Glad this wasn't a hurricane!
Another rig has been leaking since April.
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/06/another_gulf_oil_spill_well_ne.html
Yes, the response to people drowning in their attics should be exactly the same as the response to an offshore oil spill. ::)
I can't believe you're trying to equate the two.
Quote from: nathanm on June 08, 2010, 03:05:13 PM
Yes, the response to people drowning in their attics should be exactly the same as the response to an offshore oil spill. ::)
I can't believe you're trying to equate the two.
You're right, it's not that important. My bad.
Dang. Forget about Romo. He should try for the PGA tour. Dude loves to golf.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 08, 2010, 03:09:11 PM
You're right, it's not that important. My bad.
You have a way with words. Too bad it's the wrong way when you're reading them.
Obviously the oil spill is important. It does not require an immediate response, especially when immediately after the fire and sinking of Deepwater Horizon it wasn't known whether or not the BOP worked and it was not yet known that the BOP was not in proper working order before the blowout. Had the BOP been in working order, no federal cleanup response would have been necessary. Speeches were not yet needed.
I don't know what exactly it is you wish the federal government had done differently after the blowout? Perhaps you could explain?
I think we all agree that MMS' failure to execute their oversight responsibility was a significant contributing factor here, but in response to the blowout, what should they have done, given the information available at the time?
Quote from: nathanm on June 08, 2010, 03:18:43 PM
You have a way with words. Too bad it's the wrong way when you're reading them.
Obviously the oil spill is important. It does not require an immediate response, especially when immediately after the fire and sinking of Deepwater Horizon it wasn't known whether or not the BOP worked and it was not yet known that the BOP was not in proper working order before the blowout. Had the BOP been in working order, no federal cleanup response would have been necessary. Speeches were not yet needed.
I don't know what exactly it is you wish the federal government had done differently after the blowout? Perhaps you could explain?
I think we all agree that MMS' failure to execute their oversight responsibility was a significant contributing factor here, but in response to the blowout, what should they have done, given the information available at the time?
Wow! That's easy. . .
It would be a non-issue if the administration had given an immediate response and pledge of support to BP, and to the gulf states.
Resources should have been offered to the gulf states as the landing of the spill was calculated, in the form of straw booms and top-dredging pumps (skimmer pumps).
As the spill reached massive proportions a couple of weeks in, the fed should have mobilized support ships as fueling and lodging platforms for cleanup support crews.
Sure this is BP's fault, and they can pay for it, but we have the resources to lend a hand, or at least look like it.
None of the blame falls on President Obama. This was a very unfortunate disaster, however the response on our part is beyond pitiful.
Today is day 50.The President still hasn't picked up the phone and called the president of BP to say "What more can we do to help?" He hasn't had a single conversation with the man.
How bad must it be for Obama when Charlie Rangel says you are clueless:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/jun/8/rangel-wh-faith-bp-they-dont-have-slightest-clue/
Quote from: guido911 on June 08, 2010, 03:48:29 PM
How bad must it be for Obama when Charlie Rangel says you are clueless:
And then they finished ol' Charlie:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BjW1avGcuos/S4d6J_Y9XPI/AAAAAAAABuU/I9XLBxe8ehs/s640/charlierangel1.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on June 08, 2010, 03:05:13 PM
Yes, the response to people drowning in their attics should be exactly the same as the response to an offshore oil spill. ::)
I can't believe you're trying to equate the two.
Exactly why were people "drowining in their attics"? Because they ignored days of warnings from the NWS and transportation devised to get them out of NOLA was not utilized properly. I've still yet to hear anyone who characterized the Federal response to Katrina speak to what it was that President Bush's presence in the area was going to accomplish in the first few days after the massive devastation other than be a distraction to what needed to be done: rescuing people as quickly as possible. As I recall, people were being rescued as soon as feasible.
Quote from: guido911 on June 08, 2010, 03:48:29 PM
How bad must it be for Obama when Charlie Rangel says you are clueless:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/jun/8/rangel-wh-faith-bp-they-dont-have-slightest-clue/
Geez, even Olbermann is down on him. I wonder if Matthews has lost that tingle in his leg.
Dont worry, they will begin capturing more and more of the oil so that we can burn it and destroy those shorelines and businesses (and others) at a slightly more reasonable pace through global warming. ;)
Quote from: TheArtist on June 08, 2010, 05:57:53 PM
Dont worry, they will begin capturing more and more of the oil so that we can burn it and destroy those shorelines and businesses (and others) at a slightly more reasonable pace through global warming. ;)
Awesome!
Quote from: Gaspar on June 08, 2010, 03:34:51 PM
Wow! That's easy. . .
It would be a non-issue if the administration had given an immediate response and pledge of support to BP, and to the gulf states.
Resources should have been offered to the gulf states as the landing of the spill was calculated, in the form of straw booms and top-dredging pumps (skimmer pumps).
As the spill reached massive proportions a couple of weeks in, the fed should have mobilized support ships as fueling and lodging platforms for cleanup support crews.
Sure this is BP's fault, and they can pay for it, but we have the resources to lend a hand, or at least look like it.
None of the blame falls on President Obama. This was a very unfortunate disaster, however the response on our part is beyond pitiful.
Today is day 50.
The President still hasn't picked up the phone and called the president of BP to say "What more can we do to help?" He hasn't had a single conversation with the man.
We have been lending a hand, to the tune of about $100 million worth of it so far. BP was billed by the coast guard for sixty something million last week. There has been support from the government the entire time. Obama's administration hasn't been publicizing it well enough, obviously.
The same BP that botched the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez spill. (As Alyeska majority partner, it was their responsibility to have plans and implement them. They screwed that pooch big time.)
And now they have another leak going, this time on the North Slope. But it's only a 'few' thousand barrels.
Shell offered to help. With much more expertise than BP (yeah, from personal experience in the field.) Even James Cameron offered the expertise of his deep water people - the ones that know robotics and deep sea stuff thoroughly. And I guarantee, local company TDW has excellent expertise in the pipeline industry and I bet they could have come up with something way before now.
If nothing else, get one of the readily available squeeze tools and slow dramatically, if not stop, the flow. But that might only highlight their blinding incompetence if they accepted competent help!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 08, 2010, 10:47:55 PM
The same BP that botched the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez spill. (As Alyeska majority partner, it was their responsibility to have plans and implement them. They screwed that pooch big time.)
