I'm a geologist by trade. In a former life I spent a few years
working oil rigs, a couple of those on offshore rigs. Here's my
analysis and worst fears, based on what I've gleaned from the news
reports.

Analysis:

1. To save time/$, they didn't circulate the mud in the borehole
("bottoms up") before they set the liner. Had they done so, they
would have identified the disasterous conditions before the disaster.

2. To save time/$, they "hung" the liner (ran it only from the bottom
of the previous casing, rather than run it all the way up inside the
previous casing to the BOP).

3. To save time/$, they used only 6 liner centralizers rather than the
"recommended" 21 (recommended by whom I don't know). If the hole
deviated at all from vertical (which I'm sure it did), that'd mean
that in places, the liner would be placed up against the borehole
sidewall rather than through the center of the borehole. That'd make
it very hard to get an adequate cement seal of consistent thickness
and strength along the entire length of the liner.

4. To save time/$, they used an inferior cement mix.

5. To save time/$, they didn't run a "cement bond log". To do this,
they run a special tool on a wire line through the recently cemented
interval, and log the qyaulity of the cement bond between the liner
and the formation.

6. To save time/$, they displaced the drilling mud in the riser (above
the BOP up to the drill rig on the surface) with sea water before the
inferior cement had completely set, and without the normal plug in the
casing below the BOP. This would drastically reduce the pressure head
on the formation, and allow formation fluids to enter the borehole.

Now my "worst case" fear:

The bad cement job outside the liner failed; the gas/oil in the
formation, under intense pressure (could be as high as 50,000 psi!)
blew out and eroded the cement and possibly the liner, allowing it to
flow unimpeded and expand quickly due to the pressure release, into
the annular space outside the liner, and possibly into the liner, and
into the previous casing. THE WORST WORST CASE: if they were to cap
the well at the BOP, the pressure would overwhelm the cement-formation
seal at the previous casing (where they hung the liner), and break
down the higher formations and cement, and flow unimpeded outside the
previous casing and BOP to the seafloor surface (cf: the Santa Barbara
spill). If that was the case, there would be NO WAY to control the
flow until the relief wells are completed (in August). Maybe that's
why they "failed" to cap the well at the BOP.

Joe Barton should be hanged.

Sorry, just my $0.02 worth.

-Zz

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:04:43 -0700, Zz Yzx
wrote:

I aplogize for forgetting the "OT" leader.

-Zz

A request:


"Zz Yzx", may I have your permission to forward your comments to
federal gov't officials? (Rep Waxman, Sen Boxer & Sen Feinstein as
well as whitehouse.gov)

Lew

Zz Yzx wrote in
:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:04:43 -0700, Zz Yzx
wrote:

I aplogize for forgetting the "OT" leader.

-Zz

The subject says it all, no need for an OT, IMNSHO.
I agree, (as an expert biochemist grin) that capping this firing canon
will be difficult if not impossible, and we'll have to eat oil until well
after the relief wells are finished and used to inject cement at the bottom
of the well. BPs only hope is that they can catch more of the oil fired
out of the hole by the subsurface pressure.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Zz Yzx" wrote in message
...
I'm a geologist by trade. In a former life I spent a few years
working oil rigs, a couple of those on offshore rigs. Here's my
analysis and worst fears, based on what I've gleaned from the news
reports.

What are your thoughts on the Catastrophe possibility put forth: that the
sea bottom will collapse (due to the BOP falling over) in the immediate
vicinity of the well and cause a tsunami - among other cataclysmic issues?

On 2010-06-17 21:04:43 -0400, Zz Yzx said:

Joe Barton should be hanged.

http://joebartonwouldliketoapologize.com/

On 2010-06-17 21:04:43 -0400, Zz Yzx said:

Now my "worst case" fear:

Someone else fears the worst, too:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967 (Long, lots of links)

Quoted from The Oil Drum comment:

"What is likely to happen now?

"Well...none of what is likely to happen is good, in fact...it's about
as bad as it gets. I am convinced the erosion and compromising of the
entire system is accelerating and attacking more key structural areas
of the well, the blow out preventer and surrounding strata holding it
all up and together. This is evidenced by the tilt of the blow out
preventer and the erosion which has exposed the well head connection.
What eventually will happen is that the blow out preventer will
literally tip over if they do not run supports to it as the currents
push on it. I suspect they will run those supports as cables tied to
anchors very soon, if they don't, they are inviting disaster that much
sooner.
"Eventually even that will be futile as the well casings cannot support
the weight of the massive system above with out the cement bond to the
earth and that bond is being eroded away. When enough is eroded away
the casings will buckle and the BOP will collapse the well. If and when
you begin to see oil and gas coming up around the well area from under
the BOP? or the area around the well head connection and casing sinking
more and more rapidly? ...it won't be too long after that the entire
system fails. BP must be aware of this, they are mapping the sea floor
sonically and that is not a mere exercise. Our Gov't must be well aware
too, they just are not telling us.
"All of these things lead to only one place, a fully wide open well
bore directly to the oil deposit...after that, it goes into the realm
of "the worst things you can think of" The well may come completely
apart as the inner liners fail. There is still a very long drill string
in the well, that could literally come flying out...as I said...all the
worst things you can think of are a possibility, but the very least
damaging outcome as bad as it is, is that we are stuck with a wide open
gusher blowing out 150,000 barrels a day of raw oil or more. There
isn't any "cap dome" or any other suck fixer device on earth that
exists or could be built that will stop it from gushing out and doing
more and more damage to the gulf. While at the same time also doing
more damage to the well, making the chance of halting it with a kill
from the bottom up less and less likely to work, which as it stands
now?....is the only real chance we have left to stop it all.
"It's a race now...a race to drill the relief wells and take our last
chance at killing this monster before the whole weakened, wore out,
blown out, leaking and failing system gives up it's last gasp in a
horrific crescendo."

Zz Yzx writes:

6. To save time/$, they displaced the drilling mud in the riser (above
the BOP up to the drill rig on the surface) with sea water before the
inferior cement had completely set, and without the normal plug in the
casing below the BOP. This would drastically reduce the pressure head
on the formation, and allow formation fluids to enter the borehole.



7. To save time/$ - they did not use an acoustic switch as a backup
system to shut off the valve. This safety mechanism is required by
law in other countries (e.g. Norway, Brazil). It is not a requirement
in the US.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...417936798.html

On 6/18/2010 7:14 AM, Maxwell Lol wrote:
Zz writes:

6. To save time/$, they displaced the drilling mud in the riser (above
the BOP up to the drill rig on the surface) with sea water before the
inferior cement had completely set, and without the normal plug in the
casing below the BOP. This would drastically reduce the pressure head
on the formation, and allow formation fluids to enter the borehole.



7. To save time/$ - they did not use an acoustic switch as a backup
system to shut off the valve.

What part of "valve is broken" are you having trouble with? You can put
a billion switches on a light and if the bulb is burnt out none of them
are going to make it turn on.

The problem with the valve is not that it did not get the signal to
close, the problem is that something is preventing it from closing.

This safety mechanism is required by
law in other countries (e.g. Norway, Brazil). It is not a requirement
in the US.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...417936798.html

Irrelevant. The thing that the switch is supposed to control is broken.
More switches aren't going to make any difference.

On Jun 18, 9:06*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
On 6/18/2010 7:14 AM, Maxwell Lol wrote:

Zz *writes:

6. To save time/$, they displaced the drilling mud in the riser (above
the BOP up to the drill rig on the surface) with sea water before the
inferior cement had completely set, and without the normal plug in the
casing below the BOP. *This would drastically reduce the pressure head
on the formation, and allow formation fluids to enter the borehole.

* 7. To save time/$ - they did not use an acoustic switch as a backup
* system to shut off the valve.

What part of "valve is broken" are you having trouble with? *You can put
a billion switches on a light and if the bulb is burnt out none of them
are going to make it turn on.

The problem with the valve is not that it did not get the signal to
close, the problem is that something is preventing it from closing.

