Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

BP v. The Chumps

Recs

59

June 10, 2010 – Comments (27) | RELATED TICKERS: BP , RIG , HAL

Last week when sir chump took to swearing at BP, I decided it was time to put the chump in his place and explain why BP is a must own stock.

Fist off, let's discuss what we know factually, then the Greens can come out the woodwork running their mouths.

1) The blow out preventer failed.

2) BP has been acting in good faith paying every legitimate claim and many other coming to them.

3) BP is currently engaged in drilling two additional relief wells

4) Taking the most exaggerated figures you can, the well has dumped two Valdez sized spills in the gulf.

5) A valdez sized spill is roughly the size of an olympic pool full of oil

6) The oceans have 340 quintillion gallons thus, if you were to compare the spill to the sized of the ocean on graph paper and place a single red dot to represent the oil spill, you would need a microscope to see the red dot.

7) The gov sent a SWAT team to the rig site and Holder sent a dozen DOJ attorneys to the site. 40% of the members of this Federal Gov first response got sea sick on the way out and were barfing chunks and chumming for red snapper. I am surprised that Sir Chump and Holder didn't take to a boat. Now that would have been funny.

So when BP requested assistance from the public I chipped in a dozen recommendations some of which included multiple valve caps to prevent hydrate formation as well as proper methods for cutting the bolts to take advantage of the machined flange surface. BP ignored most solutions then it dawned on me why... and light came to my brain and I then realized that BP was actually doing some very smart things... Why?

1) They had no guarantee that oil would be found with the first well. It could have been a duster.

2) They struck oil and the BOP failed. Sadly this caused an explosion fire an tragic loss of life. But it also left the unanswered question as to why a BOP would fail. The answer is that it failed due to the enormous and completely unanticipated and unexpected well head pressures. Why?

3) The oil reserve is vastly larger than they thought. The pressure tells you that. This is the first really deep well and what it tells us is that the deep ocean reserves are gigantic. So in a way, BP is sad, confused, and very sorry about the accident and at the same time are wetting their pants at what they have actually discovered.

4) How do we know the pressures are high? Well for one thing, the pressure on the ocean floor exerts roughly 2220 psi of salt water on every object including the opening of the 23" wellhead pipe. So in theory, salt water should be rushing down the well head but its not. The wellhead is pumping out oil like a cannon and the only place it gets pressure is from the reserve itself. So this is not a well but a superwell.

5) The same thing happened when they went to cap this thing. BP stupidly thought that salt water would leak into the seal. The work was done sloppily after the diamond cutter failed. It failed because BP did not have the moment arm correctly configured and I told them so before cutting. But they don't listen too well. Generally this is because they have some "senior engineer" that doesn't know much but drinks a lot and sadly is in a vertical organization making decisions over vastly more intelligent subordinates. That being said when they capped this, water wasn't about to seep in because the pressures were so high that the oil poured out. So BP engineers rightly figured that if they could siphon pump the oil out of the cap fast enough they could capture most of the oil. That was their first correct assumption.

6) Meanwhile BP is drilling not one but two relief wells. This time they will have BOPs that are built and designed for a superwell. So when all is said and done, BP will have three taps into what may be one of the largest reserves ever discovered and the first of what will undoubtedly be many more deep ocean wells.

So lets talk about the Greens since they will be howling by now.

1) Woods Hole did research on the natural ocean seepage off Santa Barbara in which oil leaks the size of between 4 and 80 Valdez spills occur each year and the Pacific handles it with little fanfare. There are many natural seeps of oil on the deep oceans and they do not cause any environmental damage.

2) When it comes to getting gov handouts nobody yells louder than the Katrina people. So when Hurricane Katrina came along it dumped a lot of sand up on their wetlands. And there were great prognostications that this would destroy the wildlife for years to come. So the Katrina clan not happy with just accepting the fact that hurricanes occur, tried to come into the courts with Comer v. Murphy Oil. to suggest with a straight face that Murphy Oil, a Virginia company had manufactured substances that increased carbon dioxide in the air, and that those very molecules, heated up the oceans..... it gets better.... and caused hurricane Katrina. Of course they never really figured out why Katrina came in to hit New Orleans but with such a crazy postulation does anyone really care? This case was tossed out of the Federal District court on its ass. It was appealed and heard by a three judge panel consisting of two old very old liberal judges that basically hated the oil business. Instead of hearing a politically charged case en blanc, these old goats let the case enter the District Court! It was appealed again and accepted by the 5th Circuit to be heard this time en blanc. Plaintiff's attorney decided to get cute and got the judges that owned any oil related stocks to recuse themselves. The result the Court lost is quorum and the Plaintiff's case was dismissed. But the point of this is that had this gone through, a Katrina plaintiff could have sued somebody in Maine for exhaling carbon dioxide on the same legal theory. I am not going to discuss the rules of standing for access to the Federal Courts except to say the Courts are not to accept any case unless it has a "high likelihood" of prevailing in the Courts. Like I said, nobody howls like the Katrina people looking for a handout.

