- This topic has 685 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 5 months ago by
afx114.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 27, 2010 at 10:37 AM #555921May 27, 2010 at 10:42 AM #554973
Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The fail-safe had NOTHING to do with the drilling, hence my suggestion to research “cementing”, which you obviously didn’t do prior to responding. Deep-drill technologies and methodologies have NOTHING to do with the process of cementing, which is why the cementing is done by an oil-services company, like Halliburton, versus the actual driller or rig owner.
Like so many of your other responses, this is just glib evasion and designed to support your view (incorrect, in this instance), without having any supporting facts.[/quote]
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] suffice it to say I’m eminently more qualified to comment on this than Brian is. [/quote]
Allan your eminent qualification is best reserved for the court room where there will be blame pointing among BP, Halliburton and the other companies involved in the platform.
I guess that technically we should also separate the oil platform from the oil well also because they are not one and the same.
The fine technical details on what exactly failed will determine the proportional liability for this disaster.
As far as the public is concerned, the technology did not work. The promises of the oil industry that they can safely drill in sensitive eco-systems resulted in the largest oil spill in US history.
Brian: I had a good conversation with an engineer yesterday on risk analysis and risk management and your comments above dovetail perfectly into what he was saying. The thrust of his conversation was that we now operate in a “post-fact” environment. No one really cares about getting things done right anymore, they’re just focusing on covering their ass and protecting themselves from liability.
The “fine technical details” are anything but. Oil rig operations are fairly simple, from a technical standpoint, but this is fairly irrelevant, and largely because the talking heads on television are idiots reading from a teleprompter. You hold yourself forth as an intelligent individual, but you completely missed (or ignored) the FACT that the cementing process was at issue here, not the drilling itself.
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. This quote finds traction in your comment, “The promise of the oil industry that they can safely drill…”. Completely wrong and wrong-headed, but you don’t care: Its the rhetoric and polemic that matter, not the FACTS.
Welcome to the post-fact era.
May 27, 2010 at 10:42 AM #555074Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The fail-safe had NOTHING to do with the drilling, hence my suggestion to research “cementing”, which you obviously didn’t do prior to responding. Deep-drill technologies and methodologies have NOTHING to do with the process of cementing, which is why the cementing is done by an oil-services company, like Halliburton, versus the actual driller or rig owner.
Like so many of your other responses, this is just glib evasion and designed to support your view (incorrect, in this instance), without having any supporting facts.[/quote]
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] suffice it to say I’m eminently more qualified to comment on this than Brian is. [/quote]
Allan your eminent qualification is best reserved for the court room where there will be blame pointing among BP, Halliburton and the other companies involved in the platform.
I guess that technically we should also separate the oil platform from the oil well also because they are not one and the same.
The fine technical details on what exactly failed will determine the proportional liability for this disaster.
As far as the public is concerned, the technology did not work. The promises of the oil industry that they can safely drill in sensitive eco-systems resulted in the largest oil spill in US history.
Brian: I had a good conversation with an engineer yesterday on risk analysis and risk management and your comments above dovetail perfectly into what he was saying. The thrust of his conversation was that we now operate in a “post-fact” environment. No one really cares about getting things done right anymore, they’re just focusing on covering their ass and protecting themselves from liability.
The “fine technical details” are anything but. Oil rig operations are fairly simple, from a technical standpoint, but this is fairly irrelevant, and largely because the talking heads on television are idiots reading from a teleprompter. You hold yourself forth as an intelligent individual, but you completely missed (or ignored) the FACT that the cementing process was at issue here, not the drilling itself.
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. This quote finds traction in your comment, “The promise of the oil industry that they can safely drill…”. Completely wrong and wrong-headed, but you don’t care: Its the rhetoric and polemic that matter, not the FACTS.
Welcome to the post-fact era.
May 27, 2010 at 10:42 AM #555558Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The fail-safe had NOTHING to do with the drilling, hence my suggestion to research “cementing”, which you obviously didn’t do prior to responding. Deep-drill technologies and methodologies have NOTHING to do with the process of cementing, which is why the cementing is done by an oil-services company, like Halliburton, versus the actual driller or rig owner.
Like so many of your other responses, this is just glib evasion and designed to support your view (incorrect, in this instance), without having any supporting facts.[/quote]
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] suffice it to say I’m eminently more qualified to comment on this than Brian is. [/quote]
Allan your eminent qualification is best reserved for the court room where there will be blame pointing among BP, Halliburton and the other companies involved in the platform.
I guess that technically we should also separate the oil platform from the oil well also because they are not one and the same.
The fine technical details on what exactly failed will determine the proportional liability for this disaster.
As far as the public is concerned, the technology did not work. The promises of the oil industry that they can safely drill in sensitive eco-systems resulted in the largest oil spill in US history.
Brian: I had a good conversation with an engineer yesterday on risk analysis and risk management and your comments above dovetail perfectly into what he was saying. The thrust of his conversation was that we now operate in a “post-fact” environment. No one really cares about getting things done right anymore, they’re just focusing on covering their ass and protecting themselves from liability.
The “fine technical details” are anything but. Oil rig operations are fairly simple, from a technical standpoint, but this is fairly irrelevant, and largely because the talking heads on television are idiots reading from a teleprompter. You hold yourself forth as an intelligent individual, but you completely missed (or ignored) the FACT that the cementing process was at issue here, not the drilling itself.
