# The Gulf



## tjf67 (May 10, 2010)

This is turning into a disaster.   Every working boat down there should be on BP's payroll scooping that shit out of the water.  Any Navy ships around should be there as well.  Let BP work on the problem but for Gods sake get that shit out of the water.  Dont let resources sit idle WE NEED OUR COAST!!!!


----------



## snoseek (May 10, 2010)

A clusterf%ck of epic proportions it is.......


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (May 10, 2010)

its like they are almost doing it on purpose....you tell me that this "what if" scenario wasnt played out by any of the engineers/govt agenices as to have a plan of attack just in case if and when something like this happens...what if a cat3 hurricane knocked over several of these rigs and even more oil was spilling out.....what a clusterF


----------



## roark (May 10, 2010)

So long as they don't put any damn windmills. Those things are downright hazardous.


----------



## mondeo (May 10, 2010)

SKIQUATTRO said:


> its like they are almost doing it on purpose....you tell me that this "what if" scenario wasnt played out by any of the engineers/govt agenices as to have a plan of attack just in case if and when something like this happens...what if a cat3 hurricane knocked over several of these rigs and even more oil was spilling out.....what a clusterF


Well, 6 million gallons of oil were spilled during Katrina...

Also, something like this hits the news, and all of a sudden everyone's an expert in reliabilty.

It's a multiple failure event, dealing with the deepest well ever drilled. You only make sure you can get through a single failure event, after that it's probabilities. The problem here isn't that they didn't consider the possibilty, it's that they got the risk assessment (dead) wrong or were extremely unlucky to have a one in 100,000 year (or rarer) event happen. It's not like a 5 cent part caused this to happen. The blowout preventer is:
"a 450-ton, 40-foot-tall ... stack of metal valves and pistons that each failed to close off the well." Also, "In order to properly cap a well, drillers rely on three lines of defense to protect themselves from an explosive blowout: a column of heavy mud in the well itself and in the drilling riser that runs up to the rig; at least two cement plugs that fit in the well with a column of mud between them; and a blowout preventer that is supposed to seal the well if the mud and plugs all fail." From what I've heard, there were several human mistakes as well as the mechanical failuire of the blowout preventer. So far this has cost 11 lives, Transocean a $700 milllion rig, BP $300 million in cleanup (expected to go into billions if not tens of billions,) and them and Halliburton all kinds of negative publicity that will have significant financial implications, including legislation that will drive up the cost of drilling beyond what's probably reasonable and reduced opportunities to drill in the Gulf or in Alaska. Yes, the possibility of a failed blowout preventer was considered. But in the end the probability of such tremendous consequences were deemed small enough that it wasn't worth whatever it would've cost to make it that much less likely. They were wrong, just like the designers of the de Havilland Comet, Apollo 1, Apollo 13, the Challenger, the Space Shuttle External Tank, the Concorde ... for a partial list from only one field.

Any time something like this happens, the automatic response is that something more should've been done up front. The public is unwilling to accept the knowledge that anything people do has risk, especially when it's catastrophic risk. How much is it worth to prevent the risk of something like this happening? $1 million? $10 million? $10 billion? At some point you just halt progress or waste money that could be better spent somewhere else.

Hmm. I don't remember standing on this soap box...


----------



## snoseek (May 10, 2010)

roark said:


> So long as they don't put any damn windmills. Those things are downright hazardous.



Good one!

How many birds must die this awful death to satisfy our energy needs! One is too many I say....


----------



## wa-loaf (May 10, 2010)

Nice little google earth thingy to give you perspective on the size of this thing:
http://paulrademacher.com/oilspill/


----------



## TheBEast (May 10, 2010)

Mondeo - well said.  Working in investments my firm has first hand research and knowledge on the subject and learning about how this happened and the shear complexity of the situation is something a lot of the general public will just never understand.  It is a true tragedy and one that will takes years to remedy.  May those who lost their lives rest in eternal peace.


----------



## ctenidae (May 10, 2010)

TheBEast said:


> Mondeo - well said.  Working in investments my firm has first hand research and knowledge on the subject and learning about how this happened and the shear complexity of the situation is something a lot of the general public will just never understand.  It is a true tragedy and one that will takes years to remedy.  May those who lost their lives rest in eternal peace.



All true. Sadly, the people best situated to talk about what went wrong are teh 1 operators who died.

It's amazing to all of us that they got the multiple failures like that. Looks like the rams on the BOPs are going to have to be beefed up a bit to shear off any tools dropped in the string, as well.

/we have a rig in the Gulf doing the same work, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.


----------



## WakeboardMom (May 10, 2010)

SKIQUATTRO said:


> you tell me that this "what if" scenario wasnt played out by any of the engineers/govt agenices as to have a plan of attack just in case if and when something like this happens...



This is the part that I don't understand...the "what if's?"  I'm naive enough to think that there would've been a back-up plan.  BUT why SO MANY failures?  Why did so many alarms NOT go off?

Sad to say that when this is all over, BP is going to have a ton of explaining to do.


----------



## mondeo (May 10, 2010)

WakeboardMom said:


> This is the part that I don't understand...the "what if's?" I'm naive enough to think that there would've been a back-up plan. BUT why SO MANY failures? Why did so many alarms NOT go off?
> 
> Sad to say that when this is all over, BP is going to have a ton of explaining to do.


The problem is it's not going to be explaining that they have to do. It's going to be a witch hunt that will end up obscuring any beneficial public education. Senators will get to look good making BP look bad (even though the only real responisbility they have in this is the "the buck stops here" responsibility,) journalists will make Pulitzer proud by selling, well, whatever it is they sell these days, environmentalists will get a taller soap box to preach from, etc.

And away from the headlines, engineers will figure out what went wrong and how to prevent it from happening again. People who assess risk will revise their procedures to try to better capture stuff like that. BP's contract writers will be more stringent in ensuring proper failsafes are in place for stuff they don't own or operate but are ultimately responsible for. Response plans reviewed. All the stuff that would happen with or without the public outcry, all the stuff that actually needs to get done, will get done.


----------



## WakeboardMom (May 10, 2010)

mondeo said:


> All the stuff that would happen with or without the public outcry, all the stuff that actually needs to get done, will get done.