And now they have another leak going, this time on the North Slope. But it's only a 'few' thousand barrels.
Shell offered to help. With much more expertise than BP (yeah, from personal experience in the field.) Even James Cameron offered the expertise of his deep water people - the ones that know robotics and deep sea stuff thoroughly. And I guarantee, local company TDW has excellent expertise in the pipeline industry and I bet they could have come up with something way before now.
If nothing else, get one of the readily available squeeze tools and slow dramatically, if not stop, the flow. But that might only highlight their blinding incompetence if they accepted competent help!
I agree! We probably should have butted in and assumed control, allowing our domestic assets command and advisory status.
On the 16th the "Green Oil Company" will finally meet with the "Competent President."
BP suggested they meet over the weekend, but the president has a tee-time with Rahm that he cannot break.
A friend of mine that I went to School with works in the Oil industry in the Gulf sent this letter. See what you think.
A Smoking Gun in BP's Deep Horizon Mess
Submitted by BassMan2 on 15. May 2010 - 11:31
Thom's nationally syndicated radio show
This hasn't seemed to have gotten much circulation yet, and I think it really needs to. Seems that a crew from Schlumberger, on contract to BP, hightailed it off the platform at their own expense 6 hours before the blowout becuase BP refused their recommendation to shut down the well. This lends more credence to Thom's suggestion that corners were cut because the bigwigs were coming for a vist.
"BP contracted Schlumberger (SLB) to run the Cement Bond Log (CBL) test that was the final test on the plug that was skipped. The people testifying have been very coy about mentioning this, and you’ll see why.
SLB is an extremely highly regarded (and incredibly expensive) service company. They place a high standard on safety and train their workers to shut down unsafe operations.
SLB gets out to the Deepwater Horizon to run the CBL, and they find the well still kicking heavily, which it should not be that late in the operation. SLB orders the “company man” (BP’s man on the scene that runs the operation) to dump kill fluid down the well and shut-in the well. The company man refuses. SLB in the very next sentence asks for a helo to take all SLB personel back to shore. The company man says there are no more helo’s scheduled for the rest of the week (translation: you’re here to do a job, now do it). SLB gets on the horn to shore, calls SLB’s corporate HQ, and gets a helo flown out there at SLB’s expense and takes all SLB personel to shore.
6 hours later, the platform explodes."
Thank you.
That's funny!
Quote from: DolfanBob on June 11, 2010, 09:06:22 AM
A friend of mine that I went to School with works in the Oil industry in the Gulf sent this letter. See what you think.
It makes a great story, one that's been going around for a few days now. Unfortunately, it's not true. I forget the exact details, but basically it had supposedly been decided that BP didn't want the log done just then so sent the Schlumberger folks home and the Schlumberger folks went back on the next regularly scheduled BP flight. At least that's what's being reported as fact to the supposed fiction.
Quote from: nathanm on June 11, 2010, 02:29:41 PM
It makes a great story, one that's been going around for a few days now. Unfortunately, it's not true. I forget the exact details, but basically it had supposedly been decided that BP didn't want the log done just then so sent the Schlumberger folks home and the Schlumberger folks went back on the next regularly scheduled BP flight. At least that's what's being reported as fact to the supposed fiction.
Man. You just cant believe anything on this internet thingy.
Thanks for the info.
Or.....
Nathan is just making up his story.
Nathan might just be the secret majority shareholder in BP.
;D
Or not.
You gotta watch Nathan, he's a shill for corporate America and a closet Tea Partier.
I bet he owns guns and eats meat too!
Quote from: Conan71 on June 11, 2010, 03:06:01 PM
You gotta watch Nathan, he's a shill for corporate America and a closet Tea Partier.
Better that than a Tea Bagger....nyuk,nyuk,nyuk.
The oil spewing into the Gulf is much more then was originally reported. Meanwhile, BP is handing out $$ to their investors. When they were reprimanded for this by the Administration, BP assured them that they have enough $$ for everyone. Yet, there are news stories where people are still waiting for their checks. I'm confused.
Who would have thought they could do a documentary so quick...
Another huge tragedy to all this is the cost to the investors in BP. 40% of shareholders are US, many with pension fund investments and the classic 'little old lady'. Roughly 50 to 60% are in UK (most of rest) and again, pension funds and pension investors.
The dividend they pay in the UK amounts to 1/8 of all the dividends paid in the UK. 12%.
Just shows what a huge piece of the UK economy they are.
This is sad that these incompetent b******* are running that show. And if they were US corporation, their officers would be enjoying that 16% tax rate that our corporate officers enjoy! Bonus!
So I've been wondering, as this has gotten worse and worse, and it's more and more obvious that BP has been skirting a boatload of regulations . . . when does a corporation get the death penalty?
Is there a point where the amount of damage done to society by BP is so huge that, just like a regular person, we decide that society can only be made whole by disassembling the corporation, both as punishment and as warning?
We seem to want to give corporations a whole raft of rights usually reserved for actual humans, but avoid applying similar punishments for bad actions. I can't actually remember a case where a corporation is so directly responsible for such a huge tragedy. The scale really boggles the mind . . . and that $20 billion reparations fund is really only the tip of the iceberg when we're talking about the livelihoods of potentially millions of people being wiped out for a generation.
Quote from: we vs us on June 21, 2010, 03:33:26 PM
So I've been wondering, as this has gotten worse and worse, and it's more and more obvious that BP has been skirting a boatload of regulations . . . when does a corporation get the death penalty?
Is there a point where the amount of damage done to society by BP is so huge that, just like a regular person, we decide that society can only be made whole by disassembling the corporation, both as punishment and as warning?
Idealistic and emotional response we vs us.
There are individuals that are at fault, and they need to be held accountable.
BP as a corporation is 97,000 employees, 1,300 franchise owners, and tens of thousands of employees of those franchises. The corporation is also millions of stock holders.
99.99% of these people are not guilty, and devastated by this disaster.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 21, 2010, 04:25:14 PM
Idealistic and emotional response we vs us.
There are individuals that are at fault, and they need to be held accountable.
