Jay Gannon
Well-known member
You can have a gazillion in potential revenue, you still go bankrupt if your shares fall to zero.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
RED cameras are built out of poisons. Don't just throw one away!
"I can't possibly imagine that BP is trying to set a record for going from the world's most profitable company in history to bankrupcy in less than 12 months. Therefore I can only assume that they are employing any and every means at their disposal including the engineers they ignored for the sake of profit in the past to mitigate the crisis and minimize their liability."
And we're talking about radioactive products which will be inert within 150 years or so and mostly inert within 50. Those are the kinds of timelines we can handle.
You can have a gazillion in potential revenue, you still go bankrupt if your shares fall to zero.
b) the assumption that crisis is undesired.
BPs stock will bounce back after people get bored with the gusher..sad but true
Yep. Which is why I plan on buying a bunch of it. People are short sighted. I guess I might as well profit.![]()
BP wanted
Worst case scenario is that both relief wells fail and the existing leak continues to degrade and the casing below the BOP ultimately fails.
If people ignore all the Obama and BP bashing for a moment it's got to be apparent this leak is not going to be controlled. If these guys could throw 10 Billion dollars at it today and stop it they would.
They don't know how to fix it.
Or - if you're an Illuminati conspiracy theorist "they don't WANT to fix it". Which... sorta makes sense when you consider they have massive wealth far beyond the trivial billions BP may lose and one of their theorized goals is depopulation.
Don't 1/3 of the seas turn to blood and 1/3 of the sea creatures die in Revelations?
Not sure I'd be betting on the relief wells working. Just sayin'.
ABC news reported tonight that microbes are apparently what has caused the oil to dissappear. They also state that the microbes eat the dispersant as well, and that because the dispersant was used, the microbes can eat the oil faster because it was in smaller droplets. As stated, the toxic chemicals are very volatile and evaporated immediately, and approximately 40 percent of the oil may have evaporated due to the higher winds during two tropical storms.They can't find the oil because the dispersants sank it to the bottom of the ocean.
IMO
100 million gallons does not just dissapear
We have no idea what those chemicals will do in the long run but i guess we will find out the hard way
I think they are at the top of the food chain:sneaky2:microbes are believed to have caused most of the great mass extinctions on this planet.... don't mess with microbes.
a scientist with the environmental group Oceana, told the New York Times that as much as 40 percent of the oil might have evaporated when it reached the surface. High winds from two recent storms may have speeded the evaporation process.
Perhaps the most important cause of the oil’s disappearance, some researchers suspect, is that the oil has been devoured by microbes.
This statement is especially ridiculous, both scientifically and logically.Typically, there are enough microbes in the ocean to consume half of any oil spilled in a month or two, says Howarth.
The controversial dispersant used to break up the oil as it gushed from the deep-sea well may have helped the microbes do their work.
Not talking about stock buys or sells... the article just says that the doomsday scenario everyone was painting has disappeared in a very short time.
I don't know, Dr. Simic, they are quoting scientists like yourself, I think.Interesting article.
This statement is especially ridiculous, both scientifically and logically.
Either the article or the ABC newscast, can't remember which one, said that the absence of oxygen "proves" the microbes are working in large numbers because they work aerobically (in an oxygen environment) and therefore are sucking up all the oxygen in order to pac-man the oil. They also went on to say that 28,000 birds were covered in oil and only about half of them died. In the Exxon Valdez spill over a quarter of a million birds died. But Gulf waters are warm and microbially friendlier than the colder waters of Alaska. Not only that, but oil has been leaking naturally in the Gulf since before man, and those microbes, which are found in all the oceans of the world, have had time to adapt to eating oil voraciously when there is a plentiful supply of it for food.I'm guessing that there is a part 2. of the article which scientifically proves that dropped oxygen levels in the Gulf are nothing to be concerned about, that marine life has suffered minimal losses, that all oil will be taken care of, that microbes eating oil do not present another risk to marine life in any way, that there is no chance of oil spreading into Atlantic and that life balance in the Gulf is returning to normal.
This time without formulations such as: "may be","might be","perhaps" or "some suspect".
And this is coming from the NEWS MEDIA, who are naturally inclined to paint gloomy pictures.
Elsie, my comment is directed to the article, not to you personally. I understood what you meant and thank you for the additional clarification. No disrespect meant in any way.
I wouldn't take this as a serious proof of catastrophe being avoided, though.
IMO just leave out the "gloomy".