I hope so.  I hate hearing that this alarm or that alarm didn't go off.  Oh, man...those initial lives that were lost were horrendous; and all those friends who have to live with that.  And now all the fishermen and their families and all those others...it's such a huge pebble tossed into the water with all the ensuing repercussions.  I'm hoping those engineers can contain this terrible thing as best they can and then prevent it from happening again.


----------



## ctenidae (May 11, 2010)

WakeboardMom said:


> I hope so.  I hate hearing that this alarm or that alarm didn't go off.  Oh, man...those initial lives that were lost were horrendous; and all those friends who have to live with that.  And now all the fishermen and their families and all those others...it's such a huge pebble tossed into the water with all the ensuing repercussions.  I'm hoping those engineers can contain this terrible thing as best they can and then prevent it from happening again.



_*Note to readers:* I apologize in advance for the length of this post. I also want to lead off by saying it's completely not aimed at any individual, in particular WakeboardMom. She just happened to have a reasonable post that reminds me just how unreasonable many people can be. The following is not intended to be political. I fully realize that to the engineers among us, the sequence of events is a gross oversimplification. The nitty gritty isn't that important for our purposes. I also realize that I cannot type "the" or "and" accurately regularly. _

As I understand it, it's absolutely not a case of this or that alarm not going off. It was an exploration well that they drilled, to see if there were hydrocarbons present. There are, hooray, so you plug the hole up, seal it up tight, and call in a development drilling rig (the one that sank drills 1 hole fast, then moves on. A development rig sits there, drills 5-10 holes, gets the wells hooked up to the pipeline, then moves on. Rinse, repeat). The hole had been cemented, as I understand it, with a plug (think a wine cork) topped by cement, topped by another plug, with a Blow Out Preventer (BOP) on top of that. On top of all that was the riser, which is the pipe that runs from the seabed up through 5,000 feet of water to the platform, typically filled with mud. Imagine how much 5,000 feet of mud in a 12-14 inch pipe weighs- yet another safety check holding the gas and down. Somehow the pressure down in the hole jumped beyond what the plugs and cement could hold (faulty design, a bad pour, a bad read on the pressure, or the engineers weren't familiar with an average Tuesday morning for Marc, it's hard to say), and hydrocarbons worked their way into the riser and up to the platform. Now, the first plug should have held, but it didn't. The cement should have held, but it didn't. The second plug should have held, but it didn't. The BOP should have slammed shut (huge pointy rams jam closed, pinching off the pipe and closing it), but it didn't. The mud in the riser should have held everything down, but it didn't. So, hydrocarbons made it to the platform, and found an ignition source, which, as anyone who's been at Marc's on a Tuesday morning will tell you, it always does. So, boom.

So, what went wrong? Was there mud in the riser, and was it the right mud? Maybe, but they may have been clearing the riser preparing to disconnect. Were the plugs put in wrong? Maybe, but the cement job around the casing (you drill the hole, then put a piece of casing pipe in, then pour cement around that) might have failed, letting everything seep up past the plugs. Did the BOP fail? Maybe- it might not have activated at all, or maybe a plug got jammed back up into it preventing it from closing. 

In the end, until it's contained and re-drilled, it's all a guessing game. Maybe it was the crew, maybe it was the cement, maybe it was the BOP, maybe it was the casing, maybe it was some dumbshit bad luck.

The efforts to contain and control the damage have been quite amazing. BP's reaction has actually been great- they stood right up and said "We'll pay for it." I'm sure they'll be going after folks, too, but no cattle egrets are dying waiting for that check to clear. 

It's a disaster, sure. It's a shame those 11 crew members lost their lives, absolutely. Could it have been prevented? Maybe, tighter regs, better control, who knows, maybe it could have. The thing is, it's the risk we run. We need the oil and the gas. We want the power and the plastics. We crave all things petroleum. Pure and simple. If you drive a car to your favorite environmental protest wearing your animal friendly plastic Crocs eating your heart healthy tofu imported from China where they know the value of a hard day's work, then step on up and roll the dice at the Deepwater Casino. 

There aren't that many choices. Drive, and either destroy the Gulf or fund terrorists, or don't. Or, drive less, spend more to do it, and pay for an alternative. Whatever, don't go lambasting the evil oil executives who are intentionally trying to destroy the environment.Throw a little of that blame around, splash a little on the NIMBYs and BANANAs. Give a cup to SoccerMom, and a jigger to...okay, I don't have a male equivalent to SoccerMom. Because the engineers will figure out a way to keep this from happening again, just like they'll figure out a way to keep the next bad thing from happening again, and the next bad thing after that.  And some day, we'll decide the price is too high. Whether it's at the gas pump, or at the grocery store, or at the tarmac wasteland that used to be a beach. And then, maybe, just maybe, we'll do something useful about it.


----------



## snoseek (May 11, 2010)

^^^^^^^^


Such a well written post!


----------



## wa-loaf (May 11, 2010)

ctenidae said:


> [So, what went wrong? Was there mud in the riser, and was it the right mud? Maybe, but they may have been clearing the riser preparing to disconnect. Were the plugs put in wrong? Maybe, but the cement job around the casing (you drill the hole, then put a piece of casing pipe in, then pour cement around that) might have failed, letting everything seep up past the plugs. Did the BOP fail? Maybe- it might not have activated at all, or maybe a plug got jammed back up into it preventing it from closing.



From what I heard they were putting in the plugs and for some reason had removed some or all of the mud and were replacing it with sea water. The sea water was not heavy enough to cap the pressure. No one is sure why they did that, maybe it was easier to put the pugs in or something.


----------



## riverc0il (May 11, 2010)

mondeo said:


> The problem is it's not going to be explaining that they have to do. It's going to be a witch hunt that will end up obscuring any beneficial public education. Senators will get to look good making BP look bad (even though the only real responisbility they have in this is the "the buck stops here" responsibility,) journalists will make Pulitzer proud by selling, well, whatever it is they sell these days, environmentalists will get a taller soap box to preach from, etc.
> 
> And away from the headlines, engineers will figure out what went wrong and how to prevent it from happening again. People who assess risk will revise their procedures to try to better capture stuff like that. BP's contract writers will be more stringent in ensuring proper failsafes are in place for stuff they don't own or operate but are ultimately responsible for. Response plans reviewed. All the stuff that would happen with or without the public outcry, all the stuff that actually needs to get done, will get done.


