The Oil Spilll

[KennyB]

NOAA now says it is leaking 200,000 gallons a day. There are people giving updates as they are received on www.fishingmgc.netunder the general discussion forum. Looks like it is a disaster in the making.

 

[KennyB]

NOAA now says it is leaking 200,000 gallons a day. There are people giving updates as they are received on www.fishingmgc.netunder the general discussion forum. Looks like it is a disaster in the making.

 

[therightway]

They said that it could destroy the seafood industry in South LA.

 

[3000lbchicken]

blow it up?

 

[KennyB]

could destory the industry in LA and MS. Could have a lot of extra money to spend on Miss. State if I am not spending it on boating and fishing.

 

[Hanmudog]

But if we lose a single shrimp off our coast then the State needs to sue the piss out of someone. The timing of this could not be any worse for those that depend on the fishing, shrimping, and tourism industries.

 

[therightway]

They said that many countries require a remote system that will allow you to cap off a well if something like this happens. Our country does not require this type of system. I am not the biggest proponent of government regulation but if this technology is out there it seems idiotic not to require something like this.

 

[Xenomorph]

...I was like... Cool, it's gonna miss us.

/*****

 

[KennyB]

poor little ole Mississippi doesn't matter.

 

[topdawg.sixpack]

Take that **** somewhere else.

 

[dawgstudent]

[No message]

 

[dudehead]

probably the most influential constituent in US politics, if anything because of the sheer size and wealth of the industry. If what you say is true, that should not surprise anyone familiar with how US politics works. After all, we are a political system ensconced in a market based economy which has served us pretty well.

This event will probably bring about the change about which you complain and that will be good. I certainly hope the ecological consequences aren't near as bad as what it appears they probably will be.

 

[fishwater99]

Gonna put some in my deep freeze just in case...

 

[KennyB]

NM

 

[zerocooldog]

and if this remote capping system works like i'd imagine then companies would install them voluntarilyto stop spills once they start, the cost of having one of these systems (one would think) would cost much less than having to cleanup after a spill occurs as well as lost production and capital allocation issues. This leads me to believe either this capping system doesn't work effectively or the cost of installing them isn't economical. More gov't regulation israrely the answer.

 

[AROB44]

zerocooldog wrote: <span class="post-title">Most of these energy guys are pretty smart</span>
_________________________________________________
and if this remote capping system works like i'd imagine then companies would install them voluntarilyto stop spills once they start, the cost of having one of these systems (one would think) would cost much less than having to cleanup after a spill occurs as well as lost production and capital allocation issues. This leads me to believe either this capping system doesn't work effectively or the cost of installing them isn't economical. More gov't regulation israrely the answer.

Generally Iwould agree with you, but companies do not always do things voluntarily nor do they always do things in their own bestinterest.WallStreet is a perfect example. With the use of CDS's and other derivatives they almost took everything down. So, sometimes gov't regulation is needed. Unbridled capitalism is great if you are one of the ones on the top.

 

[brantleyjones]

that this is BS.

 

[FlabLoser]

[No message]

 

[GopherDawg]

nm

 

[JimC1097]

to clean up that effects bottom line. Hopefully public opinion boycotting BP will force their hand. There has not been much reported about what BP is doing.

 

[Fletch Fletcher]

They said that many countries require a remote system that will allow you to cap off a well if something like this happens. Our country does not require this type of system. I am not the biggest proponent of government regulation but if this technology is out there it seems idiotic not to require something like this.

I have read that this rig had a devise on the ocean floor that was intended to cap leaks should a disaster occur. However, the devise failed to operate when needed. They sent down some robots to try and fix it, but they failed also. This rig was in about 5000 feet of water, so whatever they end up doing to cap it won't be easy.

Edit for ]http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2010/04/oil_still_spewing_in_gulf_afte.html[/url]

 

[zerocooldog]

<span style="COLOR: black"><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal">Funny you mention credit default swaps because modern CDSs started with JP Morgan and the Exxon Valdez incident back in ’94.

Also, derivativestrading wasn't what almost took everything down; I'd say the start of our economic demise was coming off the gold standard which is the only way our welfare state can exist.