BP as a corporation is 97,000 employees, 1,300 franchise owners, and tens of thousands of employees of those franchises. The corporation is also millions of stock holders.
99.99% of these people are not guilty, and devastated by this disaster.
And yet we treat BP as a single entity for a variety of different things. It gets taxed as a single entity, it gets traded on stock exchanges as a single entity. It receives and disburses profits as a single entity, it is able to be sued (for a variety of reasons, not just for this spill) as a single entity.
Also, in case you weren't watching, BP now has some of the same free speech rights that I as an individual do. So I'm searching for the corporate equivalent of first degree murder. The Deepwater Horizon spill may be an imprecise match but in severity and magnitude it's close to the worst thing a corporation can do.
Maybe because this is due to negligence this is only manslaughter?
Quote from: we vs us on June 21, 2010, 04:47:51 PM
And yet we treat BP as a single entity for a variety of different things. It gets taxed as a single entity, it gets traded on stock exchanges as a single entity. It receives and disburses profits as a single entity, it is able to be sued (for a variety of reasons, not just for this spill) as a single entity.
Also, in case you weren't watching, BP now has some of the same free speech rights that I as an individual do. So I'm searching for the corporate equivalent of first degree murder. The Deepwater Horizon spill may be an imprecise match but in severity and magnitude it's close to the worst thing a corporation can do.
Maybe because this is due to negligence this is only manslaughter?
So. . .You want to hang Grandma for owning BP stock?
Quote from: Gaspar on June 21, 2010, 04:53:18 PM
So. . .You want to hang Grandma for owning BP stock?
Nope, I want to hang the company . . . or the equivalent.
I essentially want to hang BP in the gibbets in the town square as an example.
Quote from: we vs us on June 21, 2010, 04:59:56 PM
Nope, I want to hang the company . . . or the equivalent.
I essentially want to hang BP in the gibbets in the town square as an example.
I think the death penalty for BP would not be in our interest. We may need them around for another 20 or so years to keep paying damages and support to the jobs they destroyed. If the company were dismantled, someone would pick up the oil leases and equipment. Do you want the new operators to pay damages for something BP did? Or maybe you think our benevolent US government should pick up the tab after revenge is had by destroying BP.
Other than feel-good, what is to be gained by destroying BP?
Gaspar is right... it ain't most of the people. It is the management and the corrupt, morally bankrupt culture they have grown over the last 80+ years. They were just this arrogant in the 20's and nothing has changed in that entire time. Except maybe to become worse.
How does one root out this type of rot? Need the corporate equivalent of a root canal.
But that goes against everything we have 'stood' for over the last 30 years. Are we going to change??
Oh, and if you do disassemble BP, that just makes each of the remaining big oils that much bigger. That much more powerful. That much more prone to corruption and rot. Quite a dilemma we have fostered, ain't it?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 21, 2010, 09:45:54 PM
Gaspar is right... it ain't most of the people. It is the management and the corrupt, morally bankrupt culture they have grown over the last 80+ years. They were just this arrogant in the 20's and nothing has changed in that entire time. Except maybe to become worse.
How does one root out this type of rot? Need the corporate equivalent of a root canal.
But that goes against everything we have 'stood' for over the last 30 years. Are we going to change??
Oh, and if you do disassemble BP, that just makes each of the remaining big oils that much bigger. That much more powerful. That much more prone to corruption and rot. Quite a dilemma we have fostered, ain't it?
War on Capitalism?
Quote from: Gaspar on June 22, 2010, 07:26:49 AM
War on Capitalism?
Capitalism does not require an excessively concentrated market. Many of the free-marketeer economists agree with the idea that concentration of a market in the hands of only a few sellers is a bad thing, as it distorts the market as surely as 90% tax rates do.
Killing BP would accomplish a couple of different things, none of which are achieved by the current structure. I'm thinking primarily punishment and deterrent. Punishment in that it locates blame squarely where it should be, which is on the shoulders of the company that ignored its own and federal standards in the name of expediency. There's a pretty obvious debt to our society that needs to be paid, and I'm not sure that simply money will make us whole. Just as with individuals we curtail their freedoms and sometimes deprive them of the ultimate freedom (life); if the crime is serious, why wouldn't we do that to BP?
But it's even more about deterring future bad deeds. It's self-evident that regulation doesn't work, and the company is obviously not afraid of being fined or sanctioned. It also has deep enough pockets to voluntarily pony up $20billion while still staying a profitable concern. This isn't surprising, honestly; revenues were way down last quarter and they still came away with $3billion in profits . . . in a quarter. Point being, isn't it obvious, taken with the similarly flagrant actions of the financial sector, that our penalties should be harsher? That multinationals are now too rich, essentially, to care about current penalties? I've come away from this last couple of years thinking that corporations have literally no fear of the federal government. They know on many levels that they can act however they want and either lobby or litigate their guilt away.
There has to be a way to deter this kind of behavior, and incentivize good behavior. My modest proposal is to destroy companies that are the worst offenders, and surely we can agree that BP is one of them.
Yes grandma's retirement fund might take a hit. It might, however be an object lesson to investors big and small that they too have a responsibility for what they endorse with their money. It would definitely be an object lesson to management that not all risk is good risk.
Quote from: we vs us on June 22, 2010, 09:43:37 AM
Killing BP would accomplish a couple of different things, none of which are achieved by the current structure. I'm thinking primarily punishment and deterrent. Punishment in that it locates blame squarely where it should be, which is on the shoulders of the company that ignored its own and federal standards in the name of expediency. There's a pretty obvious debt to our society that needs to be paid, and I'm not sure that simply money will make us whole. Just as with individuals we curtail their freedoms and sometimes deprive them of the ultimate freedom (life); if the crime is serious, why wouldn't we do that to BP?
But it's even more about deterring future bad deeds. It's self-evident that regulation doesn't work, and the company is obviously not afraid of being fined or sanctioned. It also has deep enough pockets to voluntarily pony up $20billion while still staying a profitable concern. This isn't surprising, honestly; revenues were way down last quarter and they still came away with $3billion in profits . . . in a quarter. Point being, isn't it obvious, taken with the similarly flagrant actions of the financial sector, that our penalties should be harsher? That multinationals are now too rich, essentially, to care about current penalties? I've come away from this last couple of years thinking that corporations have literally no fear of the federal government. They know on many levels that they can act however they want and either lobby or litigate their guilt away.