Well said.

And, in the mean time, we are all still putting gas in our cars and enjoying that gas being priced cheaply. If the cheaper price of gas is not worth the environmental risks, we need to start taking the bike/bus to work or walking and living in buildings close enough to walkable markets for consumer goods. Or accept higher prices of gas if we cut out any gas source that has the slightest chance of environmental destruction pending a disaster like this. Just like the Valdez... there will be out cry and then people will forget, especially at the pump with gas still under $3/gallon. I am not saying any of this is right, just saying it is the way it is and the only alternative is massive lifestyle change by significant numbers of population centers.


----------



## WakeboardMom (May 11, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Well said.
> 
> And, in the mean time, we are all still putting gas in our cars and enjoying that gas being priced cheaply. If the cheaper price of gas is not worth the environmental risks, we need to start taking the bike/bus to work or walking and living in buildings close enough to walkable markets for consumer goods. Or accept higher prices of gas if we cut out any gas source that has the slightest chance of environmental destruction pending a disaster like this. Just like the Valdez... there will be out cry and then people will forget, especially at the pump with gas still under $3/gallon. I am not saying any of this is right, just saying it is the way it is and *the only alternative is massive lifestyle change by significant numbers of population centers.*



We're spoiled.  I'd be willing to bet that most of us could do better a job.


----------



## Marc (May 11, 2010)

ctenidae said:


> _*Note to readers:* _


_

I had a burrito last night too, so one can only imagine.

From what I've read, everyone's best guess is the rams on the BOP did activate, but not completely.

Other than that, I echo what modeo and cten said.  I think everyone should read the book "To Engineer is Human."

Here's a helpful link for anyone interested._


----------



## TheBEast (May 11, 2010)

ctenidae - thanks for the technical knowledge.  The vast majority of the media just plains sucks when it comes to technical issues like this.  More of a shock and ah approach to get everyone all fired up.  So many issues on so many levels for a disaster of this type.


----------



## drjeff (May 11, 2010)

TheBEast said:


> ctenidae - thanks for the technical knowledge.  The vast majority of the media just plains sucks when it comes to technical issues like this.  More of a shock and ah approach to get everyone all fired up.  So many issues on so many levels for a disaster of this type.



Agree 100%

A secondary issue I think is that a vast percentage of society has come to expect 100% of the benefits with 0% risk involved, when that equation is impossible.  

If you step back and consider that there's 1000's of drilling rigs operating safely 24/7/365 and extracting mind boggling amounts of oil from far below the earth's surface with a phenomenal safety record, the oil industry as a whole is a very safe one.  But just like every now and then a plane crashes or someone gets struck by lightening, freak events/accidents happen - sometimes as a result of human error and sometimes as a result of nothing other than just bad/random luck


----------



## Marc (May 11, 2010)

drjeff said:


> Agree 100%
> 
> A secondary issue I think is that a vast percentage of society has come to expect 100% of the benefits with 0% risk involved, when that equation is impossible.
> 
> If you step back and consider that there's 1000's of drilling rigs operating safely 24/7/365 and extracting mind boggling amounts of oil from far below the earth's surface with a phenomenal safety record, the oil industry as a whole is a very safe one.  But just like every now and then a plane crashes or someone gets struck by lightening, freak events/accidents happen - sometimes as a result of human error and sometimes as a result of nothing other than just bad/random luck



In this area of the Gulf alone:


----------



## bvibert (May 11, 2010)

Great post c-ten!


----------



## Glenn (May 11, 2010)

ctenidae said:


> _*Note to readers:* I apologize in advance for the length of this post. I also want to lead off by saying it's completely not aimed at any individual, in particular WakeboardMom. She just happened to have a reasonable post that reminds me just how unreasonable many people can be. The following is not intended to be political. I fully realize that to the engineers among us, the sequence of events is a gross oversimplification. The nitty gritty isn't that important for our purposes. I also realize that I cannot type "the" or "and" accurately regularly. _
> 
> As I understand it, it's absolutely not a case of this or that alarm not going off. It was an exploration well that they drilled, to see if there were hydrocarbons present. There are, hooray, so you plug the hole up, seal it up tight, and call in a development drilling rig (the one that sank drills 1 hole fast, then moves on.SNIPPED



An excellent writeup. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## drjeff (May 11, 2010)

Marc said:


> In this area of the Gulf alone:



Yup, just a staggering amount of drilling rigs out there!

My father used to do some HR consulting work for a firm out of Shreveport, LA whose only business was the refurbishment and reselling of old drilling pipe - they were a high 8 figure/almost 9 figure company back a few years ago, and this was pre-Katrina and they were expecting to see a HUGE increase in the demand for those long cyclindrical pieces of steel post Katrina when so many of those platforms had to replace some segments of pipe.


----------



## Geoff (May 11, 2010)

ctenidae said:


> <snip>
> 
> There aren't that many choices. Drive, and either destroy the Gulf or fund terrorists, or don't. Or, drive less, spend more to do it, and pay for an alternative. Whatever, don't go lambasting the evil oil executives who are intentionally trying to destroy the environment.Throw a little of that blame around, splash a little on the NIMBYs and BANANAs. Give a cup to SoccerMom, and a jigger to...okay, I don't have a male equivalent to SoccerMom. Because the engineers will figure out a way to keep this from happening again, just like they'll figure out a way to keep the next bad thing from happening again, and the next bad thing after that.  And some day, we'll decide the price is too high. Whether it's at the gas pump, or at the grocery store, or at the tarmac wasteland that used to be a beach. And then, maybe, just maybe, we'll do something useful about it.



...or we could have public policy where we burn imported oil until the world runs out of that.   We then start tapping our reserves.   In parallel, we have a coherent energy policy where we mostly wean ourselves of hydrocarbons.   Nukes for electricity supplemented with other renewables where it's viable.   High speed electric rail that can carry electric cars.   Electric cars for the urban folk and hydrogen hybrid cars for the rural folk.   We could easily get rid of 100% of our coal-fired electric plants in 20 years.   We can build efficient rail infrastructure in the next 20 years.   It's mostly having the courage to stand up to all the NIMBY people and start spending money on infrastructure rather than defense and entitlement programs.