This safety mechanism is required by
* law in other countries (e.g. Norway, Brazil). It is not a requirement
* in the US.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57521203141793...

Irrelevant. *The thing that the switch is supposed to control is broken..
* More switches aren't going to make any difference.

There was no point putting brakes on a car, the thing crashed anyway.
Do you have ANY idea how flawed your logic is? (*fasten your
seatbelts, here comes a bus full of straw men*)

Zz Yzx wrote:
....

... based on what I've gleaned from the news reports.

Analysis:

1. To save time/$, they didn't ...

2. To save time/$, they "hung" ...

3. To save time/$, they used only ...

4. To save time/$, they used ...
....
I think we get the drift here.

I find it amazing that after spending multi-millions to bring in a
helluva a good-producing well, that apparently everyone thinks that at
that point the said "Since this is such a lucrative well that's going to
produce thousands of barrels of crude a day at a minimum of $75 or
$80/bbl, let's risk all that by seeing how shoddily we can now finish
off the work..."

Yeah, right...sounds like what would have happened to me...

--

On Jun 18, 10:26*am, dpb wrote:
Zz Yzx wrote:

...

... based on what I've gleaned from the news reports.

Analysis:

1. To save time/$, they didn't ...

2. To save time/$, they "hung" ...

3. To save time/$, they used only ...

4. To save time/$, they used ...

...
I think we get the drift here.

I find it amazing that after spending multi-millions to bring in a
helluva a good-producing well, that apparently everyone thinks that at
that point the said "Since this is such a lucrative well that's going to
produce thousands of barrels of crude a day at a minimum of $75 or
$80/bbl, let's risk all that by seeing how shoddily we can now finish
off the work..."

Yeah, right...sounds like what would have happened to me...

--

You bring a project in on time and under budget, you get the big
bonus. You miss your deadline and you go over budget, you don't get
that bonus, you don't get that new car, you do get a harsh review at
end of the year.

Dave wrote:
On Jun 18, 10:26 am, dpb wrote:
Zz Yzx wrote:

...

... based on what I've gleaned from the news reports.
Analysis:
1. To save time/$, they didn't ...
2. To save time/$, they "hung" ...
3. To save time/$, they used only ...
4. To save time/$, they used ...
...
I think we get the drift here.

I find it amazing that after spending multi-millions to bring in a
helluva a good-producing well, that apparently everyone thinks that at
that point the said "Since this is such a lucrative well that's going to
produce thousands of barrels of crude a day at a minimum of $75 or
$80/bbl, let's risk all that by seeing how shoddily we can now finish
off the work..."

Yeah, right...sounds like what would have happened to me...

--

You bring a project in on time and under budget, you get the big
bonus. You miss your deadline and you go over budget, you don't get
that bonus, you don't get that new car, you do get a harsh review at
end of the year.

You lose a multi-million dollar cash cow and cost billions on a
designed, intended set of operations? Not hardly...

Something went wrong; what, precisely, will only be known when the
postmortems are complete and maybe not entirely even then.

It's unlikely imo that any decisions were made expressly for the purpose
of shaving corners; that there may have been poor judgment or even
engineering mistakes is quite possible but I'd wager there wasn't
anything the folks involved did that was any different than they did
routinely and had worked in the past.

"Stuff happens..."

That the end result ended up in a botched operation this time doesn't
infer intent.

--


--

On Jun 18, 11:12*am, dpb wrote:
Dave wrote:
On Jun 18, 10:26 am, dpb wrote:
Zz Yzx wrote:

...

... based on what I've gleaned from the news reports.
Analysis:
1. To save time/$, they didn't ...
2. To save time/$, they "hung" ...
3. To save time/$, they used only ...
4. To save time/$, they used ...
...
I think we get the drift here.

I find it amazing that after spending multi-millions to bring in a
helluva a good-producing well, that apparently everyone thinks that at
that point the said "Since this is such a lucrative well that's going to
produce thousands of barrels of crude a day at a minimum of $75 or
$80/bbl, let's risk all that by seeing how shoddily we can now finish
off the work..."