There has to be a way to deter this kind of behavior, and incentivize good behavior. My modest proposal is to destroy companies that are the worst offenders, and surely we can agree that BP is one of them.
Yes grandma's retirement fund might take a hit. It might, however be an object lesson to investors big and small that they too have a responsibility for what they endorse with their money. It would definitely be an object lesson to management that not all risk is good risk.
Do you want your company to be shut down and lose your job if a sister property in New York City, through negligent maintenance practices, killed 20 guests with carbon monoxide?
Should tens of thousands of very good paying jobs be put to the way-side because of the actions and poor judgement of less than .00001% (suppositional figure here) of the total company workforce? What happens to people who need to be made whole who were damaged by the negligence of BP? It's hard to pay them when the company has been given the death penalty. There will be claims and costs associated with this spill for at least 20 years using the Valdez as a quantifiable and relevant example.
The blame in this case is acknowledged, and accepted. They apparently are not sparing any money nor effort in trying to provide permanent solutions for their mess.
According to testimony from other oil industry execs, they have certain safety measures they use and it sounded as if they were all in agreement. I believe there's enough incentive, after seeing the fall-out from this, for other companies to view the whole episode as a deterrent. The chances of this ever playing out again on deep water exploration are nil. IOW- there is no additional deterrent effect by shutting down BP.
Finally, I believe BP is a corporation primarily chartered in Brittain. I don't think the U.S. has the authority to shut them down, though they could refuse to permit any further drilling operations led by BP and could refuse to sell them off-shore leases, or could prevent them from having any operations in the United States. I still, though, don't see what good that would accomplish.
BP definitely screwed up, but from what I can tell, it appears they are trying to do the right thing and are willing to correct their mistakes.
I'm also somewhat concerned as to what individual rights may have been compromised by a quick settlement for $20 bln. Will this wind up waiving tort claims that fishermen or land-owners might have? Anyone know?
"Landrieu said that although she supports the creation of a compensation escrow account, she wants to be sure that the dollar figure is arrived at in a manner that doesn't inadvertently shove BP into bankruptcy.
"Before we start throwing around figures like $20 billion, I wanted to have some basis for that amount. Why $20 billion? Why not $5 billion? Why not $30 billion? Congress needs to proceed carefully and responsibly to address this issue in a comprehensive way so that our actions do not have unintended consequences on the victims of this disaster," said Landrieu.
"An escrow account should be established, but it must be done in a way that ensures BP remains viable enough to pay every penny of what they owe to those who have been affected by this horrific spill and tragedy. The worst case scenario is BP declaring bankruptcy before our citizens are compensated for the tremendous damage the company has inflicted on our fragile coast and economy."'
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/president_barack_obama_negotia.html
Quote from: Conan71 on June 22, 2010, 11:07:09 AM
According to testimony from other oil industry execs, they have certain safety measures they use and it sounded as if they were all in agreement. I believe there's enough incentive, after seeing the fall-out from this, for other companies to view the whole episode as a deterrent. The chances of this ever playing out again on deep water exploration are nil.
...
I'm also somewhat concerned as to what individual rights may have been compromised by a quick settlement for $20 bln. Will this wind up waiving tort claims that fishermen or land-owners might have? Anyone know?
You'd think they would have learned from Ixtoc, but I guess since it was run by the Mexican government, so was able to claim sovereign immunity when they were sued, the oil companies didn't take notice. (IOW, never say never)
Regarding the escrow, it signs away no rights, at least according to Fineberg. If you take an emergency payment today, you can still go back for more or even later decide to sue. If, later on, you take a payment in full satisfaction of your claim (which is a different procedure from the emergency funds, and requires more documentation), you will probably lose the right to sue. I think that's reasonable.
Oh, hell no, not war on Capitalism! I am the firmest of firm believers in that stuff. The problem is, it ain't what we got the most of. We have capitalistic monopolism.
With paid protection for the monopolists brought to you by your highly company compensated government employees in Congress.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 22, 2010, 12:30:13 PM
capitalistic monopolism.
Not familiar with that term, are you making that up? :)
It's a descriptive term of our reality.
(Yeah...I made it up; describing what really goes on.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 22, 2010, 12:48:50 PM
It's a descriptive term of our reality.
(Yeah...I made it up; describing what really goes on.)
Hey, I'm all for new words, but we need to establish meaning. . .a definition so that we can all be on the same page when using this fabulous new term.
So what would your definition for "capitalistic monopolism" be?
US Corporate America. Encompassing all corporations greater than $1 billion in revenues.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 22, 2010, 01:03:01 PM
US Corporate America. Encompassing all corporations greater than $1 billion in revenues.
So, that's pretty much what I though. I figured we'd have to go a little further down the road to get the honest answer, but I appreciate your honesty.
You consider "US Corporate America", any business over $1B revenue to be monopolistic and therefore worthy of waging war on?
So should we nationalize businesses over $1b, and perhaps sell off or give away their assets?
What should we do with the money?
Corporate 'Merica must own this judge then:
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked a six-month moratorium on new deepwater drilling projects imposed after the massive Gulf oil spill.
The White House promised an immediate appeal. President Barack Obama's administration had halted approval of any new permits for deepwater drilling and suspended drilling of 33 exploratory wells in the Gulf.
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama believes strongly that drilling at such depths does not make any sense and puts the safety of workers "at a danger that the president does not believe we can afford."
Several companies that ferry people and supplies and provide other services to offshore drilling rigs asked U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans to overturn the moratorium, arguing it was arbitrarily imposed.
Feldman agreed, saying in his ruling the Interior Department assumed that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger.
"The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is an unprecedented, sad, ugly and inhuman disaster," he wrote. "What seems clear is that the federal government has been pressed by what happened on the Deepwater Horizon into an otherwise sweeping confirmation that all Gulf deepwater drilling activities put us all in a universal threat of irreparable harm."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill
There must be a definition of arbitrary in Black's that isn't in M-W.
I think the oil companies may find it a five month process to get new permits issued or changes made to existing permits, even if drilling continues on wells already in progress.