----------



## drjeff (May 11, 2010)

Geoff said:


> ...or we could have public policy where we burn imported oil until the world runs out of that.   We then start tapping our reserves.   In parallel, we have a coherent energy policy where we mostly wean ourselves of hydrocarbons.   Nukes for electricity supplemented with other renewables where it's viable.   High speed electric rail that can carry electric cars.   Electric cars for the urban folk and hydrogen hybrid cars for the rural folk.   We could easily get rid of 100% of our coal-fired electric plants in 20 years.   We can build efficient rail infrastructure in the next 20 years.   It's mostly having the courage to stand up to all the NIMBY people and start spending money on infrastructure rather than defense and entitlement programs.



All sounding great and reasonable, until your last 2 words!  You'd need to 1st elect, and then keep elected for the majority of the foreseeable future a supermajority of politicians who would actually draft and pass the legislation to do so, and that more than likely just ain't happening anytime soon


----------



## bvibert (May 11, 2010)

I know we're skirting right on the edge, but lets make sure we keep partisan political commentary out of this...  All is good thus far.  Just saying.


----------



## Marc (May 11, 2010)

bvibert said:


> I know we're skirting right on the edge, but lets make sure we keep partisan political commentary out of this...  All is good thus far.  Just saying.



Feckin' commie fascist.


----------



## wa-loaf (May 11, 2010)

The cost of clean-up for BP is just a drop in the bucket: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/10/AR2010051004664_pf.html

Now's a good time to buy their stock ...


----------



## ctenidae (May 11, 2010)

drjeff said:


> Yup, just a staggering amount of drilling rigs out there!



Inteestingly, the vast majority of those aren't drilling rigs. I think there are only 18 drill rigs operating in the Gulf right now. Regulation has made it too expensive to have more there, so they've been leaving as they come off contract. Oil keeps sitting around $80, it starts to be economic again.


----------



## o3jeff (Jun 2, 2010)

_'Titanic' director Cameron joins effort to plug Gulf spill_
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100601/en_afp/usoilpollutionenvironmentfilm

Whats he going to do, make a movie?

Might as well say I joined the effort too


----------



## drjeff (Jun 2, 2010)

o3jeff said:


> _'Titanic' director Cameron joins effort to plug Gulf spill_
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100601/en_afp/usoilpollutionenvironmentfilm
> 
> Whats he going to do, make a movie?
> ...



At first I thought the same thing too, but then I heard on the news this morning that he was brought in as a consultant because he's considered an expert in the field of underwater robotics and filming technologies.  For that reason, I can see why he might be able to help, since it's the underwater robots and the cameras that are ultimately going to play a huge role in the fixing of this mess!


----------



## dmc (Jun 2, 2010)

You can't just send boats out to clean this crap up....  It's toxic and destructive..  Fishermen are already getting sick..


----------



## drjeff (Jun 2, 2010)

dmc said:


> You can't just send boats out to clean this crap up....  It's toxic and destructive..  Fishermen are already getting sick..



In a weird sort of way, something tells me that as unfortunate as it seems that a good hurricane or too hitting that area this year might actually HELP in the clean up of this debacle.  With so much of the oil underwater and in essence unreachable currently by the skimmers/etc, getting it onshore, as counter intuitive as it may seem might actually make the cleanup efforts easier and quicker for things


----------



## dmc (Jun 2, 2010)

drjeff said:


> In a weird sort of way, something tells me that as unfortunate as it seems that a good hurricane or too hitting that area this year might actually HELP in the clean up of this debacle.  With so much of the oil underwater and in essence unreachable currently by the skimmers/etc, getting it onshore, as counter intuitive as it may seem might actually make the cleanup efforts easier and quicker for things



yeah...

I'm just worried that people are going to rush down to help and end up sick... Like the 911 responders...  We have to be careful.


----------



## Marc (Jun 2, 2010)

dmc said:


> yeah...
> 
> I'm just worried that people are going to rush down to help and end up sick... Like the 911 responders...  We have to be careful.



If there's a silver lining in that worry of yours it's that we have a lot more experience with crude oil than with burning and collapsing sky scrapers in the way of health effects.

Kind of a side but related note... anyone that hasn't watched the documentary Fires of Kuwait, I'd highly recommend.  And as a bonus, Rip Torn is the narrator.


----------



## dmc (Jun 2, 2010)

Marc said:


> If there's a silver lining in that worry of yours it's that we have a lot more experience with crude oil than with burning and collapsing sky scrapers in the way of health effects.



Do we?  Cause fishermen are already getting sick..


----------



## Marc (Jun 2, 2010)

dmc said:


> Do we?  Cause fishermen are already getting sick..



Yes.


----------



## dmc (Jun 2, 2010)

Marc said:


> Yes.



ok


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 2, 2010)

dmc said:


> Do we?  Cause fishermen are already getting sick..



Difference is, we know what from in the Gulf. Proper training, procedures, and equipment can prevent it. Not saying those three are being supplied or used, but they do know what they're dealing with.


----------



## RootDKJ (Jun 4, 2010)

Here's an interesting projection as to where the currents might take the oil.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 4, 2010)

ctenidae said:


> _*Note to readers:* I apologize in advance for the length of this post. I also want to lead off by saying it's completely not aimed at any individual, in particular WakeboardMom. She just happened to have a reasonable post that reminds me just how unreasonable many people can be. The following is not intended to be political. I fully realize that to the engineers among us, the sequence of events is a gross oversimplification. The nitty gritty isn't that important for our purposes. I also realize that I cannot type "the" or "and" accurately regularly. _
> 
> As I understand it, it's absolutely not a case of this or that alarm not going off. It was an exploration well that they drilled, to see if there were hydrocarbons present. There are, hooray, so you plug the hole up, seal it up tight, and call in a development drilling rig (the one that sank drills 1 hole fast, then moves on. A development rig sits there, drills 5-10 holes, gets the wells hooked up to the pipeline, then moves on. Rinse, repeat). The hole had been cemented, as I understand it, with a plug (think a wine cork) topped by cement, topped by another plug, with a Blow Out Preventer (BOP) on top of that. On top of all that was the riser, which is the pipe that runs from the seabed up through 5,000 feet of water to the platform, typically filled with mud. Imagine how much 5,000 feet of mud in a 12-14 inch pipe weighs- yet another safety check holding the gas and down. Somehow the pressure down in the hole jumped beyond what the plugs and cement could hold (faulty design, a bad pour, a bad read on the pressure, or the engineers weren't familiar with an average Tuesday morning for Marc, it's hard to say), and hydrocarbons worked their way into the riser and up to the platform. Now, the first plug should have held, but it didn't. The cement should have held, but it didn't. The second plug should have held, but it didn't. The BOP should have slammed shut (huge pointy rams jam closed, pinching off the pipe and closing it), but it didn't. The mud in the riser should have held everything down, but it didn't. So, hydrocarbons made it to the platform, and found an ignition source, which, as anyone who's been at Marc's on a Tuesday morning will tell you, it always does. So, boom.
> 
> ...