3) So how bad is the environmental damage? Well with the exception of a few jelly fish and a hanful of birds, the damage has not been much. There have been no reports of major fish kills and aside from some wetlands in Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi and Texas have been pretty much untouched. A few tar balls have been collected but you can find them on any Beach in America. But the great howling about the environment comes from people who have retired on the Florida beaches who spend most of their lives preventing others from walking on "their" beaches. So now they are hyper-concerned about the environment, the same environment their bloody houses destroyed 30 years ago when they bulkheaded in all the wetlands.

4) 2/3 of the gulf is still opened to commercial fishing. Of course the Katrina fisherman that are bellyaching the most, claim all kinds of damages to their businesses only they don't pay any taxes or keep books so they can't prove damages in court. Gee, that's tough.

 

What about BP? Bloomberg is constantly running hedge fund articles about how BP will go broke... Really?

1) My estimation of the total worst case BP cost in courts would be 1 Billion beyond what they have already paid out. So lets say BP was very generous indeed and say what the heck, and went in for 5 billion or even 10 billion to set up a water park for bird oil studies and jellyfish washing and induled in every cockeyed liberal Green fantasy. Lets's say they also stocked all the Walmarts with an extra large supply of big screen TVs for the next hurricane we could see the Katrina people floating 60 in flat screens on rafts in downtown New Orleans.

2) BP presently has 25 to 30 billion in cash with a min additional credit line of 30 billion. Excluding the three new deep wells, they produce 400K bbl of oil a day out of the gulf. BP is also the only major that does not buy middle east oil. BP also has huge properties in Alaska as well as part ownership in the Alaskan pipeline. In short, BP will easily weather this blow hard government an the howling Greens.

3) BP is presently applying the Rope-a-dope technique pioneered by Mohammad Ali. Every group that bellows at them, they apologize. They continue to accept punches from every loudmouth liberal in government. It is as they can't defend themselves as if they are Mother Teresa in a fight. They turn the other cheek. They absorb the ridicule. Even that of Sir Chump who has sicked Holder on them with the threat of "Criminal" charges. This is Sir Chump's weapon of choice other than the jawbone of an ass used by Samson in the Bible. They used it with Toyota... They used it with Goldman, they used it with AIG. But BP just turns the other cheek and keeps on trying to report their positive news that they are getting more oil from the leak.

4) BP is already planning a new "cap" and undoubtedly they will use the Flange as I have previously described to them. So meanwhile they will pull more and more oil up and next month when they finally cap it with a hurricane provision, they will be near to the completion of their two relief wells.

5) BP will not only survive, they will thrive. They are also going to do a lot better with things in court where claims have to be proven rather than shouted from some empty headed big mouth. 

Final notes about the whole gulf thing and a few extra philosophical thoughts:

1) I don't really know what has happened to Americans these days. They seem very stupid to me. In the 1950's there were 150 million people, mostly blue collar but very competent. In 1970, the first oil shock there were 170 million people, we Vietnam, the war on poverty and the whole handout scheme started and the US was broke. Now we have 310 million plus another 30 million illegal immigrants all putting more pressure on the demand for energy. We are 13 trillion in debt, our interest payments exceed our annual tax collection. Libs just want to raise more taxes and spend more; it won't work. 

2) The Greens blow off all the time about ethanol, wind mills and solar panels and battery cars. They hate nuclear and they really hate oil but that doesn't get them to stop driving or stop using air conditioning or heating. Yet the Greens don't do math. Ethanol has a built in oil deficit of 70,000 BTU. That means the diesel fuel required to farm the corn and process and deliver ethanol costs more in oil energy than the ethanol can produce. And the land that could have fed 11 people feeds nobody so food gets more expensive. Yet we have this junk in our gas pumps and it makes Greens feel good about themselves, yet it wastes more oil. 

The same deficit occurs with windmills. They are not cost effective. Germany and Spain bought over 150 billion dollars worth of windmills and the total lifetime power generation will be less than 20 billion dollars worth for their lifetime. Solar cells are even worse producing roughly 200 flux watts for 5 hours a day. That will light a bulb. Each of these technologies requires more oil and fossil fuels than the energy they can produce. That is a mathematical fact in an expanding universe. 

