Re: Any comments on this piece?
David Hobby wrote: > > Trying to think of a movie that portrays the USA as > a good place to visit... "American Pie", "Basic Instinct",... > >> And all of them portray the USA in a very positive way! > > Help me, I'm working on this. The message of "Basic Instinct" > is "Sure, the USA is full of crazy women who will kill you > with an ice pick. But at least they're hot and rich." Or? > No, the message is "The USA is such a free place that a murder suspect can be brought to a police station without panties, cross her legs, and get away with that". (does that look too much Yakov Smirnoff to you?) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Any comments on this piece?
Alberto Monteiro wrote: David Hobby wrote: Trying to think of a movie that portrays the USA as a good place to visit... "American Pie", "Basic Instinct",... ... And all of them portray the USA in a very positive way! Alberto-- Help me, I'm working on this. The message of "Basic Instinct" is "Sure, the USA is full of crazy women who will kill you with an ice pick. But at least they're hot and rich." Or? I think "Showgirls" is a great movie, and the selling of DVDs just proves that. Alberto Monteiro No comment on that one. ---David ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Any comments on this piece?
David Hobby wrote: > >>> Trying to think of a movie that portrays the USA as >>> a good place to visit... >> >> "American Pie", "Basic Instinct", "Hair", "Deep Throat", >> "The Girl Next Door", "Porky's", "Flashdance", "9 1/2 weeks", >> "Showgirls", "Back to the Future", "American Beauty" ... >> just to mention a few of them. > > I don't know if you're kidding or not. > This is e-mail. I'm always kidding. And I'm always deadly serious about the importance of jokes! :-P > I see > that as a pretty random list of movies, all of > which are set in the USA. > And all of them portray the USA in a very positive way! > "Showgirls" was definitely a bad movie. I didn't > really need to be reminded of it. : ) > I think "Showgirls" is a great movie, and the selling of DVDs just proves that. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Any comments on this piece?
Alberto Monteiro wrote: David Hobby wrote: You have a wrong idea about Brazil. Unfortunately, the paradise that movies like "Blame it on Rio" or "Tourists" depict is as far away from actual Brazil as "Escape from NY" or "The Postman" [*] is from the actual USA. Is the difference between depiction and reality in the same direction? No, "as far away" is absolute value Trying to think of a movie that portrays the USA as a good place to visit... "American Pie", "Basic Instinct", "Hair", "Deep Throat", "The Girl Next Door", "Porky's", "Flashdance", "9 1/2 weeks", "Showgirls", "Back to the Future", "American Beauty" ... just to mention a few of them. Alberto-- I don't know if you're kidding or not. I see that as a pretty random list of movies, all of which are set in the USA. "Showgirls" was definitely a bad movie. I didn't really need to be reminded of it. : ) ---David ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Any comments on this piece?
On Jun 17, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Petrobras was :-) Did they make women's undergarments out of petroleum? You have a wrong idea about Brazil. Unfortunately, the paradise that movies like "Blame it on Rio" or "Tourists" depict is as far away from actual Brazil as "Escape from NY" or "The Postman" [*] is from the actual USA. Alberto Monteiro [*] at least something is on-topic... Hmm .. there was wordplay involved that may not have been obvious to non-native English speakers .. "bras" as abbreviation (plural) for "brassiere" vs. abbreviation for "Brasil" .. ;) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Any comments on this piece?
Dan Minette wrote: > >> You have a wrong idea about Brazil. > > Is the Copacabana still as bad as when I was down there, about a > dozen years ago? > I don't think it changed too much. > I presume the sewer line was fixed by now, > No, it wasn't - and the problem was not the sewer line. > but are there still ugly sex workers every 100 yards > Maybe not, but there's a long time since I went throught Avenida Atlantica at night. BTW, prostitution is _legal_ in Brazil, what's illegal is the exploitation of prostitution (which does not make any sense, like 90% of law.br). > and hotels that were five star in 1950, and not updated since? > Yes, they are called "Patrimônio cultural tombado", which means that you can't touch them. But there are new hotels. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Any comments on this piece?
David Hobby wrote: > >> You have a wrong idea about Brazil. Unfortunately, >> the paradise that movies like "Blame it on Rio" or "Tourists" >> depict is as far away from actual Brazil as "Escape from NY" >> or "The Postman" [*] is from the actual USA. > > Is the difference between depiction and reality > in the same direction? > No, "as far away" is absolute value > > Trying to think of a movie that portrays the USA as > a good place to visit... > "American Pie", "Basic Instinct", "Hair", "Deep Throat", "The Girl Next Door", "Porky's", "Flashdance", "9 1/2 weeks", "Showgirls", "Back to the Future", "American Beauty" ... just to mention a few of them. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Any comments on this piece?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Alberto Monteiro Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 3:02 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: RE: Any comments on this piece? Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > >> Petrobras was :-) > > Did they make women's undergarments out of petroleum? > >You have a wrong idea about Brazil. Is the Copacabana still as bad as when I was down there, about a dozen years ago? I presume the sewer line was fixed by now, but are there still ugly sex workers every 100 yards and hotels that were five star in 1950, and not updated since? Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Any comments on this piece?
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Petrobras was :-) Did they make women's undergarments out of petroleum? You have a wrong idea about Brazil. Unfortunately, the paradise that movies like "Blame it on Rio" or "Tourists" depict is as far away from actual Brazil as "Escape from NY" or "The Postman" [*] is from the actual USA. Is the difference between depiction and reality in the same direction? ---David Trying to think of a movie that portrays the USA as a good place to visit... ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Any comments on this piece?
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > >> Petrobras was :-) > > Did they make women's undergarments out of petroleum? > You have a wrong idea about Brazil. Unfortunately, the paradise that movies like "Blame it on Rio" or "Tourists" depict is as far away from actual Brazil as "Escape from NY" or "The Postman" [*] is from the actual USA. Alberto Monteiro [*] at least something is on-topic... ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Any comments on this piece?
And what do you all think polyester is? Hah. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ > Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:10:37 -0500 > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com > From: ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net > Subject: RE: Any comments on this piece? > > At 07:15 AM Thursday 6/17/2010, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > >Petrobras was :-) > > > > Did they make women's undergarments out of petroleum? > > > . . . ronn! :) > > > > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Any comments on this piece?
At 07:15 AM Thursday 6/17/2010, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Petrobras was :-) Did they make women's undergarments out of petroleum? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Any comments on this piece?
Dan Minette wrote: > Last bust was 98-99, when oil prices averaged about > $15/barrel. No-one would be drilling deep water at those prices. > Petrobras was :-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Any comments on this piece?
At 05:33 PM Wednesday 6/16/2010, Dan Minette wrote: >This link was sent to another list a little while ago: >http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593#comment-648967 >and people there (no experts in the field) are wondering if the >author likely knows what he is talking about or not. There seem to be two long pieces in the article. The first involves the loss of knowledge due to the up and down nature of the business. There are two problems with that. First, we're about 10 years into a generally up cycle. Oil prices dipped low for a couple of months, but the fact that BP is making billions a quarter and is drilling sub-salt in deep water proves that it's not bust time in the oil industry. Last bust was 98-99, when oil prices averaged about $15/barrel. No-one would be drilling deep water at those prices. Second, it wasn't that folks didn't know what the risks were and knew about the red flags. The proper procedure was recommended by several service companies, who were planning on following it. There was a fiery meeting in which the company man simply enforced his will. Look, that's not the part of the business I'm in, and _I_ knew why what they did was wrong from the beginning. Everyone around in the business knows. If the company man didn't know, then BP appointed someone who never learned the ropes to run one of their most critical wells. I'd bet dollars to donuts he knew better. The second part concerns where the problem is. I'm not sure how the first set of pipes and cementing broke. I saw holes near the blowout preventer, with mud coming out, and I saw mud come out, and then oil. But, that's because the mud had to be put in above all that, were the riser broke. My guess is that the downhole pressure was such that you couldn't push hard enough against it with the mud to force the column of oil and gas down. Instead, the interface was just below the surface, and the mud just flowed into the ocean through the holes. Even if there is a big hole 20 feet below the surface, the important question is the pressure downhole vs. the pressure from about 25k feet of oil and gas and 5k feet of sea water. So, once the pressure of the formation drops below, say, 12,000 psi, the well will stop leaking automatically. That may be a long time. So, they are trying to drill a well that will intercept the well down low and then pump mud in that well. If they intercept near the bottom, and use 18 lb mud, they could have 20k psi of pressure pushing down (and up the well of course). That should be a much better place to inject heavy mud. Finally, the restrictor for mud flow is the next to last set of casing (the last set blew up the well, through the rig). That is probably a 6" ID (mebbie up to 8). With the riser cut, that is what is restricting flow rates. So, I don't see a hole high in the drill string as a big problem. That's the biggest ID casing, so it's not the limiting factor to the flow rate. Dan M. Thanks! I expect what they are mostly interested in is the claim by the author of the link that the situation is so bad that nothing will work to stop it until a large portion of the estimated billions of barrels of oil in the formation have spurted out into the water, and I suspect your expert answer is the same as my much less expert one: that no one has any way of knowing for sure right now, and won't until at least they get the second hole drilled . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Any comments on this piece?
>This link was sent to another list a little while ago: >http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593#comment-648967 >and people there (no experts in the field) are wondering if the >author likely knows what he is talking about or not. There seem to be two long pieces in the article. The first involves the loss of knowledge due to the up and down nature of the business. There are two problems with that. First, we're about 10 years into a generally up cycle. Oil prices dipped low for a couple of months, but the fact that BP is making billions a quarter and is drilling sub-salt in deep water proves that it's not bust time in the oil industry. Last bust was 98-99, when oil prices averaged about $15/barrel. No-one would be drilling deep water at those prices. Second, it wasn't that folks didn't know what the risks were and knew about the red flags. The proper procedure was recommended by several service companies, who were planning on following it. There was a fiery meeting in which the company man simply enforced his will. Look, that's not the part of the business I'm in, and _I_ knew why what they did was wrong from the beginning. Everyone around in the business knows. If the company man didn't know, then BP appointed someone who never learned the ropes to run one of their most critical wells. I'd bet dollars to donuts he knew better. The second part concerns where the problem is. I'm not sure how the first set of pipes and cementing broke. I saw holes near the blowout preventer, with mud coming out, and I saw mud come out, and then oil. But, that's because the mud had to be put in above all that, were the riser broke. My guess is that the downhole pressure was such that you couldn't push hard enough against it with the mud to force the column of oil and gas down. Instead, the interface was just below the surface, and the mud just flowed into the ocean through the holes. Even if there is a big hole 20 feet below the surface, the important question is the pressure downhole vs. the pressure from about 25k feet of oil and gas and 5k feet of sea water. So, once the pressure of the formation drops below, say, 12,000 psi, the well will stop leaking automatically. That may be a long time. So, they are trying to drill a well that will intercept the well down low and then pump mud in that well. If they intercept near the bottom, and use 18 lb mud, they could have 20k psi of pressure pushing down (and up the well of course). That should be a much better place to inject heavy mud. Finally, the restrictor for mud flow is the next to last set of casing (the last set blew up the well, through the rig). That is probably a 6" ID (mebbie up to 8). With the riser cut, that is what is restricting flow rates. So, I don't see a hole high in the drill string as a big problem. That's the biggest ID casing, so it's not the limiting factor to the flow rate. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Dan: Any comments on this piece?
This link was sent to another list a little while ago: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593#comment-648967 and people there (no experts in the field) are wondering if the author likely knows what he is talking about or not. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com