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. This quote finds traction in your comment, “The promise of the oil industry that they can safely drill…”. Completely wrong and wrong-headed, but you don’t care: Its the rhetoric and polemic that matter, not the FACTS.
Welcome to the post-fact era.
May 27, 2010 at 10:42 AM #555656Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The fail-safe had NOTHING to do with the drilling, hence my suggestion to research “cementing”, which you obviously didn’t do prior to responding. Deep-drill technologies and methodologies have NOTHING to do with the process of cementing, which is why the cementing is done by an oil-services company, like Halliburton, versus the actual driller or rig owner.
Like so many of your other responses, this is just glib evasion and designed to support your view (incorrect, in this instance), without having any supporting facts.[/quote]
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] suffice it to say I’m eminently more qualified to comment on this than Brian is. [/quote]
Allan your eminent qualification is best reserved for the court room where there will be blame pointing among BP, Halliburton and the other companies involved in the platform.
I guess that technically we should also separate the oil platform from the oil well also because they are not one and the same.
The fine technical details on what exactly failed will determine the proportional liability for this disaster.
As far as the public is concerned, the technology did not work. The promises of the oil industry that they can safely drill in sensitive eco-systems resulted in the largest oil spill in US history.
Brian: I had a good conversation with an engineer yesterday on risk analysis and risk management and your comments above dovetail perfectly into what he was saying. The thrust of his conversation was that we now operate in a “post-fact” environment. No one really cares about getting things done right anymore, they’re just focusing on covering their ass and protecting themselves from liability.
The “fine technical details” are anything but. Oil rig operations are fairly simple, from a technical standpoint, but this is fairly irrelevant, and largely because the talking heads on television are idiots reading from a teleprompter. You hold yourself forth as an intelligent individual, but you completely missed (or ignored) the FACT that the cementing process was at issue here, not the drilling itself.
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. This quote finds traction in your comment, “The promise of the oil industry that they can safely drill…”. Completely wrong and wrong-headed, but you don’t care: Its the rhetoric and polemic that matter, not the FACTS.
Welcome to the post-fact era.
May 27, 2010 at 10:42 AM #555931Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The fail-safe had NOTHING to do with the drilling, hence my suggestion to research “cementing”, which you obviously didn’t do prior to responding. Deep-drill technologies and methodologies have NOTHING to do with the process of cementing, which is why the cementing is done by an oil-services company, like Halliburton, versus the actual driller or rig owner.
Like so many of your other responses, this is just glib evasion and designed to support your view (incorrect, in this instance), without having any supporting facts.[/quote]
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] suffice it to say I’m eminently more qualified to comment on this than Brian is. [/quote]
Allan your eminent qualification is best reserved for the court room where there will be blame pointing among BP, Halliburton and the other companies involved in the platform.
I guess that technically we should also separate the oil platform from the oil well also because they are not one and the same.
The fine technical details on what exactly failed will determine the proportional liability for this disaster.
As far as the public is concerned, the technology did not work. The promises of the oil industry that they can safely drill in sensitive eco-systems resulted in the largest oil spill in US history.
Brian: I had a good conversation with an engineer yesterday on risk analysis and risk management and your comments above dovetail perfectly into what he was saying. The thrust of his conversation was that we now operate in a “post-fact” environment. No one really cares about getting things done right anymore, they’re just focusing on covering their ass and protecting themselves from liability.
The “fine technical details” are anything but. Oil rig operations are fairly simple, from a technical standpoint, but this is fairly irrelevant, and largely because the talking heads on television are idiots reading from a teleprompter. You hold yourself forth as an intelligent individual, but you completely missed (or ignored) the FACT that the cementing process was at issue here, not the drilling itself.
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. This quote finds traction in your comment, “The promise of the oil industry that they can safely drill…”. Completely wrong and wrong-headed, but you don’t care: Its the rhetoric and polemic that matter, not the FACTS.
Welcome to the post-fact era.
May 27, 2010 at 11:04 AM #554999meadandale
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. [/quote]“Facts take all the premium out of arm waving”
May 27, 2010 at 11:04 AM #555100Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. [/quote]“Facts take all the premium out of arm waving”
May 27, 2010 at 11:04 AM #555587Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. [/quote]“Facts take all the premium out of arm waving”
May 27, 2010 at 11:04 AM #555684Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. [/quote]“Facts take all the premium out of arm waving”
May 27, 2010 at 11:04 AM #555960Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. [/quote]“Facts take all the premium out of arm waving”
May 27, 2010 at 11:08 AM #555009NotCranky
Participant[quote=meadandale][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. [/quote]“Facts take all the premium out of arm waving”[/quote]
Then you have the problem of “forests and trees”.May 27, 2010 at 11:08 AM #555110Participant[quote=meadandale][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. [/quote]“Facts take all the premium out of arm waving”[/quote]
Then you have the problem of “forests and trees”.May 27, 2010 at 11:08 AM #555597Participant[quote=meadandale][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. [/quote]“Facts take all the premium out of arm waving”[/quote]
Then you have the problem of “forests and trees”.May 27, 2010 at 11:08 AM #555693Participant[quote=meadandale][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. [/quote]“Facts take all the premium out of arm waving”[/quote]
Then you have the problem of “forests and trees”. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.