Yeah, right...sounds like what would have happened to me...

--

You bring a project in on time and under budget, you get the big
bonus. You miss your deadline and you go over budget, you don't get
that bonus, you don't get that new car, you do get a harsh review at
end of the year.

You lose a multi-million dollar cash cow and cost billions on a
designed, intended set of operations? *Not hardly...

No, that's not how the thinking goes. They don't say, "Well, if we
don't do this, the thing will blow up." They say, "Well, if we don't
do this, the odds of it blowing up are 100,000 to 1." "Okay, I can
live with that." But the number and confidence numbers are bogus.

Something went wrong; what, precisely, will only be known when the
postmortems are complete and maybe not entirely even then.

It's unlikely imo that any decisions were made expressly for the purpose
of shaving corners; that there may have been poor judgment or even
engineering mistakes is quite possible but I'd wager there wasn't
anything the folks involved did that was any different than they did
routinely and had worked in the past.

"Stuff happens..."

That the end result ended up in a botched operation this time doesn't
infer intent.

Nobody says, "Oh, let's see what corners can be cut just for the hell
of it." What they say is: "If we do this, we'll save this much time
and money.", then the corners get cut. There are way too many ex-
corners to be explained away for it to be claimed as an unforeseeable
accident.

If it were in any other industry they'd also be facing RICO charges.
It's amazing how all of the oil companies disaster plans were
wholesale cut and paste jobs. They can't exactly argue that they
couldn't afford to work up a fookin' disaster plan required by law.
Sheesh.

R

On Jun 18, 11:12*am, dpb wrote:
Dave wrote:
On Jun 18, 10:26 am, dpb wrote:
Zz Yzx wrote:

...

... based on what I've gleaned from the news reports.
Analysis:
1. To save time/$, they didn't ...
2. To save time/$, they "hung" ...
3. To save time/$, they used only ...
4. To save time/$, they used ...
...
I think we get the drift here.

I find it amazing that after spending multi-millions to bring in a
helluva a good-producing well, that apparently everyone thinks that at
that point the said "Since this is such a lucrative well that's going to
produce thousands of barrels of crude a day at a minimum of $75 or
$80/bbl, let's risk all that by seeing how shoddily we can now finish
off the work..."

Yeah, right...sounds like what would have happened to me...

--

You bring a project in on time and under budget, you get the big
bonus. You miss your deadline and you go over budget, you don't get
that bonus, you don't get that new car, you do get a harsh review at
end of the year.

You lose a multi-million dollar cash cow and cost billions on a
designed, intended set of operations? *Not hardly...

Something went wrong; what, precisely, will only be known when the
postmortems are complete and maybe not entirely even then.

It's unlikely imo that any decisions were made expressly for the purpose
of shaving corners; that there may have been poor judgment or even
engineering mistakes is quite possible but I'd wager there wasn't
anything the folks involved did that was any different than they did
routinely and had worked in the past.

"Stuff happens..."

That the end result ended up in a botched operation this time doesn't
infer intent.

--

--

There's always a faction in the exploration business that wants to get
the new wells on-line as quickly and as cheaply as possible.
The motivation was cost savings, the nod for the cost-savings measures
came from a ****-poor evaluation on an engineering level.
This pressure on the engineers from accounting has been going on
forever.
A friend of mine is the managing head honcho engineer on a platform
off the coast of Africa. He ran exploration wells up in the Arctic in
Russian waters. This guy knows his stuff. I have not talked to him
about this particular incident, be he has shared with me many stories
over the years about the phenomena where pressure from the money-end
dictated safety parameters and engineering short-cuts. This ****
happens all the time.
One whistle-blower is talking about at least 2 more deep wells that
are candidates for similar 'accidents'. Also, BP doesn't have an
exclusive on that reckless behaviour. JUST enough to keep regulators
happy in exchange for campaign donations. The whole system is rotten
to the ****ing core.

Dave wrote:
On Jun 18, 10:26 am, wrote:
Zz Yzx wrote:

... based on what I've gleaned from the news reports.