Nuclear which is cost effective in other countries, is not mobile and is underutilized in the US due to superstitious fears of the Greens.

3) Bottom line is oil is the most important substance on earth. Unless the US wants to get its population under control, we are condemned to run out of oil. There is no measure of conservation that can stop the population freight train and its collision with the emerging countries for oil.

4) While the US uses the most oil we do so in direct proportion to our economy and populations. It is an exponential demand. If the US would reduce its population by just 1% a year, in 70 years we would be back to the 1950s population of 150 million and we would have abundant resources.

5) Finally I want to bust the last great oil myth that Americans are somehow the gluttons of the energy world. When you examine per capita oil consumption, the United States ranks about #23. We rank under Canada, Greenland, the Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, Iceland, the Bahamas, Guan, Aruba and others. But when you hear the Greens it is out Hummers and our SUVs that carry the brunt of the thoughtless mathless howling. 

America has always, until falling prey to the lords of welfare and environmental insanity, been a country that could do the seemingly impossible. We invented nuclear power, we went to the moon, we invented ocean drilling, robotics, computers and the clapper. Al Gore invented the internet. He also invented the art of the Defcon One shouting technique in which his face turns red and his blood vessels press from his forehead as he describes with great detail, and no science degree, the horror of polar bears cooking in a melting arctic stew. Yet never does he talk about the real encroachment of man's sprawling population on wildlife and the exponential demands that puts on oil. So unless you plan to stop using oil entirely a mathematical impossibility, then man is going to go after these deep superwells and if we don't get there then we will be buying it from someone else, maybe a dictator like Chavez or some madman out of the middle east.

 

 

27 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 11, 2010 at 12:19 AM, HomieDontMess (< 20) wrote:

Kick ass, top notch job my friend. I could not agree more. Yesterday made me second guess my recent purchase, but long term this investment is black, liquid gold. It really really angers me how politicians are so near sighted and willing to whore themselves out for votes. Claiming they want to "kick ass" or "get tough". BP has said they will pay; they have paid! As long as these individuals do not make the political and economic waters too polluted with their ignorance, things will be looking way up for BP!

Report this comment
#2) On June 11, 2010 at 12:22 AM, tomlongrpv (71.17) wrote:

I think you are correct on BP and I bought some myself this week.  Of course look for the recovery to take longer if the tea party loonies, other right wing nut jobs and plutocrats like Meg Whitman succeed in reenacting the strategies of Herbert Hoover by derailing the economic recovery with their programs that will slash government spending (and jobs) and do nothing to improve our infrastructure and education to make us more competitive.  But you are right about BP--addicted customers are a great income source and they can handle way more than what the government can throw at them.  And any new higher liability limits will just drive their smaller competitors out of business.  So I am buying into BP shares and will hold them a while and see what happens.

Report this comment
#3) On June 11, 2010 at 12:37 AM, davejh23 (< 20) wrote:

"Taking the most exaggerated figures you can, the well has dumped two Valdez sized spills in the gulf."

This isn't true.  Using BP's original estimate of 5,000 barrels per day, the leak would have been roughly equal to 1 Valdez spill by now.  Two Valdez sized spills would be a best case scenario...lower than the lowest estimates now that we have some more information.  We now know that the spill rate is at least several times the original estimates, and according to some experts, possibly 20 times or more that rate.  So, taking the most exaggerated figures, the well has dumped 20+ Valdez sized spills into the gulf.  By the time a relief well is successfully completed, they will have pumped 2 Valdez sized spills of dispersants into the gulf.  There's about a 100% chance that the relief wells won't be completed by August, so if you're going to buy BP, I would wait until after August...they will be getting negative press for a long time, and investors will panic when they realize the best case relief well estimates aren't realistic.

Report this comment
#4) On June 11, 2010 at 12:53 AM, DarkToast (50.13) wrote:

There is a ~20% chance the relief wells will blow out as well. The $4500 per barrel fine that is a part of the clean water act has BP owing roughly ten billion dollars in fines alone at this point. The damage has not stopped, oil will continue to pour out for months to come. Why would you buy this piece of earth destroying garbage now? Your money will join your soul, lost in the ether.

 -1, lame post.

Report this comment
#5) On June 11, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Lordrobot (92.53) wrote:

Tomlongpv, I did not delve into economic policy since I am a Capitalist. My premise is simple. Wealth is not created by Gov. it is destroyed by taxes and redistributed by Gov spending.