 
I thought I read that the drilling mud was in place only sea water.  I do not remember where I saw this.  This could expalin the the plugs failing.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jun 4, 2010)

C-10  well done 

 You have analytically described in layman's terms  that the complexity and  ultimate repair  of the failure is akin to peeling back the layers of the problem like an onion until SOMETHING works  .

 Many of us do not comprehend the whys and wherefores of various design elements for control systems that are /were in place and continue to fail and as a result grow weary of the seemingly stultifying pace of problem resolution --------------Not saying i agree with that but right or wrong  that's HUMAN Nature and expecting systemic behavioral modification  relative to lifestyle choices  within a society that is  self centered is a Pipedream ( No Pun intended )

Thanks again for 'splainin it to us rubes


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 4, 2010)

Puck it said:


> I thought I read that the drilling mud was in place only sea water.  I do not remember where I saw this.  This could expalin the the plugs failing.



Yeah, apparently they were pulling the mud and replacing it with seawater, a normal step prior to disconnection. Issue seems to be that the cement wasn't good, and couldn't hold wihtout the mud on top. BP's looking worse and worse in all of it, as it seems they did whatever they could to cut a day or two off the time the rig was on site. Not, in and of itself, a bad thing, but therer are some corners that shouldn't be cut.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 4, 2010)

ctenidae said:


> Yeah, apparently they were pulling the mud and replacing it with seawater, a normal step prior to disconnection. Issue seems to be that the cement wasn't good, and couldn't hold wihtout the mud on top. BP's looking worse and worse in all of it, as it seems they did whatever they could to cut a day or two off the time the rig was on site. Not, in and of itself, a bad thing, but therer are some corners that shouldn't be cut.


 
Agreed.  The number of catatrophic failures seems to high, but two of them may have been human induced leaving the BOP as the loan mechanical failure.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 4, 2010)

Warp Daddy said:


> C-10  well done
> 
> You have analytically described in layman's terms  that the complexity and  ultimate repair  of the failure is akin to peeling back the layers of the problem like an onion until SOMETHING works  .
> 
> ...



Yup, good explanation to say the least by c-ten!   

I think the "best" way I've heard in an attempt to explain now why capping this sucker is so tough (aside from being about a mile below the surface) is from a mechanical engineering prof they were interviewing on TV who described it in the following way (paraphrasing here) - it's easy to screw a sprayer onto the end of a garden hose when the water isn't flowing through the hose, now try and do the same thing when the water is flowing though the hose - much tougher, and now have that hose be 14" in diameter


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 4, 2010)

drjeff said:


> Yup, good explanation to say the least by c-ten!
> 
> I think the "best" way I've heard in an attempt to explain now why capping this sucker is so tough (aside from being about a mile below the surface) is from a mechanical engineering prof they were interviewing on TV who described it in the following way (paraphrasing here) - it's easy to screw a sprayer onto the end of a garden hose when the water isn't flowing through the hose, now try and do the same thing when the water is flowing though the hose - much tougher, and now have that hose be 14" in diameter



And a mile underwater, with 3,500 psi pushing through.
Yeah, not easy.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jun 4, 2010)

drjeff said:


> Yup, good explanation to say the least by c-ten!
> 
> I think the "best" way I've heard in an attempt to explain now why capping this sucker is so tough (aside from being about a mile below the surface) is from a mechanical engineering prof they were interviewing on TV who described it in the following way (paraphrasing here) - it's easy to screw a sprayer onto the end of a garden hose when the water isn't flowing through the hose, now try and do the same thing when the water is flowing though the hose - much tougher, and now have that hose be 14" in diameter



point well taken doc  !


----------



## smitty77 (Jun 4, 2010)

ctenidae said:


> BP's looking worse and worse in all of it, as it seems they did whatever they could to cut a day or two off the time the rig was on site. Not, in and of itself, a bad thing, but therer are some corners that shouldn't be cut.



I found a nice article explaining things much the way you did, but with some insight into why some corners were cut along with a detailed description of the problems faced when drilling wells in the layered, crusty Gulf seabed.

Not that I condone cutting corners, but this is a business after all, whose sole purpose is to provide a service in exchange for money.  This is why we have regulatory agencies like the Minerals Management Service who, IMO, should share a huge portion of the blame for this mess.  You cannot expect a corporation to police itself, and the watchdog was protecting the wrong people.

Here's another article on the inexact science of capping a well.

And another sobering thought courtesy of Brian Willimas:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#37457132

At about 20 seconds into the video: "The sad truth is, if you added up all the oil that's spilled out into the Gulf from this, the millions and millions of gallons, it equals only about an hours worth of our nations energy consumption where oil is concerned."

43 days of a well head gushing uncontrollably equals 1 HOUR of our nation's oil demand. Sickening....  If we're looking for someone/something to blame, we all need to take a good long look in the mirror.  BP and companies just like them are not in the Gulf just for fun.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 4, 2010)

That's a pretty good article. Not sure I entirely agree with BP's definition of "not uncommon," but that's neither her nor there.

Main reason for cutting corners: $533,000 a day for the rig to be on station.


----------



## Marc (Jun 4, 2010)

ctenidae said:


> That's a pretty good article. Not sure I entirely agree with BP's definition of "not uncommon," but that's neither her nor there.
> 
> Main reason for cutting corners: $533,000 a day for the rig to be on station.



I think they might review the risk v. reward analysis on that decision.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 4, 2010)

Marc said:


> I think they might review the risk v. reward analysis on that decision.