Analysis:

1. To save time/$, they didn't ...

2. To save time/$, they "hung" ...

3. To save time/$, they used only ...

4. To save time/$, they used ...


I haven't read all of the posts, forgive me for jumping in (I'll
probably be sorry). I think things are really not so complicated as
they seem--BP evidently takes a lot of calculated risks and is suffering
now what they call "a bad beat" in Poker. Since the company has finite
equity, it is likely mathematically-advantageous for the company to take
risks that might not be in the best interest of those outside of the
company (or to animals for instance!). It's a little reminiscent of
what went on in the world of finance in recent years. Nothing new under
the sun?

Bill

It's unlikely imo that any decisions were made expressly for the purpose
of shaving corners; that there may have been poor judgment or even
engineering mistakes is quite possible but I'd wager there wasn't
anything the folks involved did that was any different than they did
routinely and had worked in the past.

You're stupid and you don't know who was in a position to make the
disasterous decisions. The BP company man and the TransOcean tool
pusher, BOTH ON THE RIG, under pressure from their respective
management, made the decisions. THe BP CEO or any other upper
management, who control the "muli-million dollar decisons", were never
in the loop. The shortcuts saved them 3 days, at $1,000,000 day,
that's a lot of savings for the level employees that made the
disasterous decisions.

I'll wager that, of the things the OP listed in the post, all or most
differed from previous wells. And I'll wager that the decision making
process was flawed and influenced by the cost savings, especially
becasue they already a month or more behind.

It will come out in the criminal trials.

-Zz

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:58:45 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Jun 18, 9:06*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
On 6/18/2010 7:14 AM, Maxwell Lol wrote:

Zz *writes:

6. To save time/$, they displaced the drilling mud in the riser (above
the BOP up to the drill rig on the surface) with sea water before the
inferior cement had completely set, and without the normal plug in the
casing below the BOP. *This would drastically reduce the pressure head
on the formation, and allow formation fluids to enter the borehole.

* 7. To save time/$ - they did not use an acoustic switch as a backup
* system to shut off the valve.

What part of "valve is broken" are you having trouble with? *You can put
a billion switches on a light and if the bulb is burnt out none of them
are going to make it turn on.

The problem with the valve is not that it did not get the signal to
close, the problem is that something is preventing it from closing.

This safety mechanism is required by
* law in other countries (e.g. Norway, Brazil). It is not a requirement
* in the US.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57521203141793...

Irrelevant. *The thing that the switch is supposed to control is broken.
* More switches aren't going to make any difference.

There was no point putting brakes on a car, the thing crashed anyway.
Do you have ANY idea how flawed your logic is? (*fasten your
seatbelts, here comes a bus full of straw men*)

You have it exactly backwards. The brakes *were* applied. The brake
cylinders seized.

On Jun 18, 8:22*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:58:45 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:





On Jun 18, 9:06*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
On 6/18/2010 7:14 AM, Maxwell Lol wrote:

Zz *writes:

6. To save time/$, they displaced the drilling mud in the riser (above
the BOP up to the drill rig on the surface) with sea water before the
inferior cement had completely set, and without the normal plug in the
casing below the BOP. *This would drastically reduce the pressure head
on the formation, and allow formation fluids to enter the borehole.

* 7. To save time/$ - they did not use an acoustic switch as a backup
* system to shut off the valve.

What part of "valve is broken" are you having trouble with? *You can put
a billion switches on a light and if the bulb is burnt out none of them
are going to make it turn on.

The problem with the valve is not that it did not get the signal to
close, the problem is that something is preventing it from closing.

This safety mechanism is required by
* law in other countries (e.g. Norway, Brazil). It is not a requirement
* in the US.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57521203141793....

Irrelevant. *The thing that the switch is supposed to control is broken.
* More switches aren't going to make any difference.

There was no point putting brakes on a car, the thing crashed anyway.
Do you have ANY idea how flawed your logic is? (*fasten your
seatbelts, here comes a bus full of straw men*)

You have it exactly backwards. *The brakes *were* applied. *The brake
cylinders seized.

Exactly.

