15 minutes after the storm made landfall?

The oil patch is too big to fail.
 
Re: Documents Show Risky Decisions Before BP Blowout

Actually, it doesn't add up to the misinterpretation that Liberals lend to it. Ripping off the working class to make sure the welfare class has health insurance doesn't fall under, "general welfare". Deploying the might of the American government and all the expertise that comes with it, to prevent hundreds of thousands of jobs from being destroyed, does fall under, "general welfare".

So in other words, it's in the general welfare to lay the responsibility for corporate failure at government's doorstep.

Interesting second sentence though. What expertise in oil drilling and cleanup does the government have that a global oil company does not? Either government is more of an expert in BP's own field than BP is, or it is incompetent. Again, you can't have it both ways.

So, since this was in the name of private profit, the government should sit back and allow Americans to ****ed over however? IOW, if there's a poltical profit in it for the Leftists, then that's what the government should do. New Orleans was built in the name of private profit. Did you possess that attitude when Katrina made landfall? Or, was there too much political capital in saying that the government should have been johnny-on-the-spot 15 minutes after the storm made landfall?

The oil patch is too big to fail.

Which private entity produced Katrina for profit and therefore owns responsibility for the losses associated with it?
 
Re: Documents Show Risky Decisions Before BP Blowout

So in other words, it's in the general welfare to lay the responsibility for corporate failure at government's doorstep.

One question: Did you support any of the bailouts?

Interesting second sentence though. What expertise in oil drilling and cleanup does the government have that a global oil company does not? Either government is more of an expert in BP's own field than BP is, or it is incompetent. Again, you can't have it both ways.

I'm not saying that the government must have expertise in containing an oil slick. No doubt the government has zero expertise in killing a blown out well. However, I believe it's the duty of the government to identify a problem and recognize solutions to that problem. In the case of this oil slick, the only thing the government did was identify the problem. When it came to recognizing solutions, they failed miserably.



Which private entity produced Katrina for profit and therefore owns responsibility for the losses associated with it?

The people who chose to build New Orleans in it's current location. Last time I checked, no one was forced to live in New Orleans. Which, by that logic, the government is just a responsible to look out for the general welfare of American citizens, because of an approaching oil slick, as they are the damage caused by building a city smack-dab-in-the-middle of hurricane ally.
 
Re: Documents Show Risky Decisions Before BP Blowout

I'm only responding to your posts, sir. Not complaining about the lack of intelligent content of your posts.

Yes, you are responding to me by going off topic and ranting about things that have nothing to do with this thread by ranting about the government's response to the spill, not what may have been contributing factors to the spill itself.

I will decline further response unless you can actually address what I wrote and not evade it and find a way to attack the government in an unrelated manner.
 
Last edited:
Re: Documents Show Risky Decisions Before BP Blowout

I thought the General Welfare clause was meaningless bunk used by liberals to justify unconstitutional welfare programs? Or is that not a problem when you want them to dish out corporate welfare?

BP caused the mess, it's BP's problem. The risk was taken in the name of private profit, and that's fine. But then the losses are also private responsibility. You can't have it both ways.



It sure is. And in that case, eff the gulf coast. I want a refund check for all that money that went into the 1994 contigency plan, and all the money spent on the coast guard to prep them for oil mitigation and cleanup.


We can just tell the gulf states, sorry, bp's doing what they can.



How "progressive".... :roll:
 
Re: Documents Show Risky Decisions Before BP Blowout

As to the OP:

Thread: BP Engineer Called Doomed Rig a 'Nightmare Well'



You mean the one the Obama Administration gave a safety award to? :ssst:
 
Re: Documents Show Risky Decisions Before BP Blowout

Maybe we could try sealing up the leak with your buttplug. :lamo Course that would cause another leak.

[gentle hint]
I am not going to report this post, but it might be in your interest to realize that we are not in the Basement here.
[/gentle hint]
 
Re: Documents Show Risky Decisions Before BP Blowout

It sure is. And in that case, eff the gulf coast. I want a refund check for all that money that went into the 1994 contigency plan, and all the money spent on the coast guard to prep them for oil mitigation and cleanup.


We can just tell the gulf states, sorry, bp's doing what they can.



How "progressive".... :roll:


PT_AO839_W3Feat_DV_20100603173355.jpg
 
Re: Documents Show Risky Decisions Before BP Blowout

Yes, you are responding to me by going off topic and ranting about things that have nothing to do with this thread by ranting about the government's response to the spill, not what may have been contributing factors to the spill itself.

I will decline further response unless you can actually address what I wrote and not evade it and find a way to attack the government in an unrelated manner.

Fine, let's start with this.

I gotta better idea. How 'bout you explain how they inserted three cement plugs inside the production string? Hmmm?

How do you know I'm wrong? From your extensive experience in the oilfield? I'm a third generation oilfield hand. What the hell could I possibly know? Right? If you worked on a rig, you would still be looking for the keys to the v-door. :rofl

Care to tell us what the centralizers had to do with it?

This is a centralizer. Since, I doubt you know.


pp1.jpg
 
Re: Documents Show Risky Decisions Before BP Blowout

A potential massive spill that covers much of the gulf perhaps.

I say we let the leak go until the entire Gulf is dispaced by the oil. Then we just throw a hose in and pump the oil to the refineries. :lamo:
 
Re: Documents Show Risky Decisions Before BP Blowout

I gotta better idea. How 'bout you explain how they inserted three cement plugs inside the production string? Hmmm?

How do you know I'm wrong? From your extensive experience in the oilfield? I'm a third generation oilfield hand. What the hell could I possibly know? Right? If you worked on a rig, you would still be looking for the keys to the v-door.

You don't think they put 3 cement plugs in the well? :roll:

Your family might know what is going on but, you sure don't. If you actually do, you have a major problem expressing yourself with your posts. I used your own diagram to prove you were wrong and I'm not going to engage you in any side issue until I see you write "UNCLE".

Care to tell us what the centralizers had to do with it?
No. You've already proven that, when it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about and are proven wrong, you are not able to admit it. Why should I educate you even more?
 
Re: Documents Show Risky Decisions Before BP Blowout

You don't think they put 3 cement plugs in the well? :roll:

Prove it.

Your family might know what is going on but, you sure don't. If you actually do, you have a major problem expressing yourself with your posts. I used your own diagram to prove you were wrong and I'm not going to engage you in any side issue until I see you write "UNCLE".

No. You've already proven that, when it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about and are proven wrong, you are not able to admit it. Why should I educate you even more?

What's next? You gonna tell us how the centralizers, in the cement plugs, lead to the well blowing out? :rofl
 
Re: Documents Show Risky Decisions Before BP Blowout

Prove it.

Not only did I already prove it but...

... your own posted diagram proved it. :doh
 
Re: Documents Show Risky Decisions Before BP Blowout

Not only did I already prove it but...

... your own posted diagram proved it. :doh

My diagram proved that there were three cement plugs, at three different depths, in the wellbore? I durely don't remember posting any diagram like that.

I posted this one, wich shows your bottom hole plug, the cemented casing and the wellbore.
Casing_Image.gif


I also posted this diagram, which shows the bottom hole plug, the packer, the production tubing and the top hole plug.
Oil_Well.png


Neither diagram shows anything close to what you're saying. Care to show us, by use of illustrations, how the well blew out, or are you going to stick with the cockamamie stories that we've been presented with, so far? I sure hope you're not going to go along with the centralizer story that Congress is pushing.
 
Back
Top Bottom