Probably- Save $7 million vs risk $500 billion.

hmmmm...

It is interesting that there are so few rigs drilling in the Gulf now compared to even just 5 years ago- it's just too expensive to do. We talk about the profits the oil companies bring in, and the dollar amounts are huge, but the margin's only 4-6%. Doesn't take a very big "oops" to take a big chunk out of a 6% margin.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 10, 2010)

one F bomb at the end for those at work


----------



## dmc (Jun 10, 2010)

Love this one...


----------



## RootDKJ (Jun 10, 2010)




----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Jun 11, 2010)

wondering where the benefit concerts are...when the earthquakes in haiti happened, the celebrieties were everywhere raising money, where are they now for the people of the Gulf?


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 11, 2010)

Everyone is really dumping on BP lately. I have to ask the question: why BP? Does any one really think any other energy company could have done a better job with this? I find that hard to believe. If people want to be outraged, they should look in the mirror first. Then.... well, then it gets political so I will leave it at that.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 11, 2010)

I don't think that's a fair argument.  Who knows if other oil companies have better safe guards against what caused this mess.  BP workers on the rig say that the company cut a lot of corners.  I'm not saying I trust their word as scripture, but it does give me pause.

We can point the finger inward all we want and say it's each and every one of our addiction to oil that is the problem.  That fact doesn't change who ultimately is responsible for this disaster.  It's BP and the other companies contracted for that rigs operation.  I don't even really like to point fingers at the regulators.  Sure tougher regulations could have been in place, but BP shouldn't have to be told what's the right way to operate.  They're experts and should be doing it right.

Exxon took theirs 20 years ago.  BP deserves theirs now.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 11, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Everyone is really dumping on BP lately. I have to ask the question: why BP? Does any one really think any other energy company could have done a better job with this? I find that hard to believe. If people want to be outraged, they should look in the mirror first. Then.... well, then it gets political so I will leave it at that.



Why BP?

Why not...it was their rig that blew up. And people need a "face" to confront with their anger.

Anger that is well earned...this event has ruined an entire region's economy at a time it is ill afforded. We have not felt the repercussions here...yet.

That's why in a nutshell. I understand what you mean about looking in the mirror, but it is too easy to say I don't own any oil rigs. It is too simplistic to lay blame on the users of the product...akin to blaming those who drink alcohol responsibly for deaths caused by drunk driving. 

As you did, I will stop now before I really get going.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jun 12, 2010)

BP simply bcuz they Efeed  up royally and let greed take precedent in their decision to override safety precaution vs profit -- sorry they are richly deserving of the pr shitstorm .


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 12, 2010)

You guys have sound counter points. I just think that it could have been any other energy company in this situation, not being able to fix the problem. Perhaps due to "cutting corners" BUT we saw that with the financial sector. Pretty much all the major players got caught doing the same thing because competition elevated the bar and regulation was not in place to prevent new opportunities from not being taken. Soon one company's innovation became standard practice. 

It is very much over simplistic to say "look in the mirror." Perhaps a better way of putting it is that drilling or transporting oil in the ocean is not without risk and in a long enough time line, major accidents can be expected. BP is taken theirs now, Exxon took theirs in the past, and another company will take theirs yet in the future. I am not idealistic to suggest we need to lay off the oil but I do insist that we not over simply matters by putting everything on BP shoulders'. There is more to the problem from a systematic perspective. They might even deserve the majority of the blame.... but systematically, that perspective is just too oversimplified.


----------



## smitty77 (Jun 12, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> I don't even really like to point fingers at the regulators.  Sure tougher regulations could have been in place, but BP shouldn't have to be told what's the right way to operate.


When the "right" way is more expensive - yes, they indeed need to be told.  Oil exploration is done for profit.  If the success rate of going with "Method A" is 99.7% versus "Method B" at 99.9% but with a 15% cost premium - you roll the dice.  ANY for-profit corporation would.  A lot of hindsight talk has centered around using a liner inside the casing to prevent blow-out.  But the decision to use the more expensive liner is left to the driller.  You cannot expect business to act in the best interests of the public or the environment - this is why we have contaminated factory sites and polluted rivers across this nation.

So yes, blame the watch-dog as well.


Personally, I'm growing downright upset at Obama's preaching of "the public will not bear any of the cleanup costs" while this well continues to gush.  SPEND SOME MONEY ALREADY and worry about cost recovery later.  We can authorize a BILLION dollar bailout for the financial sector and bailout the auto industry - all costs to be paid "down the road" - but you can't do the same for this????  I just wish he was so quick to offer financial support to this operation instead of using this as the only time during his Presidency to be stingy with MY money.


----------



## RootDKJ (Jun 13, 2010)




----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 13, 2010)

smitty77 said:


> Personally, I'm growing downright upset at Obama's preaching of "the public will not bear any of the cleanup costs" while this well continues to gush.  SPEND SOME MONEY ALREADY and worry about cost recovery later.  We can authorize a BILLION dollar bailout for the financial sector and bailout the auto industry - all costs to be paid "down the road" - but you can't do the same for this????  I just wish he was so quick to offer financial support to this operation instead of using this as the only time during his Presidency to be stingy with MY money.



This. The Coast Guard, not BP should be in charge of the clean-up. Let BP deal with the well itself. We should be commandeering all available BP boats for the clean-up and putting them under the command of the CG. Send the bill to BP later.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 17, 2010)

The moratorium that was placed on drilling even for six months is going to kill the economy even more down there.  Do these politicians think about repercussions?


----------



## dmc (Jun 17, 2010)

Puck it said:


> The moratorium that was placed on drilling even for six months is going to kill the economy even more down there.  Do these politicians think about repercussions?



I guess not...  Cause the gulf is filled with oil...

the repercussion of failed policy and allowing oil companies to do as they please...


----------



## Puck it (Jun 17, 2010)

dmc said:


> I guess not... Cause the gulf is filled with oil...
> 
> the repercussion of failed policy and allowing oil companies to do as they please...


 

It just burns my arse that they will use this for political gains.  Clean up the mess, stop the leak, and try to prevent it from happening again by analyzing data.  Do not put moratoriums on something that will not be fixed in 6 months. Get over yourselves and do the right thing for the area.

BTW - You are not suppose to be speaking to me.  You do not like me.


