- This topic has 7 voices and 28 replies.
-
Posts
-
No flames here; but tha answer to the riddle is whipstock... drilling at an angle from shore. Sounds silly but that's how the guy across the fence can tap the oil under your land. 😮Should work out to sea as well. 8)
Especially with an effective know-how from the East Texas Oil Field slant-hole scandal in 1962.http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19620818&id=rXEKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WEsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4416,1817567
No flames here; but tha answer to the riddle is whipstock... drilling at an angle from shore. Sounds silly but that's how the guy across the fence can tap the oil under your land. 😮Should work out to sea as well. 8)
Isn't that how the method they are using to try and drill the relief well?
No flames here; but tha answer to the riddle is whipstock... drilling at an angle from shore. Sounds silly but that's how the guy across the fence can tap the oil under your land. 😮Should work out to sea as well. 8)
Isn't that how the method they are using to try and drill the relief well?
Wally must be a rich man now ... ;D
Not a chance… 🙁According to my research they started the whipstock well 4-May-10... oh well.... (NPI)
If this is not the most devastating, yet correct editorial I have ever read I don't think one can be written. To top it all off, it came out of the LA Times the NY Times' fellow traveler out west, where you would least expect it. This oil slick thing in the Gulf is really showing Obama's strong side isn't it. He has the answer, he is just going to make BP pay for it all and wash his hands of the whole deal except for his pity. Is everybody else starting to realize what a huge mistake the electorate made when they voted for this clown? Old GW don't seem so bad now does he?
I'm no big supporter of Obama, and I do admit he hasn't really done much leading in this catastrophe, but I'm really not sure what he could have done in the first place. BP tried to do their thing and they have come up short. Yes the government prolonged things with the protocol and jurisdiction squabbles, but I really feel everybody involved was shooting in the dark on this one trying and hoping to find a solution. I can also see where Obama probably didn't want a quick solution because he is known for not letting a good crisis go to waste. I'm not sure Bush would have handled this any better (not appreciably anyway). It is what it is, and it's sad.
I'm no big supporter of Obama, and I do admit he hasn't really done much leading in this catastrophe, but I'm really not sure what he could have done in the first place.
Donnie, I tend to agree with your statement in general. I don't think that presidents can control situations as much as people think they can. I wasn't convinced that Bush was as culpable as people claimed for Katrina, and I am guessing that Obama is limited in what he can do with the present situation. My feeling is that people, especially on the left, like to assign blame on politicians for any and all negativity that occurs under their watch. As such, they do not really allow for accidents to happen; someone is always to blame. We can also see this in modern notions involving legal negligence, and I see it as a rotten side of civic life. I think that now we are seeing Obama being being held to the same fire that Bush was held to in 2005. Fairly or unfairly, this is the way I think it is.All this said, Obama is being true to form by trying to assign blame with the oil leakage before addressing the more important underlying problem. This is something that he should not have done, but I can understand why he's doing it. I honestly think that Bush would have handled this situation better, though he still would have received far more condemnation in the MSM than Obama is receiving.
I don't think Bush would have politicized it so much as Obama is with this. He's pushing his agenda for this accident/disaster rather than trying to solve the immediate problem. Although I'm not liking how Obama is handling it, I'm trying to cut him some slack because I think this is a far worse situation than Katrina.
Hypothetical question – with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight – would it have been appropriate to take measure of this disaster in the first 10 days and declare it a matter of national security, told BP to “step aside” and launched the full might of the US contain the leak? Or would that have just shown the lack of national capability? By not taking decisive action, the President has, by definition, avioded coming to an ultimate decision – by not taking a strong and decisive action, he has made it much more difficult to be seen as failing. Of course, that means that failure belongs to BP and any successes can be, uh, shared.Leaders lead and act in a decisive manner.Politicians equivocate and obfuscate
The one thing that I don't agree with is Obama forcing BP to pony up what 20 billion dollars? That's extortion any way you look at it. But BP agreed to do it, and so the only people screwed are the British tax payers. Rush Limbaugh was going off on this today, and I had to agree with him.
What did Rush say? BP offered to do this before Obama said anything. Obama just took credit for it to make himself look tough. And since BP is a multinational corporation, isn't that going to affect more than just British taxpayers? Those of us who own BP stock and use oil will be affected as well…probably more than the average taxpayer. 🙁
I think that if BP agreed to it, it was because its board saw the writing on the wall. I saw a headline about some other politician saying that 40-60 billion would have been better. So in a sense, BP probably agreed to it because it was the lesser of evils. I still find it amazing that people would be so concerned that a fund be set up while the oil well is still spewing and the extent of the damage is not yet known.
Rush said Biden told BP they had no choice. Perhaps the final figure was the part forced and not BP's original offer.
Old GW don't seem so bad now does he?
Yeah, thanks a lot GW for making the USCG part of DHS. (didn't state governors have some authority over them before this?)Crude-Sucking Barges Stopped by Coast Guard
Old GW don't seem so bad now does he?
Yeah, thanks a lot GW for making the USCG part of DHS. (didn't state governors have some authority over them before this?)Crude-Sucking Barges Stopped by Coast Guard
Is that GW's fault or the fault of people hidebound to following regulations? The stoppage is an example of common sense being overruled by bureaucracy? I would bet the CG would pull some crap like that whether they were part of DHS or not. Stupidity in the Federal Government is not confined to DHS although I will admit it seems to be distilled there to a greater degree than elsewhere.BTW, how presidential has Obama looked with his going golfing and popping in to talk about "kicking ass". I am asking myself what movie he thinks he is in. Seems to me that the only people in this whole thing accepting any kind of responsibility is BP, everybody else is too busy scapegoating. While they do that, the oil just keeps on flowing. This crisis is not about getting solved for the administration, it is about grandstanding and distracting attention from their other mistakes. I am reminded of the movie "Wag the Dog" at times.Has anybody else been following the story about how Obama wants another 52 billion in stimulus? That has been relegated to below the fold because of the oil spill. All America's other problems have not disappeared, they have just been ignored for now by the media while beat the story of the oil spill to death.