Quote from: nathanm on June 22, 2010, 02:20:03 PM
There must be a definition of arbitrary in Black's that isn't in M-W.
I think the oil companies may find it a five month process to get new permits issued or changes made to existing permits, even if drilling continues on wells already in progress.
If so, they will leave for friendly waters.
They already are, Gaspar.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 22, 2010, 02:39:44 PM
If so, they will leave for friendly waters.
Yep, for about five months, at which time the now enjoined moratorium will expire.
Quote from: nathanm on June 22, 2010, 03:17:36 PM
Yep, for about five months, at which time the now enjoined moratorium will expire.
I have a feeling it takes a little longer to motor over, poke the Earth, and suck black-gold. There's probably a form or something that has to be filled out.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 22, 2010, 03:39:31 PM
I have a feeling it takes a little longer to motor over, poke the Earth, and suck black-gold. There's probably a form or something that has to be filled out.
Well we know you can't just go down there and suck the oil out with a straw.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 22, 2010, 03:39:31 PM
I have a feeling it takes a little longer to motor over, poke the Earth, and suck black-gold. There's probably a form or something that has to be filled out.
There's nothing preventing them from filling out such a form at the present time and submitting it for consideration, although it may be a while before it's approved. And it may be a while longer before they're ready to drill again anyway.
Quote from: nathanm on June 22, 2010, 04:38:20 PM
There's nothing preventing them from filling out such a form at the present time and submitting it for consideration, although it may be a while before it's approved. And it may be a while longer before they're ready to drill again anyway.
Perhaps the President could charge an extra fee to drill? They could have the Hamburgerler sell deep water drilling rights.
(http://media1.suntimes.com/multimedia/g013009blago1_cst_feed_20090129_16_28_37_1500-400-306.imageContent)
Quote from: Gaspar on June 22, 2010, 04:40:51 PM
Perhaps the President could charge an extra fee to drill? They could have the Hamburgerler sell deep water drilling rights.
You could actually refute the point rather than making light of what is, by all accounts, a major disaster.
Your words - not mine. And very specifically contradictory to mine, if they were read at all. Which obviously weren't.
And the immediate jump to the Fox style excess of nationalize and sell?? Alternate universe moment there, Gaspar.
What I WOULD suggest and what will never happen since the Congress, et. al. are in the pockets, is that Congress should actually do is stop selling the American people down the river.
Shall we raise the level to 5 billion, or 50??
Here is a challenge for you. Give me an example of real competition in, oh, let's see... how about the oil industry?
(Putting some bounds on it; no fair citing Enron, Devon, and Williams since we already know they all worked together to contrive the California "energy crisis" some years back. Definitely no competition there.)
Quick question; have you ever wanted or tried to start in the business of your choice and were blocked by the "barriers to entry" raised by the effects of capitalistic monopolism?? (Bar-b-que business is still too small for large company takeover, so you can't use that. Hidden Valley and their KC Masterpiece doesn't really constitute market domination.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 22, 2010, 10:44:06 PM
Here is a challenge for you. Give me an example of real competition in, oh, let's see... how about the oil industry?
(Putting some bounds on it; no fair citing Enron, Devon, and Williams since we already know they all worked together to contrive the California "energy crisis" some years back. Definitely no competition there.)
Quick question; have you ever wanted or tried to start in the business of your choice and were blocked by the "barriers to entry" raised by the effects of capitalistic monopolism?? (Bar-b-que business is still too small for large company takeover, so you can't use that. Hidden Valley and their KC Masterpiece doesn't really constitute market domination.)
There are thousands of oil companies ranging from hundreds of thousands to hundreds of billions of dollars. They all compete in the open market. Interesting that you should ask such a question because I am part of a small LLC that manages natural gas leases in Cleburn, TX (my grandparents old farm land). We compete quite fairly with the big boys selling NG. We only have two wells in production (the second comes online next month). No one is holding us back. We have granted Chesapeake access to drill a larger well on an acre this year too.
The only "barriers to entry" I am aware of is licensing and regulation. It's expensive but for safety sake, but some of it is necessary. On the contrary there are several rather large purchasing and leasing groups that help the little guys like us get access to equipment, insurance and specialized services that typically only the big guys can afford. Chesapeake built us a road to help get our business.
My wife owns a party rental company, and again we are members of industry purchasing groups designed to help the smaller companies compete on level ground with the big guys. If someone out markets us or provides better product and better service than that's our fault.
My primary income comes from the software industry. Here again we compete with the billion dollar companies and we compete by offering a better product and better service. Our competition spends millions on advertising, but our product still maintains a better reputation. We provide better service, and our engineers, programmers and help-desk people are right down the hall. We have hundreds of happy clients all over the world.
I see that you are bitter, and obviously have some healing to do from your own experiences. I think we see the same things, but through different lenses.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 07:55:24 AM
There are thousands of oil companies ranging from hundreds of thousands to hundreds of billions of dollars.
Some wouldn't call four or five giants and a thousand tiny guys competition. I'm not sure where exactly I stand on that point.
In any event, I don't know how one would get more competition in the business of drilling wells that cost half a billion dollars. On shore, it's much cheaper, thus making it possible for small firms to do some business. I hope for your sake we don't end up having another precipitous crash in natural gas prices.
Quote from: nathanm on June 23, 2010, 08:58:22 AM
Some wouldn't call four or five giants and a thousand tiny guys competition. I'm not sure where exactly I stand on that point.
In any event, I don't know how one would get more competition in the business of drilling wells that cost half a billion dollars. On shore, it's much cheaper, thus making it possible for small firms to do some business. I hope for your sake we don't end up having another precipitous crash in natural gas prices.
Just because a company is larger don't mean you don't compete. Heiron is angry at businesses for being successful and making billions of dollars. I admire businesses that reach that goal. We see the same thing, we just see it differently.
Where I see a role-model to learn from, Heiron sees an enemy to destroy. Two very different business philosophies with the same goal.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 23, 2010, 09:04:39 AM
Just because a company is larger don't mean you don't compete. Heiron is angry at businesses for being successful and making billions of dollars. I admire businesses that reach that goal. We see the same thing, we just see it differently.