Justice Marshal our first Chief Justice said, "The power to Tax is the power to destroy." 

MY point is that the whole world will not remember some relatively meaningless oil spill in the gulf, but I am a physicist and I promise you that the world will remember that under our seas is more oil than scientists ever imagined and BP has stepped into it by accident. So you can worry about the small picture which is stupid Gov. regulation which always works out stupidly... look at SARBOX, or you can envision deep deep deep global sea beds hiding gigantic oil reserves that may be presently filling from deep in the earth. Capitalists will go get it and Americans can do it or someplace else will hire our men and machines and Americans can settle for chump change government handouts and an absurd taxing scheme to keep the greatest dreamers and doers feeding the losers. 

I am not one who believes in living a timid scared existence where government controls the abundance or scarcity of my reality. Government and politicians, the intellectual bottom rung should never have any say about how genius operates. Our greatest asset, our greatest power, is not the Gov but the people. God didn't put me on this earth to feed Obama's freeloading Aunt Illegal. God put me here to imagine and build.

One last point. Read the "Economist" and see what they thought of the Gov's stimulus package. Compare China's growth from their stimulus v. that which came from the US liberal stimulus package. Gov spending clearly helped the Chinese but the Economist says the Democrat's bill essentially did nothing. The Economist is nonpartisan.

 

Report this comment
#6) On June 11, 2010 at 1:32 AM, HomieDontMess (< 20) wrote:

Lordrobot, I think I like you. Keep up the good work sir.

Report this comment
#7) On June 11, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Lordrobot (92.53) wrote:

DarkToast,

Lame Post? First, in addition to my physics background I have a degree in law. You might have picked that up in my post when I discussed Comer v. Murphy Oil. But since you didn't, let me assure you that the "clean water act" still has to be proven and you can't do that. At best you can estimate and under no circumstances are you going to prove "gross negligence" which is the requirement for the $4300 find which you referred to as the $4500 fine. The base fine if they actually can levy the fine could be a max of $1100 per bbl. I don't even think they can prove that for the simple reason that oil is a common naturally leaked substance. 

Further the actual provision of the clean water act oil spill liability provisions are as follows:

 (a) General rule

Except as otherwise provided in this section, the total of the liability of a responsible party under section 2702 of this title and any removal costs incurred by, or on behalf of, the responsible party, with respect to each incident shall not exceed—

(3) for an offshore facility except a deepwater port, the total of all removal costs plus $75,000,000; and

(4) for any onshore facility and a deepwater port, $350,000,000. 

So you see Mr. DarkToast those are the MAX limits SHALL NOT EXCEED, it was your post that was lame, not mine.

The fines are not in the billions. And when you put all your faith in Holder to do the prosecution of a civil case, you have a loser.

Instead of misquoting the lib press why don't you read the code? 

DarkToast, a bit of advice... don't come to a gun fight with a pen knife.  

Report this comment
#8) On June 11, 2010 at 4:20 AM, stockdatamaster (88.62) wrote:

This post would have been okay for the most part, had it not been for the needless "Green"-bashing political undertone.  How can you trivialize the environmental damage by claiming it's just "a few jelly fish and a handful of birds"?  That would be tantamount to claiming that the catastrophic earthquake in Haiti merely displaced a "few" people from their homes... which, of course, would be an utterly ridiculous thing to say.  Please get your facts straight before posting such ignorant nonsense.

Also, you seem to be very confused as to what a "windmill" is.  For those of you who don't know, a windmill is piece of machinery that was commonly used in the U.S. prior to the 1930's to perform mechanical tasks such as grinding grain, cutting lumber, or pumping water.  Since then, they have been gradually phased out, as electrical infrastructure became more widespread in rural areas.  I suppose the term you were looking for was "wind turbine", which is the name for the modern device used in wind-powered electrical generation.  Needless to say, windmills and wind turbines are two totally different things.

But the most laughable part of this blog post was this ridiculous statement: "...I want to bust the last great oil myth that Americans are somehow the gluttons of the energy world. When you examine per capita oil consumption, the United States ranks about #23. We rank under Canada, Greenland, the Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, Iceland, the Bahamas, Guan, Aruba and others..."  Your citation of per capita oil consumption is flawed logic.  Perhaps you don't have a map handy, but with the exception of Canada, those countries are miniscule compared to the U.S.  Seriously, who cares about the per capita oil consumption of tiny micro-states?  They're so small in terms of population and physical size, that even if their per capita oil consumption is astronomically high, it's still just a drop in the bucket compared to us.  There is no "myth" to bust.  Americans are absolutely and unequivocally the energy gluttons of the world.  Putting a "per capita" spin on it is not going to change that fact.

Report this comment
#9) On June 11, 2010 at 5:52 AM, ozzfan1317 (81.08) wrote:

We use less oil than Canada so there but greatt post I fgeel horrible about the wildlife but seriously did go a Wildlife preserve with a hunting rifle? lol The part failed and they own 65% liability I wouldnt be shocked if they pay 20 billion over ten years tops.

Report this comment
#10) On June 11, 2010 at 6:17 AM, stockdatamaster (88.62) wrote:

"We use less oil than Canada..."  WRONG!!!

Energy Statistics > Oil > Consumption (most recent) by country

Rank   Countries  Amount  Date

# 1   United States: 20,680,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 3   China: 7,578,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 4   Japan: 5,007,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 5   Russia: 2,858,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 6   India: 2,722,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 7   Germany: 2,456,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 8   Brazil: 2,372,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 9   Canada: 2,371,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 10   Saudi Arabia: 2,311,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 11   Korea, South: 2,214,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 12   Mexico: 2,119,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 13   France: 1,950,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 14   United Kingdom: 1,763,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 15   Italy: 1,702,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 16   Iran: 1,679,000 bbl/day  2006 
# 17   Spain: 1,611,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 18   Indonesia: 1,219,000 bbl/day  2006 
# 19   Netherlands: 984,200 bbl/day  2007 
# 20   Australia: 966,200 bbl/day  2007 

The U.S. blows away every other country on Earth in terms of oil consumption... by a long shot!  Come on, people, get your facts straight!

Report this comment
#11) On June 11, 2010 at 10:02 AM, tomlongrpv (71.17) wrote:

I subscribe to the Economist and read it regularly.  And the idea that it is non-partisan is quite amusing to me.  It's just the voice of big business.  Nor is it the case that taxes destroy wealth.  Taxes fund things government does that would never be done by private enterprise.  Think about that the next time you flush your toilet--are you aware of any significant private sewer companies?  Storm drain companies?  Countries that are completely laisez faire capitalist in their approach have miserable standards of living and low life expectancies.  It is not a coincidence.

All that being said, I agree with you on BP and have put my money into it for all the reasons you stated and for the added reason that government overreation to the spill is likely to actually help BP by crippling is competitors.  BP will suffer for a few years, likely cut its dividend and maybe even change its name (although they alreay sell gasoline under other names and can easily hide).  But they will emerge at the other end with competitors wiped out and larger reserves than anyone dreamed of.  And their customers will still be addicted--an addition helped ironically by an overreaction to Three Mile Island.  BP's long range future still looks good to me. 

 

Report this comment
#12) On June 11, 2010 at 10:28 AM, panchocharlie (24.22) wrote:

Glad to read a different perspective on the BP disaster but after some research about your point#4 and #5 "approx a  2 valdez sized spill has occurred. a valdez oil spill is about the size of an olympic pool of oil."

the valdez spill was 11,000,000 gallons of oil.  an olympic size pool holds 660000 gallons.  therefore the valdez tanker held roughly 17 olympic size pools of oil not one (1).  not sure this point makes a whole lot of difference in the total scheme of things but thought i would bring it up.

 

Report this comment
#13) On June 11, 2010 at 12:22 PM, fewl10 (< 20) wrote:

Wow.  A law degree.  You MUST be really smart.  Just FYI, law school has been an outright scam since about 2000. 

Please go to Rick Ackerman and read one of his recent posts, I think it was about 2 weeks ago, regarding the oil spill.  This is a long post from an insider in the industry and saved me from losing and additional $2000+ on my RIG investment. 

This leak isn't going to stop-- in fact, erosion will make it get worse.  When the Gulf Coast is an oil swamp and the Atlantic is being threatened, have fun selling your precious BP stock for $15 a share or less.

Report this comment
#14) On June 11, 2010 at 12:42 PM, PROG77 (< 20) wrote:

 

RESPONSE TO :

BP v. The Chumps

 

you know all this energy and scientific breakdown is good and impressive. well its ones position to be against welfare and such, even "hype" from the "greens",   however if we really ever stop and think about what we are doing like we often dont consider the "small example " of current consequence of  how we are playing with mother nature till it bites "us" in the ass, unfortunately the good may have to suffer with the evil.. not to be offesive, but its worth considering the things we do. in fact who knows what the potential consequences are at this point, hopefully not much...(mercy) but my point is the earth is a dynamic object as our bodies are..as is the universe...we need to consider these SUPER WELLS maybe a super hell problem.???. i would suggest we all better "pause" a moment.. with our joyfullness of oil.. do we know the full scientific consequence on the stability of earth geological behavior../ pressure ..its in there for a reason like the spoke on a bike wheel, no thts just plain dumb!! its not that automobiles could not be manufactured more conservatively in use of oil or other alternative but it is my belief that the greedy / wealthy powers that be would send this planet and its occupant into the abyss for "our" evil immediate gains.. if a person is stuck with a pin "liquid" comes out.  now im not trying to be too ridiculous but its still a point worth consideration im not a geologist, or geophysicist- but this type of consideration is not mentioned what are we doing to the planet i guess its too green., as well it will spoil fun with all our toys. i do drive but i hate what automobile exhast does try living in a busy city and try to go jogging or walking down the side walk... any way i realize that progress is neccesary but it will be NICE when we can erase the 'greed and thoughtlessness' before 'they' eradicate more than just a few dead pelicans.  FOOD FOR THOUGHT... ?

Report this comment
#15) On June 11, 2010 at 5:36 PM, ralphmachio (24.90) wrote:

PROG77, Word.

What if you take the oil out of an engine? Car seizes. What if we are taking the oil out of a place it is needed? Huh, genius?

Do we need oil? I thought we only needed oil because oil and car companies bought the light rail that connected this country. Oh, we need cars? I thought we only needed cars to get to work? And I was also pretty sure that we had to go to work because of this confounded economic system? I love circular arguments.

The comments clearly demonstrate which direction BP is going. Down. Too bad stock price is based on popularity, and not any actual data. But what good is data anyway when it can be manipulated, left out, or just lied about?  Does anyone really believe the government unemployment statistics? How about the banks' bad asset lists?  

 

Report this comment
#16) On June 11, 2010 at 5:38 PM, ralphmachio (24.90) wrote:

Lord Robot, how, much did you get for your soul? ; )

Report this comment
#17) On June 11, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Lordrobot (92.53) wrote:

If some of you don't like the post, write your own posts. Some comments here regarded my post as a Green basher, so be it. I am of the school of thought that man is not essential to the proper running of the earth. 

The earth is at least 8 billion years old. The earth is for lack of a better description an trash compactor or recycling machine. Organic life is dragged over time to the central portions of the earth and then pressurized and fired and pushed back toward the surface.

I am a Scientist and emotional arguments are fallacies. Man's existence on earth is just another event, man has no power to destroy the earth or anything else. And if you observed the laws of the universe you would find that this is a very safe place in which all matter and energy are in constant net balance. Puny man screams at the top of his lungs but I promise you is not heard across the expanse of the universe. Man is trivial in all matters.

Greens take an approach that is apocalyptic and they place man at the center of the universe and pretend that man is in charge of the balance of carbon dioxide on earth. This is substantially absurd. The carbon dioxide balance has been efficiently controlled by the earth for 8 billion years. Suddenly man with his Al Gore sized ego proclaims, without a molecule of scientific evidence that man 1) has control of the earth's gases, 2) that man is necessary to keep them in balance and 3) if man doesn't do this a few foreign weather cadets say the whole earth will turn into the tropics.

Some years ago I did an analysis of the surface temp of Mars. It too has been affected identically with the earth as far as surface temperature is concerned. Not more and not less. Yet Mars has an atmosphere that is 25% carbon dioxide and no life, specifically no men. Yet Al Gore comes along with an insane notion that man has caused the transient heating of the earth surface. Gore never got the equation right. Water vapor increases with temp. That allows for an increased solubility of gases in the atmosphere, but they are minute alterations. But Gore said the gases caused the heat; but he was precisely backward. 

This is why the Global warming crowd won't debate the issue. Even here the last poster asks how much did you get for your soul? My soul is not at issue. I am educated in physics. I don't jump on every phenomenon and suddenly create theology. I study, analyze the component and model the whole. 

I have worked in the field of weather. I designed and built the first satellite weather station on the continent of Australia. I designed and built the computers and hacked into the Japanese Satellite with permission. I have enough understanding of weather to know that man is meaningless to the equation. 

Yet something has happened to America and Americans. They seem to have drifted off into a sort of an electronic dark ages. Myths and junk science spread at a much faster rate than peer review. It has happened since the cold fusion fiasco.

It happened again with the flap over acid rain. This nonsense was tauted in high school science text books as the cause of tree frog deformities. Canada accused the US of causing acid rain that was destroying trees. This was all myth. It turned out that carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide had noting to do with it, it was nematodes. 

So it is true, we scientist cannot compete with your new electronic Ipop Ipad dark ages. You can spread myth and attack people and companies with effective mob rule and you drown out the truth because it was never about the truth anyway, it was about your religion. The Deity of Man talking from a world of you electronic babble. Just remember scientist created your toys of babble, all you have ever supplied was the empty headed chatter. 

I see that CAPs here censored my last post but I left you inviting you to watch George Karlin do his hilarious "Save the Earth" piece on YouTube. It is astonishingly brilliant.   

Report this comment
#18) On June 11, 2010 at 11:12 PM, awallejr (83.97) wrote:

Excellent post.  +1 rec from me.

Report this comment
#19) On June 11, 2010 at 11:27 PM, awallejr (83.97) wrote:

While I rec'd you since I thought your post was well argued I do have to take issue with this comment from your #17 reply:

"Man is trivial in all matters"

I suppose when compared to black holes you might be right, but I personally believe in an everlasting soul. I don't mean to get into a religious debate, but I did feel compelled to respond to the foregoing purported conclusion, since, in the end it really is an opinion not a fact.

Report this comment
#20) On June 12, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Lordrobot (92.53) wrote:

 PROG77, I am certain that some persons on earth were opposed to going to the moon with the notion that Man was tampering with sacred ground. After all God made the earth for man they said, but not the moon. 

I was a child when we went to the moon. Perhaps if they hadn't stopped going, and hadn't abandoned great distant voyages into space, then man would be bolder now not frail and timid as he is these days. 

In many ways the aging space shuttle, a sort of earth orbiting good ship lollipop that kills crews on a sadly regular basis is what we get when we become timid.

The saturn V Rocket was not a machine that apologized. It was not a collection of after thoughts. It was designed for the purpose of sending men to the moon and bringing them back safely. We lost no moon crews but we could have quite easily.

We don't do projects like the moon anymore. Instead man is told that he can't achieve greatness without dragging the rest of humanity on his back, after he feeds them first. We are living in a nation where 15% of the population pays 86% of the tax. Half the working public gets a welfare check called an earned income credit. Living is about handouts now not achievement and accomplishment.

Why are there viruses? I say to make us smarter. The caverns of the universe both great and small are the curiosities that compel us to go find out what's out there. The superwells are here for us to tap. Just when you thought you were out of water God gives you an oasis in the desert. In the middle of a desert... water!!! Where did it come form? In the depths of an ocean, oil, the most valuable substance of man's progress.

Oil had to be discovered by man, just as aluminum which does not exist in a pure state without man.

Man was meant to be bold not fearful and superstitious. These giant super reserves are for the benefit of man. We remember Columbus, not the guy that sat chewing his nails that lacked the nerve to find the new world. Food or Thought.

Report this comment
#21) On June 12, 2010 at 1:14 PM, ralphmachio (24.90) wrote:

Columbus was supposedly sent to find a new trade route, but maps of North America may have been looted from the library in Alexandria, as copies of maps of the arctic circle minus the ice have been purported to have originated there. (PIRI REISE MAP, Fingerprints of the Gods)

The soul comment was just a joke for anyone who would have made the connection between your name, writing style, and preferred subject matter, as it doesn't reflect the most human traits, Lord Robot. 

The great thing about your view is, we will soon find out if your way (the robot way) our the human way (mostly forgotten, has not been around since WWII, and even then, the constituents were human, but the government was robot).  Only time will tell whether I will continue to be annoyed by your robot paradigm, have ashes raining into a red sea without seeing the sun for 3 years where the living will envy the dead, or be tending a self sufficient orchard somewhere beautiful next to a house I built.(in reality, with the beatle kill I've seen, and the firefighters I've spoken to, option 2 will happen no matter what, and never once did I say global warming was caused by industry, vehicles) 

Despite the robotic analysis, you still don't have the ability to do all the calculations to realize that we are at a point of converging waves, which to sense, all you really need is the ability to read the writing on the wall.  All the oil in the world won't save a nation that already sold out.  Generation X knew a long time ago the best years were behind them.

Where did our technology get us? We now live in a world where nuclear annihalation is a real possibility, thanks.  And just one look at the Goal Keeper, SR71 Blackbird, and the list goes on forever... and you see where our best technology goes! We kill other humans with it! For economic gain! the whole thing is circular! and it ends in destruction!  At least the robots will all have the coolest gadgets to play this out with! 

Oh, I know, the medical advances, and our longer life expectancy... Well, I guess you can trade natural selection for national selection, because there is more than enough killing being done in the name of 'more for us, less for you', oil being a good industry to look to for an example.   

Report this comment
#22) On June 12, 2010 at 1:38 PM, ralphmachio (24.90) wrote:

PS. I loved your post, despite 40 grit attempt to help you see that the greens cannot be put into a simple bin. I rec'd it, and will actually be watching BP.  I was green long before it was cool.  I hope you do not take my opinion to be an offense, we are just on opposing sides of an issue, and I purposely write here because nobody agrees with me! In blogs where everyone agrees, it is easy to not see other opinions.

Report this comment
#23) On June 12, 2010 at 4:48 PM, bcchamp (33.93) wrote:

awesome  +5

Report this comment
#24) On June 14, 2010 at 4:19 AM, beggarmanthief wrote:

"We rank under Canada, Greenland, the Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, Iceland, the Bahamas, Guan, Aruba and others"

 All those places are either very cold, with low population density (Canada, Greenland, Iceland) or tiny tourist resorts. None really comparable to the USA. Are there no temperate, high population density countries with comparable per capita oil consumption? 

Report this comment
#25) On June 14, 2010 at 4:21 AM, beggarmanthief wrote:

In fact you know what that list reminds me of? The "coalition of the willing" - a bunch of tiny irrelevant places and Canada, cited to try to justify bad behaviour by the US.

 I like the rest, though. 

Report this comment
#26) On June 14, 2010 at 6:02 AM, Lordrobot (92.53) wrote:

Beggarmanthief, I have no difficulty with math of any kind. I used those examples because Greens are always yapping about how much oil each American uses but in reality, many smaller countries use more oil per capita. How about the Virgin Islands which are at the top of the per capita list. Is that also a frozen tundra? or Guam? Reason before writing is appealing. The issue is what happens in the aggregate. 

The rest of the world does matter especially as emerging markets place greater demands on oil. The US is a very large country with a large population. We have the largest economy so one would expect that we use more oil than any one else that is until China emerges then they will use much more than we and then will compete for oil, a massive producer nation v. a massive consumer debt nation. 

America is a welfare state so good luck competing with Asian labor long term. And if the Greens continue to act the role of Luddites, then good luck keeping high technology industries and experts.

If it gets too costly to drill in America due to the punitive civil and now "criminal" risk of dealing with government, companies will not drill and the US will have to compete in the spot markets. But I don't know how you are going to get oil to the US. By Tanker? Their insurance costs will be too high to ship to the US. or ship into any US waters. The Alaskan pipeline is owned by EXXON and PB so they will have to protect themselves. I promise that will be no utopia because oil is going to go sky high in the US.

But if Obama keeps giving large business big reasons to leave, US demand will decline further, but we have already been in a decline for the past 5 years. US consumption of oil has been going down for roughly six years. 

In fact when Oil went to $147 a bbl US consumption the prior year was down 3%. At that rate we would half our consumption in  23.3 years. All Green arguments fail the math. That is why Al Gore never debates a scientist. He's the cold fusion of our times.

And Canada while lightly populated uses more oil per capita than the US. So if you add up all these smaller countries, you would find they make a huge global impact on oil markets. Deprive Argentina of oil and they would collapse. 

There is but one irrefutable fact. Oil is the most precious and most important substance on earth. All civilization is propelled by it. Unless you control global population, and US population you can't beat the inevitable equation that oil will continue to cause economic storms because you will not have enough oil to meet demand. The US has no choice but to find more oil. The more your population swells the more food you need and the more diesel you need to farm. Energy use is exponential. 

What are the Greens going to do? Stop eating, stop driving, stop using air conditioning or heat?  Every solution they have fails the Thermo math. From wind turbines to solar cells, to ethanol, each one of their solutions uses more oil to produce them then they will generate. Thus they are not solutions but plunge us deeper into the energy deficits.

We are heading into a Green driven dark ages with Government stoking the devil's train into the abyss. You can worry about a few birds and jellyfish if you want, but the real extinction only begins when gov regulation medals with the economic forces of nature while driving up the US population. But instead of a few jellyfish, just wait until the whole US economy collapses under the weight of the math. 

 

 

Report this comment
#27) On June 14, 2010 at 5:21 PM, panchocharlie (24.22) wrote:

what happens if the bp oil spill cannot be stopped

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement