[QUOTE=apocalypse;218394]I think the problem runs deeper than profit pressure or complacency.[/quote]

I think optimism is the natural result of complacency. So I am in agreement.

[quote]Prevention requires ... the development of standards and penalties for failing to follow them.[/QUOTE]

And here we are at that pesky penalties problem again....

[quote=Prime95;218406] It's the Soap Box, relax, no need to get one's panties tied in a knot.[/quote]Oh no it's not! It's the Science and Technology sub-forum.

Is this the five minute argument, or the full half hour?

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;218419]Oh no it's not! It's the Science and Technology sub-forum.[/QUOTE]

Big oops on my part!! Cheesehead's post railing against Conservatives made me believe this was a political conversation in the Soap Box rather than a scientific conversation in Science & Technology. I navigate the forums via "New Posts" and did not double-check which sub-forum I was in. I'm terribly sorry for creating such a big diversion.

Full retraction for all parts of my posts that were tongue-in-cheek and/or quick-and-incomplete policy proposal.

I still believe stricter penalties, both civil and criminal, can improve drilling safety, but fuller debate on that belongs elsewhere.

[quote=Prime95;218406]I never claimed I wanted you to present both sides of an argument.[/quote]My "both sides" comment was in response to this paragraph of yours:

[quote=Prime95;218326]As an aside, you are a bit like Fox News, advertising yourself as fair and balanced yet the bulk of your posts are bashing conservatives. Now they may well deserve much of that bashing, but liberals have just as many ridiculous beliefs. The lack of balance makes you appear to be a liberal just as Fox News appears to be conservative.[/quote]Yes, you _did_ want me to present both sides!

[quote=Prime95;218406]I was merely suggesting how the lack of balance leads to the appearance of a liberal bias[/quote]"lack of balance" -- doesn't that mean not presenting both sides?

So, wouldn't wanting me to have "balance" in my postings be pretty much the same as wanting me to present both sides?

[quote]Let's see. Thousands of criminal laws are on the books detailing what I can and can't do. I'm in compliance with every one of them and haven't filed one shred of government paperwork. Magic![/quote]Really?

You've never filed a tax return? (Because you've never in your life had taxable income?)

You've never filled out any form in the vehicle license bureau? (Because you've never in your life had a driver license, or owned a car?)

Never registered with Selective Service?

Rare. Or forgetful.

[quote]So, Congress passes a new criminal code (bearing in mind I'm no lawyer): Regarding anyone working on a drilling rig or any executive in charge of drilling rig operations, it is illegal to knowingly tie pay, bonuses or other compensation to corporate profitability, drilling rig success, or timetables. Punishment is 10 to 50 years in prison. I believe you can also make it a corporate crime with a separate monetary fine of up to $10 billion.

Where is all the new paperwork?[/quote]That "new" straw man was unintentional by you, I'm sure.

It's quite possible that existing (i.e., not-new) paperwork (such as SEC filings) has all the information needed for enforcement of your proposed law.

Not requiring "new" paperwork isn't the same as not requiring [I]any[/I] paperwork.

[quote]There are fraud statutes on the books - that doesn't mean corporations must submit every contract to the government anti-fraud division for review.[/quote]Straw man: We weren't discussing fraud.

[quote]As to changes required to drilling leases. The government has an army of lawyers. It shouldn't take them long to modify future drilling lease contracts to add some of my proposed teeth. Once signed, no on-going paperwork[/quote]Again the (probably) unintentional "on-going" straw-man. Didn't you realize that "future drilling lease contracts" are paperwork?

[quote]or inspections are required.[/quote]So, you have faith that no company would ever decide to "cut corners" because of, say, desire to cut costs or meet some company-imposed deadline? (Even though it was just revealed that BP did exactly that.)

Or is it that you think any company that did so would be so honest as to alert the government that it had just violated the law? (Even though BP didn't.)

Is that why no inspections are required? Because you think no company ever acts like BP did?

[quote=xilman;218419]Oh no it's not! It's the Science and Technology sub-forum.

Is this the five minute argument, or the full half hour?

Paul[/quote]
May I cheekily suggest a thread entitled
"Useless posts from cheesehead, et al"?

David

[quote=davieddy;218653]May I cheekily suggest a thread entitled
"Useless posts from cheesehead, et al"?

David[/quote]... or just fold George's and mine into the existing "Useless ..." thread at [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12945[/url]

[quote=cheesehead;218656]... or just fold George's and mine into the existing "Useless ..." thread at [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12945[/URL][/quote]
No need for that. The discussion is informative and entertaining for at least some of those of us who are less able (through ignorance) to take part directly.

I would say that the entire thread could be moved to the soap box where it clearly belonged right from the start.

[quote=Brian-E;218657]
I would say that the entire thread could be moved to the soap box where it clearly belonged right from the start.[/quote]
Or perhaps the detergent box?

[quote=cheesehead;218656]... or just fold George's and mine into the existing "Useless ..." thread at [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12945[/URL][/quote]
Unfortunately it is closed.
The "Last Post" was yours.
Seems like the French lawnmower has been at it again.
(coup de grace)

David

[quote=davieddy;218662][quote=cheesehead;218656]... or just fold George's and mine into the existing "Useless ..." thread at [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12945[/URL][/quote]Unfortunately it is closed.
The "Last Post" was yours.
Seems like the French lawnmower has been at it again.
(coup de grace)

David[/quote]C'est la guerre.

(But ... "Naked Oiled Supertankers" ??)

This thread is better entertainment than I've had all year.

[QUOTE]I've never, ever claimed that I was balanced - Cheesehead[/QUOTE]

I will print this quote out and make jumbo sized posters which I will mail to Ernst and George. We all need to keep in mind that we might just be unbalanced.



I've seen a lot of repartee but no real effort to define the problem. Everyone thinks that BP wants to stop the oil from flowing. This is NOT exactly correct. If it were that simple, the blow out preventer would have been designed with a cut off valve, end of story. The problem is that shutting off the flow at the top of the well will just cause it to rupture pipes below and force oil out along the well casing. So BP is trying desperately to figure out a way to cap the well and to pump the oil into some kind of storage. That is NOT easy to do when you are a mile deep in the ocean.

The only certain way they can stop the flow is to drill into the well from a side angle and pump enough concrete into it to plug it. This is being done but will take another 2 months to complete.

DarJones