I think it's fair to say that companies as large as BP and ExxonMobil and their peers distort the market quite a bit. But as I said earlier, they're also pretty much necessary in this day and age, as few to none of the smaller guys can come up with half a billion bucks to drill a well off in the deep water somewhere.
Also, there's an argument to be made that once companies grow that large their political influence grows greater than many people think that corporate political influence should ever get.
I don't have a problem with success, but I do have a problem with that success being used unethically. (of course, once you get into a debate about ethics, it's going to be a long day :P)
Quote from: nathanm on June 23, 2010, 09:11:26 AM
I don't have a problem with success, but I do have a problem with that success being used unethically. (of course, once you get into a debate about ethics, it's going to be a long day :P)
True dat!
So now the Fed has halted the Sand berm dredging because it might displace a snail or something.
How about an executive order to do everything necessary to stop the spill from reaching the shore? Can we get that? Huh?
http://www.wdsu.com/news/23997498/detail.html
Quote from: nathanm on June 23, 2010, 08:58:22 AM
Some wouldn't call four or five giants and a thousand tiny guys competition. I'm not sure where exactly I stand on that point.
In any event, I don't know how one would get more competition in the business of drilling wells that cost half a billion dollars. On shore, it's much cheaper, thus making it possible for small firms to do some business. I hope for your sake we don't end up having another precipitous crash in natural gas prices.
"Competition" in the oil business is a relative term since it's been near impossible to prevent pricing collusion. The majors have their place because they can afford to take on the massive expense of more remote and deeper drilling opportunities. Smaller producers have their place because their business model will allow them to profit with multiple small wells producing 20 to 30 bbl per day at present oil prices. Currently, I'm working with some smaller producers in the area of "black sand" oil extraction. It's a fascinating specialty unto itself. Essentially you have an oil which is the viscosity of asphalt. The challenge is to get it to flow with heat and pressure, that's where my company comes in.
The oil field service and drilling industry is highly specialized and very capital-intensive at all levels but especially offshore. In certain areas of oil field service, either there's only one or two companies with the technology and know-how, or the cost of entry to compete is astronomical. Halliburton is a good example of a company which has some capabilities no one else has.
Quote from: nathanm on June 23, 2010, 09:11:26 AM
I think it's fair to say that companies as large as BP and ExxonMobil and their peers distort the market quite a bit. But as I said earlier, they're also pretty much necessary in this day and age, as few to none of the smaller guys can come up with half a billion bucks to drill a well off in the deep water somewhere.
I have to say that I hadn't thought about the necessity of size. I'm against these supermajors in drilling just as I am in finance, simply because I think their size DOES distort the market, and it also distorts the functioning of our democracy. I've read enough William Gibson to know where our dystopian megacorporate future is headed. Though you make a good point, that some of capital-intensive tasks that corporations specialize in require that sort of size.
Gaspar: is it possible that objections to how the market currently runs ISN'T based on jealousy or hatred, and that there're real concerns about how they function? It's like you think the only possible objection is class rage when that's just obviously not true.
Quote from: we vs us on June 23, 2010, 10:24:01 AM
I have to say that I hadn't thought about the necessity of size. I'm against these supermajors in drilling just as I am in finance, simply because I think their size DOES distort the market, and it also distorts the functioning of our democracy. I've read enough William Gibson to know where our dystopian megacorporate future is headed. Though you make a good point, that some of capital-intensive tasks that corporations specialize in require that sort of size.
Gaspar: is it possible that objections to how the market currently runs ISN'T based on jealousy or hatred, and that there're real concerns about how they function? It's like you think the only possible objection is class rage when that's just obviously not true.
That's a very good point. I was very uneasy of all the bank mergers during the late 1980s and 1990s for reasons that are readily apparent today.
You can see the same sort of analogy with specific-stock risk and also 90 percent of a crucial food crop coming from one genetic line. If you have a big downturn (the former) or catastrophic disease (the latter), that lack of diversity of sources can have devastating and far-reaching consequences.
Huge step back:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37841204/ns/disaster_in_the_gulf/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37841204/ns/disaster_in_the_gulf/)
QuoteOil gushing at spill site after vent damaged
Cap removed after sub hits vent; 2 cleanup workers die in separate events
There goes Obama driving the sub again.
Now why is this even relevant? I'm calling a 15 yard penalty for piling on:
"Gunshot death reported
The deaths reported Wednesday were not tied to the containment operation. The Coast Guard said the workers had been involved in cleanup operations but that their deaths did not appear to be work related.
One death was a boat captain who died of a gunshot wound, a Coast Guard spokesman said. Further details were not immediately available."
Quote from: Trogdor on June 23, 2010, 12:14:07 PM
There goes Obama driving the sub again.
It's Bush's Fault!
Again, your words not mine. And out of context.
I have very specifically mentioned BP and ExxonMobile as being two of the giants in desperate need of adult supervision. That leaves the others specifically mentioned who do have their acts together to a much greater degree. Oils like Shell, Chevron, Conoco, Sunoco, Sinclair. These have consistently been much more responsible corporate citizens. And yes, this is from about 23 years direct experience with all of them, plus a few of the "smaller" ones like Valero - not really small.
I would submit that you don't really "compete" selling your gas. It is more of a case of "here's what you will be paid, take it or leave it." And that collusion between the big oils has been well documented and institutionalize for about a century (a little over that, actually). And small producers have always had a market where they can sell anything and everything they can produce. The only hold back has been when they chose not to sell when the price went a little too low (like around 1998/1999 when oil was as low as about $9 a barrel.) But that was not due to any real "competition" in the market. You have been there long enough to know that. Good to hear that you are doing well with that!
Some of your description of your business model sounds kind of like the chicken farmer business model - the help from the bigger company to get your smaller outfit going. NG is your chicken. It's a good model. (Except for one little thing in the chicken business related to the "other" output.)
If you want to experience the real thrill of "competition", get a few oil wells and start refining/marketing your own. And watch the bigger guys watch you until you start to really grow. There is no room there for you.
No bitterness, just recognition of reality. I'm working hard to become one of those billionaires. Definitely don't want the golden goose to be killed before (or after!) I get there. Just hope I can avoid the temptations of "ill-gotten gains" when I get there. Human nature being what it is, I probably would be at risk as any billionaire. Every over the age of about 35 gets banged around in the economy from time to time, but "healing" is ongoing and bitterness is counterproductive and uses up energy better spent elsewhere.
In great part, you are just repeating what I said about big capitalistic monopolism versus the smaller capitalist economy.
Software? What field is it in? (used for?) Anything useful in engineering field?? (professional curiosity)
You definitely haven't gotten Microsoft's attention yet. You have a niche and I hope you can maintain that as long as you want.
Day 70. Obama accepts international assistance.
The identities of all 12 countries and international organizations were not immediately announced. One country was cited in the State Department statement -- Japan, which is providing two high-speed skimmers and fire containment boom.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-accepts-international-apf-4104246595.html?x=0&.v=2
OH, and because we are morons Venezuela's legislature has voted to nationalize 11 oil rigs owned by the US firm Helmerich & Payne.
The rigs, located in Monagas, Anzoategui and Zulia states, will be taken over by state oil giant Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), the official news agency AVN said.
AND
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)–Executives from oil and gas companies on Monday concluded an hour-long meeting with U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar without securing promises from the government to lift a deepwater-drilling moratorium imposed after a disastrous BP PLC (BP) oil spill…
“Numerous operators told Secretary Salazar that they were in the final stages of moving rigs, deepwater rigs out of the Gulf of Mexico and to West Africa and the Middle East,” according to a person familiar with the matter. “We were frankly disappointed at the lack of serious attention that was paid by the Department of the Interior on the horrible economic impact that the Department of Interior’s policies are having on the industry and on communities along the Gulf Coast.”
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/wsj-oil-jobs-start-moving-overseas-97385034.html#ixzz0sL547YzA
Quote from: Gaspar on June 30, 2010, 07:13:53 AM
Day 70. Obama accepts international assistance.
The identities of all 12 countries and international organizations were not immediately announced. One country was cited in the State Department statement -- Japan, which is providing two high-speed skimmers and fire containment boom.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-accepts-international-apf-4104246595.html?x=0&.v=2
FactCheck.org says: (http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-foreign-help-and-the-jones-act/)
"Contrary to reports such as the one on "Fox & Friends," international assistance has been accepted. To date, 25 countries and four international organizations have offered support in the form of skimming vessels, containment and fire boom, technical assistance and response solutions, among others. A chart provided by the State Department shows that as of June 23 five offers had been accepted and 50 were under consideration — including multiple offers from a single country or entity. One offer had been declined: France offered a chemical dispersant that is not approved for use in the United States. President Barack Obama described this process in his May 27 press conference:
QuoteObama, May 27: The job of our response team is to say, okay, if 17 countries have offered equipment and help, let's evaluate what they've offered: How fast can it get here? Is it actually going to be redundant, or will it actually add to the overall effort — because in some cases, more may not actually be better. And decisions have been made based on the best information available that says here's what we need right now. It may be that a week from now or two weeks from now or a month from now the offers from some of those countries might be more effectively utilized.
Each offer must be compliant not only with the needs outlined by the Unified Command, but also with U.S. safety regulations. The Unified Command provided us with this statement and information:
QuoteUnified Command, June 22: Those offers of international assistance that were not accepted, while greatly appreciated, did not meet the operational requirements of the Unified Command. These offers have not been declined because they may be needed in the future as response strategies change. Some challenges in accepting these offers included:
* Equipment failed to meet US requirements/specifications (i.e. dispersant not on approved list/containment boom made of non-approved material)
* Contingencies placed on the offers proved logistically impracticable when compared to other sources.
* In one instance, the offering country's export laws prohibited delivery of the assistance
* Contingencies placed on the offers made it difficult for the Unified Command to meet the contingency
Also, all offers, except for a few, come with a serious price tag. The Associated Press compared these offers with recent aid that the U.S. gave to some of these countries. The AP reported:
QuoteAssociated Press, June 18: U.S. disaster aid is almost always free of charge; other nations expect the U.S. to pay for help.
"These offers are not typically offers of aid," said Lt. Erik Halvorson, a Coast Guard spokesman. "Normally, they are offers to sell resources to BP or the U.S. government."
Reports claiming that the federal government has refused help are not only incorrect — foreign assistance has been utilized — but are also misleading: purchasing resources and expertise is vastly different from accepting "foreign aid."
Here's a State Department pdf (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/143488.pdf) of all of the offers to date, whether they've been accepted, and whether the offers require reimbursement.
Quote from: we vs us on June 30, 2010, 10:31:19 AM
FactCheck.org says: (http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-foreign-help-and-the-jones-act/)
"Contrary to reports such as the one on "Fox & Friends," international assistance has been accepted. To date, 25 countries and four international organizations have offered support in the form of skimming vessels, containment and fire boom, technical assistance and response solutions, among others. A chart provided by the State Department shows that as of June 23 five offers had been accepted and 50 were under consideration — including multiple offers from a single country or entity. One offer had been declined: France offered a chemical dispersant that is not approved for use in the United States. President Barack Obama described this process in his May 27 press conference:
Each offer must be compliant not only with the needs outlined by the Unified Command, but also with U.S. safety regulations. The Unified Command provided us with this statement and information:
Also, all offers, except for a few, come with a serious price tag. The Associated Press compared these offers with recent aid that the U.S. gave to some of these countries. The AP reported:
Reports claiming that the federal government has refused help are not only incorrect — foreign assistance has been utilized — but are also misleading: purchasing resources and expertise is vastly different from accepting "foreign aid."
Here's a State Department pdf (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/143488.pdf) of all of the offers to date, whether they've been accepted, and whether the offers require reimbursement.
Oh, but all these involve facts. A lot of people with the ODS don't really care much about those.
The way it was explained to me, is that this is equal to one Exxon Valdez every 4 1/2 days, over and over and over...
Help from five countries has been accepted after two months?
And people thought FEMA moved slowly. There have got to be times where the government needs to be nimble enough to bend and out-right rescind rules to mitigate and contain a disaster like this as quick as possible. President Obama has the power to make executive orders which can temporarily suspend regulations which prohibit certain types of aid. I also find the idea that we aren't moving forward with some aid which comes with a price. Are you frakking kidding me? How much worthless pork barrel crap and entitlements has this Congress pissed money into in the last year and a half? This is an entire economy and ecosystem which hangs in the balance and this administration is most definitely dithering.