----------



## dmc (Jun 17, 2010)

Puck it said:


> It just burns my arse that they will use this for political gains.  Clean up the mess, stop the leak, and try to prevent it from happening again by analyzing data.  Do not put moratoriums on something that will not be fixed in 6 months. Get over yourselves and do the right thing for the area.
> 
> BTW - You are not suppose to be speaking to me.  You do not like me.




I don't like you...  But I have to respond to your comments when I believe you are wrong which you are.

Who's economy are you talkng about?  the local economy? Or the oil economy?

Cause that oil is f'ing up lots of peoples lives that depend on this wonderful natural resource called the Gulf of MExico...

But I would expect you to side with the oil companies..  And thats a lot of the reason I do not like you.


----------



## Geoff (Jun 17, 2010)

I'll say it again:

I think the US should just import oil from the A-Rabs (and our usual sources like Canada, Mexico, ....).   Once we pump them dry, they will have no money and will cease to be of any consequence to the world.   A side effect is that we don't cause environmental damage to the US coastline.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 17, 2010)

dmc said:


> I don't like you... But I have to respond to your comments when I believe you are wrong which you are.
> 
> Who's economy are you talkng about? the local economy? Or the oil economy?
> 
> ...


 
You can not dislike somebody when you do not even know them.


Back to topic

I meant the local economy.  Not really the oil companies but the other businesses that support the oil drilling.  Roughnecks. Tug boats. Supply ships. Welding companies.  Yes, the tourism and fishing economies are being destroyed, but you also want to take down the other part of the economy too. 

BTW - How are you getting to the Phish concert?  I hope you are walking or riding your bike.


----------



## dmc (Jun 17, 2010)

Puck it said:


> You can not dislike somebody when you do not even know them.
> 
> 
> Back to topic
> ...




I don't want to take down anything - I want to make sure that our precious resource is not destroyed to fill the pockets of the oil companies...

Yeah I use oil...  And I'm willing to pay more for more responsible drilling..

And yes - I've never met you - and I still do not like you and what you stand for...

I've said what I need to say - so don't expect a response...


----------



## dmc (Jun 17, 2010)

Geoff said:


> I'll say it again:
> 
> I think the US should just import oil from the A-Rabs (and our usual sources like Canada, Mexico, ....).   Once we pump them dry, they will have no money and will cease to be of any consequence to the world.   A side effect is that we don't cause environmental damage to the US coastline.



Interesting....


----------



## Puck it (Jun 17, 2010)

dmc said:


> I don't want to take down anything - I want to make sure that our precious resource is not destroyed to fill the pockets of the oil companies...
> 
> Yeah I use oil... And I'm willing to pay more for more responsible drilling..
> 
> ...


 
I do not want the oil companies pockets full either but the cost per unit of energy is still the cheapest thing out there. Only nukes can touch it. We need the oil and we need to go to more etremes to get it as we use. Increased cost in oil does work either then other industries suffer. That is not sound reasoning.

BTW - You have no idea what I stand for or who I am. So drop the crap


----------



## Puck it (Jun 17, 2010)

dmc said:


> Interesting....


 
And when they cut the pipeline like in the 70's, we come to a screeching halt. That is a great idea.  We already import over 50% of our oil.


----------



## Edd (Jun 17, 2010)

Watched a bit of the hearings today.  It was interesting to watch the CEO of an oil company get spoken down to....such a reversal of fortune for a guy used to living at the top of the food chain.  I'm sure he"ll put all this behind him soon enough.


----------



## dmc (Jun 17, 2010)

Edd said:


> Watched a bit of the hearings today.  It was interesting to watch the CEO of an oil company get spoken down to....such a reversal of fortune for a guy used to living at the top of the food chain.  I'm sure he"ll put all this behind him soon enough.




Yeah... But it's nice to see him squirm...

I heard one Congressman actually apologized for the $20,000,000,000 escrow for the victims...  Funny... he's an oil guy...


----------



## JimG. (Jun 17, 2010)

Edd said:


> Watched a bit of the hearings today.  It was interesting to watch the CEO of an oil company get spoken down to....such a reversal of fortune for a guy used to living at the top of the food chain.  I'm sure he"ll put all this behind him soon enough.



That tool is the poster boy for executive arrogance.

Hope he enjoys his 15 minutes of infamy because he will be out of a job when BP declares bankruptcy.

And after his pathetic performance in reaction to this crisis, he will never get a job like this again.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 17, 2010)

JimG. said:


> That tool is the poster boy for executive arrogance.
> 
> Hope he enjoys his 15 minutes of infamy because he will be out of a job when BP declares bankruptcy.
> 
> And after his pathetic performance in reaction to this crisis, he will never get a job like this again.


 

I hope you all realize that BP is a major refiner.  The US has not built a new refinery in the last thirty years.  BP collaspe will be felt.  I am not condoning the arrogance or greed of the oil companies but we need oil right now since there is no alternative.


----------



## dmc (Jun 17, 2010)

JimG. said:


> That tool is the poster boy for executive arrogance.
> 
> Hope he enjoys his 15 minutes of infamy because he will be out of a job when BP declares bankruptcy.
> 
> And after his pathetic performance in reaction to this crisis, he will never get a job like this again.



What amazes me is is total lack of knowledge - or at least his lack of knowledge when getting grilled today..  His candor and smugness made me want to bitch slap him..  

He was probably coached out the ass and told he was "out the door" and if he cooperated he'd get a pay off before leaving...


----------



## snoseek (Jun 17, 2010)

Cheap oil is pretty f&ckin expensive if you ask me


----------



## Edd (Jun 17, 2010)

dmc said:


> What amazes me is is total lack of knowledge - or at least his lack of knowledge when getting grilled today..



So typical though of managers and executives today.  They aren't experts regarding the very business they are in charge of.  This drives me crazy.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 17, 2010)

snoseek said:


> Cheap oil is pretty f&ckin expensive if you ask me



That is a risk for the exploration.  The companies have the technogy to drill at angles and hit these deeper reserves. However, people did not want the oil wells close to shore. 