Hear the one today - TODAY 60 days in - the big skimming boats were
allowed in the gulf. The President was holding up an emergency order.

At RITA - it took 2 days. This is a major point that the Administration
is allowing the spill to be as nasty as possible (by withholding equipment
and burning the oil) and use it for political gain.

How foul can that be !!!

Shame shame.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
"Our Republic and the Press will Rise or Fall Together": Joseph Pulitzer
TSRA: Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/

On 6/18/2010 9:26 AM, dpb wrote:
Zz Yzx wrote:
...

... based on what I've gleaned from the news reports.

Analysis:

1. To save time/$, they didn't ...

2. To save time/$, they "hung" ...

3. To save time/$, they used only ...

4. To save time/$, they used ...
...
I think we get the drift here.

I find it amazing that after spending multi-millions to bring in a
helluva a good-producing well, that apparently everyone thinks that at
that point the said "Since this is such a lucrative well that's going to
produce thousands of barrels of crude a day at a minimum of $75 or
$80/bbl, let's risk all that by seeing how shoddily we can now finish
off the work..."

Yeah, right...sounds like what would have happened to me...

--

Zz Yzx wrote:

Joe Barton should be hanged.

One guy tells the truth and you want him hanged?

Ali Obama and his corrupt administration (and socialist democrats in
general) get huge sums of money from BP so they can buy their elections.

In turn Obama gives BP passes to violate safety regs put in place to
prevent this ****, regulations that Haliburton cringes at and recommends
not to ignore, but Obama and BP ignore anyway.

Next, BP, whose safety records are so freaking bad even Leon, a rec
woodworker, not an oil muckity muck, or corrupt government hack, or
corrupt president, knows sucks the big one, fukks up everything and
begins to pollute the earth.

Then consider it was the corrupt government that forced them to drill
over a mile of sea water to begin with.

Then when the Obama administration doesn't lift a finger to reduce the
effects of the spill on the environment, other than to refuse help, for
example from the Norwegians who offered giant oil sucking ships, or fire
proof oil booms from a company in Connecticut, or give permission to
build sand barriers to keep the oil they refused to suck up from the
wetlands, you want to shoot some no name no one that managed to tell the
truth in public... Yeah, that makes sense...

--
Jack
Please don't tell Obama what comes after a Trillion!
http://jbstein.com

On Jun 21, 1:08*pm, Jack Stein wrote:
Zz Yzx wrote:
Joe Barton should be hanged.

One guy tells the truth and you want him hanged?

Ali Obama and his corrupt administration (and socialist democrats in
general) get huge sums of money from BP so they can buy their elections.

And the Bushes and Cheneys never took any oil money? Never bought
elections?
Do you have ANY idea how stupid you look?

Jack Stein wrote:

Zz Yzx wrote:

Joe Barton should be hanged.

One guy tells the truth and you want him hanged?


Bottom line: there is no (zero, zip, zilch) constitutional authority for
Obama to have done what he did in this instance. Yes, it was a shakedown,
he had his Attorney General in the meeting essentially browbeating the CEO
of BP into submission (BP CEO deserved it, he poured huge amounts of money
into getting PBHO elected, so there is some karmic justice there). A sane
legislative branch would be howling over this. PBHO acted as all three
branches of government in this instance, providing the BP CEO with no legal
recourse. Obama declared guilt, Obama assessed a fine, Obama directed how
that fine would be paid, and who would oversee the disbursement of the fine
(one of his non-congressionally approved czars). This is not even close to
constitutional. Barton may have been somewhat clumsy in how he brought out
the facts, but the fundamental issue of this event is not the fact that
someone apologized for government overreach to a corporate executive, but
that the president of the US is being given a pass for exercising power not
vested in the office.




--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Robatoy wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
Zz Yzx wrote:
Joe Barton should be hanged.
One guy tells the truth and you want him hanged?

Ali Obama and his corrupt administration (and socialist democrats in
general) get huge sums of money from BP so they can buy their elections.

And the Bushes and Cheneys never took any oil money?

BP gave large dollars to the Obama campaign to get him elected. Bush
and Cheney were not even in the running, two term limit for Bush, you
idiot.

Do you have ANY idea how stupid you look?

No, you seem to be the one stuck on stupid!

Bush is NOT in the picture, they received no money to run for election
because they were NOT in the running. It was the Obama regime that
issued the wavers to BP, not Bush. It is the Obama regime that threw
road blocks at early efforts to minimize the disastrous effects of their
wavers.

--
Jack
Got Change: Democratic Republic ====== Banana Republic!
http://jbstein.com

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
Zz Yzx wrote:
Joe Barton should be hanged.
One guy tells the truth and you want him hanged?

Bottom line: there is no (zero, zip, zilch) constitutional authority for
Obama to have done what he did in this instance. Yes, it was a shakedown,
he had his Attorney General in the meeting essentially browbeating the CEO
of BP into submission (BP CEO deserved it, he poured huge amounts of money
into getting PBHO elected, so there is some karmic justice there). A sane
legislative branch would be howling over this. PBHO acted as all three
branches of government in this instance, providing the BP CEO with no legal
recourse. Obama declared guilt, Obama assessed a fine, Obama directed how
that fine would be paid, and who would oversee the disbursement of the fine
(one of his non-congressionally approved czars). This is not even close to
constitutional. Barton may have been somewhat clumsy in how he brought out
the facts, but the fundamental issue of this event is not the fact that
someone apologized for government overreach to a corporate executive, but
that the president of the US is being given a pass for exercising power not
vested in the office.

Well said and exactly right.

--
Jack
You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
http://jbstein.com

On Jun 22, 8:11*am, Jack Stein wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
Zz Yzx wrote:
Joe Barton should be hanged.
One guy tells the truth and you want him hanged?

Ali Obama and his corrupt administration (and socialist democrats in
general) get huge sums of money from BP so they can buy their elections.
And the Bushes and Cheneys never took any oil money?

BP gave large dollars to the Obama campaign to get him elected. *Bush
and Cheney were not even in the running, two term limit for Bush, you
idiot.

Do you have ANY idea how stupid you look?

No, you seem to be the one stuck on stupid!

Bush is NOT in the picture, they received no money to run for election
because they were NOT in the running. *It was the Obama regime that
issued the wavers to BP, not Bush. *It is the Obama regime that threw
road blocks at early efforts to minimize the disastrous effects of their
wavers.

--
Jack
Got Change: Democratic Republic ====== Banana Republic!http://jbstein.com

Poor.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote the following:

Robatoy wrote:

You two would be much happier if you plonked each other.
Or got a room.

--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
Zz Yzx wrote:
Joe Barton should be hanged.
One guy tells the truth and you want him hanged?

Ali Obama and his corrupt administration (and socialist democrats in
general) get huge sums of money from BP so they can buy their elections.

And the Bushes and Cheneys never took any oil money?

BP gave large dollars to the Obama campaign to get him elected.

Heh, heh. I bet they won't make *that* mistake next time.

On Jun 22, 11:11*am, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote the following:

Robatoy wrote:

You two would be much happier if you plonked each other. *

Ohw... just a little harmless needlin'. Jack is against same-sex
marriage...as if they would BREED or something.

Or got a room.

Naaa, that's more Jack's style. I like women too much to even
entertain that idea.


--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Lin Yutang

On 6/22/10 12:42 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Jun 22, 11:11 am, Larry wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack
wrote the following:

Robatoy wrote:

You two would be much happier if you plonked each other.

Ohw... just a little harmless needlin'. Jack is against same-sex
marriage...as if they would BREED or something.

Is he from Texas?
:http://jaysays.com/2010/06/texas-gop...heterosexuals/
--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:23:42 GMT, pete wrote the
following:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
Zz Yzx wrote:
Joe Barton should be hanged.
One guy tells the truth and you want him hanged?

Ali Obama and his corrupt administration (and socialist democrats in
general) get huge sums of money from BP so they can buy their elections.

And the Bushes and Cheneys never took any oil money?

