Perchoutofwater Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Do you really think we should continue drilling when it has been proven that a leak at a depth of 5000 ft cannot be stopped? Or before we've had a chance to determine what really went wrong here? Or is it just a numbers game where we say that the chances of this happening again are so remote that we can take the risk? 1 in 30,000. I think we should continue drilling, but the government needs to work double time to make sure the inspections are being done and the inspectors aren't dining on the corporate bill. Also much of the impact could have been avoided had Obama waived the Jones Act (which has been done by numerous presidents and is only in place to protect the unions to begin with), and had the government not tied the hands of both BP and state and local governments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Did the stock holders make money off of this rig? If the accident didn't happen would the have made money off of it? Live by the sword, die by the sword. This is a dumb comment to make to me, when I've already said the company should pay it's liabilities. If it's paying it's liabilities, then what business is it of yours or mine if they are also paying dividends? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I agree. I don't understand us stopping drilling. Perhaps we could have / should have put a halt on deep water drilling, but not all off shore drilling as this seems the exception rather than the rule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Honestly I haven't looked at BP's financial statement, so I don't know the answer to your question. I doubt Barry does either. You have to think that the board is going to do what is in the long term financial interest of the company. If that is withholding dividends they will do that. The last thing they want is to pay dividends as usual and then not have the money to cover their debts, their stockholders don't want that either. The point being they have future profits to help offset these unknown liabilities. They also have assets to be sold of if need be, which will piss of stockholders a lot more than a few withheld dividends. I don't think the government needs to overstep it's bounds here. With regard to your edit, if BP typically pays a hefty dividend they are not a growth stock, but an income stock. Who typically invests in income stocks? I'll answer that for you, people in or near retirement. And people investing in tax protected vehicles like Roth IRAs where the dividends don't enact a taxable event, and frankly anyone who thinks that the dividends they pay are large enough to make for a nice ROI despite the taxable event, and, I would imagine, upper management in the company. Both of my businesses are dividend generating businesses and almost none of the investors are on fixed incomes. Though we're obviously talking about vastly different situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I wonder if it would be okay with the environmentalists and the Arabs if we just go ahead and start drilling on land again. Seems the cleanup would be juuuuuust a bit easier. Nah. They'll probably never go for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 And people investing in tax protected vehicles like Roth IRAs where the dividends don't enact a taxable event, and frankly anyone who thinks that the dividends they pay are large enough to make for a nice ROI despite the taxable event, and, I would imagine, upper management in the company. Both of my businesses are dividend generating businesses and almost none of the investors are on fixed incomes. Though we're obviously talking about vastly different situations. Most of my income is dividend generated from my companies as well. However, there are a very limited number of investors in my company. BP has investors from a large range of ages and economic status (not really the word I'm looking for, but it escapes me), and a number of those are on fixed incomes and those on fixed incomes typically gravitate towards large stable companies that generate dividends rather than growth stocks or businesses like yours and mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I wonder if it would be okay with the environmentalists and the Arabs if we just go ahead and start drilling on land again. Seems the cleanup would be juuuuuust a bit easier. Nah. They'll probably never go for it. Well there is no doubt there would be a lot fewer off shore rigs if we didn't limit the areas on land that oil companies can drill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 1 in 30,000. I think we should continue drilling, but the government needs to work double time to make sure the inspections are being done and the inspectors aren't dining on the corporate bill. Also much of the impact could have been avoided had Obama waived the Jones Act (which has been done by numerous presidents and is only in place to protect the unions to begin with), and had the government not tied the hands of both BP and state and local governments. 1 in 30,000 is a very small % until it actually happens. Then that 1 quickly turns into the worst environmental disaster in US history. I say stop all deep water drilling until those inspections that you speak of are completed and until these oil companies come up with real plans for dealing with the possible leaks in the future, regardless of how improbable those leaks may be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I wonder if it would be okay with the environmentalists and the Arabs if we just go ahead and start drilling on land again. Seems the cleanup would be juuuuuust a bit easier. Nah. They'll probably never go for it. If I had to guess, I'd say the environmentalists would simply prefer we use less oil. That's just a hunch though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Man, I love the logic in that last paragraph. They need to make massive profits so they can afford to distribute massive profits to their shareholders and still have enough left over to pay for their mistakes. After all, if they only made somewhat massive profits, then the very same people who pay enough at the pumps to insure that there's both enough money to make them rich and cover their ass would be stuck holding the bill if and when they screw up. Cutler should be paid more than he is since he throws so many interceptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 If I had to guess, I'd say the environmentalists would simply prefer we use less oil. That's just a hunch though. Yeah, but we are talking reality here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I think that the Oil companies should stop people from finding alternative fuel sources. Keep the demand up and make lots of cash. Keep the Arabs happy too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 1 in 30,000 is a very small % until it actually happens. Then that 1 quickly turns into the worst environmental disaster in US history. I say stop all deep water drilling until those inspections that you speak of are completed and until these oil companies come up with real plans for dealing with the possible leaks in the future, regardless of how improbable those leaks may be. If you don't think every rig in the gulf has been inspected top to bottom in the last two months you don't know much about business. These companies see what BP is going through and want to make damn sure it doesn't happen to them. Also, BP had plans in place, plans the government said no to. Also our government had plans in place which it appears as though they may have failed to implement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I think that the Oil companies should stop people from finding alternative fuel sources. Keep the demand up and make lots of cash. Keep the Arabs happy too. No worries for the oil companies either way. BP is up to their necks in pushing cap & tax. They have their bases covered, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 No worries for the oil companies either way. BP is up to their necks in pushing cap & tax. They have their bases covered, of course. Just in case you were not aware... http://stevescomments.wordpress.com/2010/0...-that-bp-wrote/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 If I had to guess, I'd say the environmentalists would simply prefer we use less oil. That's just a hunch though. How many millenia did it take for us to realize there were alternative ways to heat our caves other than wood? I wish we could snap our fingers and get there, but everything we have right now has a downside. People are looking for viable alternatives, and the first person to find one will probably end up being the worlds wealthiest individual. It is being actively sought after, we just aren't there yet. It would help if we could build more nuclear reactors. We should continue to harness the wind (maybe now that Teddy is gone we will see turbines off Martha's Vineyard), we should continue harvest our natural gas, and increase production of it. It would be great if we were oil independent, but that just isn't practical at this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 If you don't think every rig in the gulf has been inspected top to bottom in the last two months you don't know much about business. These companies see what BP is going through and want to make damn sure it doesn't happen to them. Also, BP had plans in place, plans the government said no to. Also our government had plans in place which it appears as though they may have failed to implement. yep . . all the gubmnet and specfically Obama's fault . . . . 60 Minutes oil spill: accident could have been avoided, BP took shortcuts (videos) CBS 60 Minutes oil spill report uncovered some key facts about the Deep Horizon rig explosion that occurred several weeks ago and is now spilling record amounts of oil into our ocean water. Scroll down to view videos. Mike Williams, a survivor of the explosion was interviewed during the segment and admitted that although the crew had procedures to follow for this type of disaster, they were not followed after the explosion. Williams had to jump from rig 10 stories down to the water while it burned out of control with only a life jacket, because he was left behind on the rig by two life boats and an inflatable boat. Scroll down to the second video to see his story. The crew member also admitted that the blowout preventer was damaged from an accident that happened a few weeks before the massive disaster. BP and Deep Horizon knew that the BOP and the Pod were damaged, but the operation was over schedule and losing money. The day of the accident, the Transocean manager and BP employee argued about how to finish the well. The BP employee wanted to save time and money by taking some shortcuts. Unfortunately, BP's person won the argument and his shortcuts had devastating effects for everyone. If the well was completed the way Transocean wanted to do it, the accident and 11 deaths would have been avoided. Personally I blame Obama. This is all clearly his fault, along with teh Legion of Doom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 (edited) How many millenia did it take for us to realize there were alternative ways to heat our caves other than wood? I wish we could snap our fingers and get there, but everything we have right now has a downside. People are looking for viable alternatives, and the first person to find one will probably end up being the worlds wealthiest individual. It is being actively sought after, we just aren't there yet. It would help if we could build more nuclear reactors. We should continue to harness the wind (maybe now that Teddy is gone we will see turbines off Martha's Vineyard), we should continue harvest our natural gas, and increase production of it. It would be great if we were oil independent, but that just isn't practical at this time. Well said. In regard to BP and Cap & Tax I like this one better. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics...l-95942659.html Edited June 17, 2010 by rattsass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 How many millenia did it take for us to realize there were alternative ways to heat our caves other than wood? I wish we could snap our fingers and get there, but everything we have right now has a downside. People are looking for viable alternatives, and the first person to find one will probably end up being the worlds wealthiest individual. It is being actively sought after, we just aren't there yet. It would help if we could build more nuclear reactors. We should continue to harness the wind (maybe now that Teddy is gone we will see turbines off Martha's Vineyard), we should continue harvest our natural gas, and increase production of it. It would be great if we were oil independent, but that just isn't practical at this time. Oil will be a part of our economy for a loooong time. No getting around it. I am not for stopping our oil production (not the answer) but I would like to see better oversight and safety requirements before we grant these companies mineral leases. The problem is that our corrupt political parties take turns between serving on the Board fo Directors for companies like BP before they enter "public service". So the tail DOES wag the dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 No, we just need the government to do what it is supposed to do under the law. It's no different than us not needing anymore immigration reform, we just need to enforce the laws already on the books. The government already has the power, just not the leadership to use it correctly. But that would cost money to delegate a contingent to clean up this mess....clearly, as you have mentioned in hundreds of posts, you don't approve of more government spending. What to do, what to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 But that would cost money to delegate a contingent to clean up this mess....clearly, as you have mentioned in hundreds of posts, you don't approve of more government spending. What to do, what to do. Actually Perch clearly stated that if the fedgov cuts off all "entitlements" that he approves of, then it would pay for itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 But that would cost money to delegate a contingent to clean up this mess....clearly, as you have mentioned in hundreds of posts, you don't approve of more government spending. What to do, what to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 How many millenia did it take for us to realize there were alternative ways to heat our caves other than wood? I wish we could snap our fingers and get there, but everything we have right now has a downside. People are looking for viable alternatives, and the first person to find one will probably end up being the worlds wealthiest individual. It is being actively sought after, we just aren't there yet. It would help if we could build more nuclear reactors. We should continue to harness the wind (maybe now that Teddy is gone we will see turbines off Martha's Vineyard), we should continue harvest our natural gas, and increase production of it. It would be great if we were oil independent, but that just isn't practical at this time. I said "less". See, when people get all high and mighty about it being their right to drive the biggest car they can find because it's their money and they can spend as much as they want of it on oil. They fail to see the consequences beyond simply making it more expensive for everyone else to drive as well. The increased cost in pretty much everything we buy due to soaring transportation costs of getting it to the consumer. The fact that we have to decide whether we want to desecrate our land or our water in the never ending quest for more oil. Obviously, finding new energy sources takes time. And that's exactly why we shouldn't be so damned wasteful with the one fuel that seems to do everything we need right now. But that would mean not driving a dualie to the supermarket, wouldn't it? That would mean spending your money on locally raised meats and vegetables (which has a ton of other advantages). Stuff that people like to portray as hippie chight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 People are looking for viable alternatives, and the first person to find one will probably end up being the worlds wealthiest individual. It is being actively sought after, we just aren't there yet. I have said for years that we burn poor people as our fuel. Danged Gubment regulations. Especially nowadays...it's a darned near endless supply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borge007 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I have said for years that we burn poor people as our fuel. Danged Gubment regulations. Especially nowadays...it's a darned near endless supply. I say the heil with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.