<span style="BACKGROUND: yellow; COLOR: black">http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm
</span>
</p></span><span style="COLOR: black">Now back to sports</span>

 

[boomboommsu]

i think his point was that Wall Street did not utilize CDS in their best interests, in hindsight. they took a risk and lost. the lesson to learn, is that business' interests do not always align with our nations. Wall Street taking a small risk of default on CDS for potential big profit was not in our interests, and BP potentially taking the small risk of a spill instead of more extensive safeguards also would not be in our nations interest even while it would be in BP's.

 

[GloryDawg]

zerocooldog wrote: <span class="post-title">Most of these energy guys are pretty smart</span>
_________________________________________________
and if this remote capping system works like i'd imagine then companies would install them voluntarilyto stop spills once they start, the cost of having one of these systems (one would think) would cost much less than having to cleanup after a spill occurs as well as lost production and capital allocation issues. This leads me to believe either this capping system doesn't work effectively or the cost of installing them isn't economical. More gov't regulation israrely the answer.

Generally Iwould agree with you, but companies do not always do things voluntarily nor do they always do things in their own bestinterest.WallStreet is a perfect example. With the use of CDS's and other derivatives they almost took everything down. So, sometimes gov't regulation is needed. Unbridled capitalism is great if you are one of the ones on the top.

Someone loses a someone wins, they bet both ways. Don't get piss at them.Many americans came out ahead betting against. If you want to get piss about the current situation blame the idots who forces mortgage companies to give outrisky home loans that were backed by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac

 

[VirgilCain]

 

[davatron]

You make no mention of the federal reserve and it's disastrous inflationary policies that caused the 2008 meltdown. I highly suggest you do some reading, and stay away from anything related to Keynes.

We all know how government regulation works. Instead of a one page bill that requires installation of capping systems, it will be a 1000 page monster that gives the feds complete and total control of shipping industry. They will shove this down our throats, and five years later we will discover the ill effects that no one ever saw coming.

Government regulation is NEVER the answer. Suppose these capping systems were installed on all frigates. Would this not then add to the cost of doing business? This would certainly be passed to the customer, and then everyone one of you idiots would come on here complaining about the cost of the product. Further, the government would do this knowing some companies probably couldn't afford to have these systems installed. This would drive competition out of the market causing prices to go up even more.

You strive to create a utopia where accidents like oil spills don't occur. I have some advice for you: give up now and you will suffer far less disappointment in the future.

 

[Xenomorph]

Exxon Valdez spilled 10.8M gallons/250K barrels.

 

[boomboommsu]

I think you are referring to the Community Reinvestment Act, which applied to some banks, not mortgage companies. In reality, only 1/4 of banks were subject to it, and the ones that were fared much better than the ones who weren't. Something like only 1 in every 25 of bank failures were CRA banks.

That myth developed as a copout to blame the crisis on government, not business.

Blame the idiots that repealed Glass-Steagal. That applies to both parties, btw. It was done under the business conservative belief that the regulation was no longer necessary, as business would never make the mistakes the regulation was there to prevent (which they had made leading to the Great Depression, which is why and when the regulations were implemented). Obviously, that belief that the world was now different, which repeats throughout history,was wrong yet again. What's most pathetic is that despite the obviousness of the results, the argument on regulation is in the exact same place.

 

[boomboommsu]

the FDIC.

sounds like you need to read some Keynes.

 

[GloryDawg]

I think you are referring to the Community Reinvestment Act, which applied to some banks, not mortgage companies. In reality, only 1/4 of banks were subject to it, and the ones that were fared much better than the ones who weren't. Something like only 1 in every 25 of bank failures were CRA banks.

That myth developed as a copout to blame the crisis on government, not business.

Blame the idiots that repealed Glass-Steagal. That applies to both parties, btw. It was done under the business conservative belief that the regulation was no longer necessary, as business would never make the mistakes the regulation was there to prevent (which they had made leading to the Great Depression, which is why and when the regulations were implemented). Obviously, that belief that the world was now different, which repeats throughout history,was wrong yet again. What's most pathetic is that despite the obviousness of the results, the argument on regulation is in the exact same place.

Wall street did not make the loans the banks made the loans. Wall street just bet for and against it. They were balancing it out. Kind of like a bookey does in gambling.You can't blame someone for making money.Well you might.

 

[davatron]

The money that the FDIC insures would just be printed at the fed, further inflating and devaluing the dollar.

Are you really that stupid or were you just trolling me?