Oil is in everything. It is in your ski boots, jacket, pants, goggles, helmet, skis, even the plastic loft ticket bails.  People would be screaming if oil was $8 a gallon. Look at the effect at $4 a gallon.  At 8,  ski resorts would be hurting. Hotels would be hurting. Face it the economy is run by oil until we find an alternative that has a better price per unit energy then there will be drilling or until we run out. The companies will figure what happened and try to prevent an event like this happening again.  It is called good engineering.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 17, 2010)

Edd said:


> So typical though of managers and executives today.  They aren't experts regarding the very business they are in charge of.  This drives me crazy.



One thing they care about. Stock price.


----------



## mondeo (Jun 17, 2010)

And this thread started out so rationally...

A CEO's job is to maximize profits. That's what they're there for. Not maximizing profits as a top executive of a publicly traded company is unethical.

Even with a CEO that's come up through the ranks, they're never going to know all aspects of the business with nuts and bolts details. My company's last president (and now president of a sister company) was an engineer his entire life before becoming president. But if one of our products blew up, I doubt he would do any better in front of a congressional panel than the BP CEO, the auto CEOs, or the financial CEOs. Congressional panels are complete BS where members of congress feel free to ask about minutae that only the person that did the work would know the answer to. The kinds of questions where, in business, a completely acceptable response would be to take the action to get the information after the meeting. CEOs look bad, congress looks good, nothing's accomplished. But hey, they're just fat cat CEOs, who cares?

I've dealt with most of the engineering executives in my company, including manufacturing engineering. Management styles may differ, but they are all brilliant, (relatively) reasonable people. I could see most of them, if they were execs for an oil company visiting a rig that cost $500k/day to run, pushing the crew of the rig to finish faster, and pushing specific options to do so. That's their job. More, faster, cheaper oil production. According to the media and public opinion, that makes the executives automatically responsible for what happens. I call BS on that. Unless there's a corporate culture of yes men, the blame goes on the operators. You better have a good reason why not to do something or state valid concerns and request time to assess risk, but I've never met an executive who would force a bad decision to save a buck. In my experience, most of the stuff that execs get blamed for are merely suggestions that lower level spineless employees just go off and execute rather than push back.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 18, 2010)

Your statement is very true.  But a lot of execs do not get involved or come around talk to the lwer level people to understand the true problems. Just my thoughts


----------



## Marc (Jun 18, 2010)

mondeo said:


> And this thread started out so rationally...
> 
> A CEO's job is to maximize profits. That's what they're there for. Not maximizing profits as a top executive of a publicly traded company is unethical.
> 
> ...



I half agree.  In a lot of other corporations I'd fully agree with your analysis.  But with BP... they've had problems with safety reg violations across the breadth of their business for quite some time now.  It pretty much all came to a head with the Texas City explosion.  Hayworth was supposed to usher in a new era and culture of safety and responsibility.  I think that's where a lot of the current angst towards him specifically comes from.

But yeah, congressional hearings are just a chance for congressmen to posture and give an emotional outlet to their ticked off constituents.  As far as I'm concerned.  And that goes for both sides of the aisle.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 18, 2010)

This would go over like a lead balloon.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/gallon_gas_9GlF3o1xIcIBelOV3k0RsK


----------



## Marc (Jun 18, 2010)

Puck it said:


> This would go over like a lead balloon.
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/gallon_gas_9GlF3o1xIcIBelOV3k0RsK



I saw nothing except a very distracting sidebar.  Thanks for posting about Megan Fox.


----------



## dmc (Jun 18, 2010)

Edd said:


> So typical though of managers and executives today.  They aren't experts regarding the very business they are in charge of.  This drives me crazy.



The best CEOs I've worked with understand the whole enterprise from the ground up...

The worst live in their own patch like marketing or finance...

This guy knows... He's smart...  But he's lying...


----------



## dmc (Jun 18, 2010)

Marc said:


> I saw nothing except a very distracting sidebar.  Thanks for posting about Megan Fox.



I like to oil her up... and... never mind,,,


----------



## Puck it (Jun 18, 2010)

Marc said:


> I saw nothing except a very distracting sidebar. Thanks for posting about Megan Fox.


 

Nice catch.  I missed the sidebar.  I was worried about the $7 a gallon and how it would affect my skiing.  Megan made forget about that.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 18, 2010)

dmc said:


> The best CEOs I've worked with understand the whole enterprise from the ground up...
> 
> The worst live in their own patch like marketing or finance...
> 
> This guy knows... He's smart...  But he's lying...



Being the boss(of any sized company), the vast majority of the time is so much more difficult than most people could even comprehend.  Let alone in a situation like this, where even if BP is currently doing everything they possibly can (and who knows if they are???) and ends up taking care of everyone directly affected in an appropriate way in the coming weeks/months/years - he can never do right in the views of so many.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 18, 2010)

Marc said:


> I saw nothing except a very distracting sidebar.  Thanks for posting about Megan Fox.





dmc said:


> I like to oil her up... and... never mind,,,





Puck it said:


> Nice catch.  I missed the sidebar.  I was worried about the $7 a gallon and how it would affect my skiing.  Megan made forget about that.



Now if Ms. Fox wants to do her part to help clean up the Gulf, by say swimming in it and collecting some of the oil on herself,  I would gladly volunteer to give her a very, very, very thorough post swim clean off/wipe down to make sure that there wouldn't be 1 square millimeter of her that had any oil on it!


----------



## smitty77 (Jun 21, 2010)

Marc said:


> I saw nothing except a very distracting sidebar.  Thanks for posting about Megan Fox.


You need to dig for the real news.  Apparently, monitoring the beaches of Southern Florida is not without perks:


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Jun 28, 2010)

roark said:


> So long as they don't put any damn windmills. Those things are downright hazardous.



Yea, oil spills don't kill enough birds and other wildlife.....unreal


----------



## bigbog (Jun 28, 2010)

SKIQUATTRO said:


> ....you tell me that this "what if" scenario wasnt played out by any of the engineers/govt agenices as to have a plan of attack just in case if and when something like this happens.....


You can bet there was BIG $$$ distributed to engineers and to the best Congress money can buy(ie...MMS..etc) to prevent that.....and safety/environmental-safeguards would've been to cut into profits and had it come from the Federal Gov't from 1994-Present would've sounded like that ugly word "socialism", wouldn't have it? (Not a shot at conservative Republicans...fwiw Clinton was almost as lax as Dubya'..imho).


----------