So according to FactCheck (LOL) AKA Brooks Jackson. 15 foreign flagged ships are working the cleanup out of the hundreds that have been offered.
Foreign assistance makes up less than 3% of the effort. I suppose we deserve it.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 30, 2010, 12:18:38 PM
Help from five countries has been accepted after two months?
And people thought FEMA moved slowly. There have got to be times where the government needs to be nimble enough to bend and out-right rescind rules to mitigate and contain a disaster like this as quick as possible. President Obama has the power to make executive orders which can temporarily suspend regulations which prohibit certain types of aid. I also find the idea that we aren't moving forward with some aid which comes with a price. Are you frakking kidding me? How much worthless pork barrel crap and entitlements has this Congress pissed money into in the last year and a half? This is an entire economy and ecosystem which hangs in the balance and this administration is most definitely dithering.
Since BP is coordinating/is responsible for the leak and the cleanup, are they the people who have to accept or decline aid? I'm not arguing, per se, just clarifying. I've been underwhelmed by the Administration's response, too, so far.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 30, 2010, 12:29:20 PM
So according to FactCheck (LOL) AKA Brooks Jackson.
What's your issue with FactCheck? Too fact-y for you?
Quote from: we vs us on June 30, 2010, 01:12:18 PM
Since BP is coordinating/is responsible for the leak and the cleanup, are they the people who have to accept or decline aid? I'm not arguing, per se, just clarifying. I've been underwhelmed by the Administration's response, too, so far.
Reputedly, it's been the Feds who have cited the Jones Act in refusing aid from foreign ships. The Feds stood in the way of sand berms being built until further environmental impact studies were done. The Feds have mandated which dispersants can and cannot be used. The U.S. Coast Guard shut down 16 oil-gathering barges while they determined if there were adequate life preservers and fire extinguishers on board.
All issues which could be over-ridden by the President passing temporary executive orders that any and everything be done to minimize the damage to a Gulf Coast which has been beset with all sorts of hardship over the last decade. I realize there has to be some scruitiny to methods of containment and clean-up, but the Administration has seemed incredibly ill prepared to respond to a national crisis.
I will give credit where credit is due, and I do think it was a good idea to have BP pony up cash in escrow to pay for the
disaster which hopefully will speed claims for those who are impacted rather than having to go through drawn out court procedures. However, it was portrayed as President Obama getting his pound of flesh, or kicking BP's donkey. Punitive ideas are the last thing which need to be going through the minds of the admin right now. Worry about that later so long as BP and Trans-Ocean are cooperating and doing whatever is necessary.
President Obama is a great idealist concerned with passing legacy issues like healthcare reform, finance reform, major stimulus packages, etc. but he's coming up short on issues of immediate concern and crisis. From a purely political standpoint I give him credit for getting much of his major agenda items he campaigned on done prior to mid-terms, but I think it's come at a cost of dealing with other more pressing issues.
If you read the first part of my FactCheck link, it addresses the Jones Act. Turns out it never happened.
Quote from: we vs us on June 30, 2010, 02:36:36 PM
If you read the first part of my FactCheck link, it addresses the Jones Act. Turns out it never happened.
You should know by now I never read sourced references which contradict my paradigms. ;)
I didn't see the Jones Act specifically cited in your source, but I'm also doing about four things at the moment and I may have missed it on my cursory scan.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 30, 2010, 02:58:42 PM
You should know by now I never read sourced references which contradict my paradigms. ;)
I didn't see the Jones Act specifically cited in your source, but I'm also doing about four things at the moment and I may have missed it on my cursory scan.
No worries. I snipped it because it hadn't been part of the thread up till you mentioned it.
And I'm doing like 9 things at once, too. I hear there's medication for that.
Quote from: we vs us on June 30, 2010, 03:07:07 PM
No worries. I snipped it because it hadn't been part of the thread up till you mentioned it.
And I'm doing like 9 things at once, too. I hear there's medication for that.
Yes, it's called Atlas IPA....
;D
Obligatory Marshalls Beer reference in otherwise unrelated thread.
Thanks, we needed that.
Good news: Today BP announced it stopped the flow of oil and gas from the wellhead, for now.
Bad news: Some think it wont matter...
http://www.helium.com/items/1882339-doomsday-how-bp-gulf-disaster-may-have-triggered-a-world-killing-event
Dont read if easily depressed.
Oh lord, not that anti-factual nutjob of an article again.
Quote from: nathanm on July 15, 2010, 05:47:34 PM
Oh lord, not that anti-factual nutjob of an article again.
Hey, it was new to me.
One last Roland Emmerich movie to be made?
Quote from: patric on July 15, 2010, 05:51:41 PM
Hey, it was new to me.
One last Roland Emmerich movie to be made?
It's been making the rounds for the last few days. Needless to say, it has sparked some vigorous arguments with the folks who are convinced that the BP gusher can never be contained and will turn out to be the worst disaster man has ever seen. There are a surprising number of people who seem to hold that opinion at the moment.
Sort of like the dopes who spend all day and night looking at the ROV feeds (a video wall of which is, admittedly, rather impressive on a 47" TV) who were saying a couple of nights ago that "OMG there's a huge new leak!" when they were cleaning off the old cap and stirring up the crap that was on it. It's pretty amusing to read the comments of the ROV watchers over at The Oil Drum. At least three times a day one or more of them declare the world is going to end.
Sadly, Helium gives legitimate complaints a bad name. The writer is NOT an engineer/techician, or a scientist of any kind. He IS, on the other hand, a hysterical idiot. I suspect Murdochian tendencies. Or possibly tea bagger tendencies - but they are at least somewhat lucid, even is somewhat confused.
Ignore that crap.
I've found Helium to be lacking in other areas as well. When reading Helium articles, caveat emptor.
Well....The Communist News Network seems disappointed that the flow has been shutdown.....
Quote from: Breadburner on July 15, 2010, 09:36:14 PM
Well....The Communist News Network seems disappointed that the flow has been shutdown.....
Wouldn't you be upset if your cash cow was being taken away?
Quote from: nathanm on July 15, 2010, 09:45:34 PM
Wouldn't you be upset if your cash cow was being taken away?
Lol...Yeah...