BP gave large dollars to the Obama campaign to get him elected.

Heh, heh. I bet they won't make *that* mistake next time.

I hope nobody else does in the future, either. Can we even survive
this -one- reign of terror?

--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang

Robatoy wrote:
On Jun 22, 11:11 am, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote the following:

Robatoy wrote:
You two would be much happier if you plonked each other.

Ohw... just a little harmless needlin'. Jack is against same-sex
marriage...as if they would BREED or something.

Non-breeders don't need no stinkin marriage!

Or got a room.

Naaa, that's more Jack's style. I like women too much to even
entertain that idea.

So you claim, over and over. Perhaps your homophobic attitude is just a
cover... go figure!

--
Jack
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
http://jbstein.com

In ,
Jack Stein spewed forth:
Robatoy wrote:
On Jun 22, 11:11 am, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote the following:

Robatoy wrote:
You two would be much happier if you plonked each other.

Ohw... just a little harmless needlin'. Jack is against same-sex
marriage...as if they would BREED or something.

Non-breeders don't need no stinkin marriage!


Sure they do, they deserve to be as miserable as the rest of usg

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:23:42 GMT, pete wrote the
following:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
Zz Yzx wrote:
Joe Barton should be hanged.
One guy tells the truth and you want him hanged?

Ali Obama and his corrupt administration (and socialist democrats in
general) get huge sums of money from BP so they can buy their
elections.

And the Bushes and Cheneys never took any oil money?

BP gave large dollars to the Obama campaign to get him elected.

Heh, heh. I bet they won't make *that* mistake next time.

I hope nobody else does in the future, either. Can we even survive
this -one- reign of terror?

This year there is an opportunity to render them toothless. Vote out the
Careerists.

On 2010-06-23 09:53:47 -0400, Larry Jaques said:

I hope nobody else does in the future, either. Can we even survive
this -one- reign of terror?

Since we survived two of the Chimpster, I have faith in human resiliency.

Steve wrote:
On 2010-06-23 09:53:47 -0400, Larry Jaques
said:

I hope nobody else does in the future, either. Can we even survive
this -one- reign of terror?

Since we survived two of the Chimpster, I have faith in human resiliency.

Tell that to the over 100,000,000 murdered by the socialist *******s
over the past 100 years. They haven't bounced back much.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM


--
Jack
Obama Care...Freedom not Included!
http://jbstein.com

ChairMan wrote:
In ,
Jack Stein spewed forth:
Robatoy wrote:
On Jun 22, 11:11 am, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote the following:

Robatoy wrote:
You two would be much happier if you plonked each other.
Ohw... just a little harmless needlin'. Jack is against same-sex
marriage...as if they would BREED or something.
Non-breeders don't need no stinkin marriage!

Sure they do, they deserve to be as miserable as the rest of usg

That's just plain mean!:-)

--
Jack
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.
http://jbstein.com

On 6/24/10 12:44 PM, "Jack Stein" wrote:

Tell that to the over 100,000,000 murdered by the socialist *******s
over the past 100 years. They haven't bounced back much.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM


Are you saying that socialism and communism are the same thing?

Robert Haar wrote:
On 6/24/10 12:44 PM, "Jack Stein" wrote:
Tell that to the over 100,000,000 murdered by the socialist *******s
over the past 100 years. They haven't bounced back much.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM


Are you saying that socialism and communism are the same thing?

All communists are socialists.

Are you saying communists are not socialists?

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
http://jbstein.com

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:50:34 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote the following:

ChairMan wrote:
In ,
Jack Stein spewed forth:
Robatoy wrote:
On Jun 22, 11:11 am, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:11:45 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote the following:

Robatoy wrote:
You two would be much happier if you plonked each other.
Ohw... just a little harmless needlin'. Jack is against same-sex
marriage...as if they would BREED or something.
Non-breeders don't need no stinkin marriage!

Sure they do, they deserve to be as miserable as the rest of usg

That's just plain mean!:-)

Mean, and not politically correct, but absolutely true.

LJ--always happily single while misery is all around me.

--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang