This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Big Picture: Why Is It So Hard to Stop the Oil Gusher, and Why Was Such Extreme Deepwater Drilling Allowed in the First Place?
The government failed to properly ensure that BP used adequate
safety measures, BP and their contractors were criminally negligent for
the oil spill, and BP has tried to cover up the problem. See this.
But why hasn't BP stopped the leak?
Some people assume that BP hasn't stopped the oil leak because it's people are wholly incompetent.
Others have asked whether BP's $75 million liability cap is motivating it to stall by taking half-hearted measures until it's relief well drilling is complete.
But
there is another possible explanation: the geology at the drilling site
makes stopping the leak more difficult than people realize.
Does the Geology of the Spill Zone Make It Harder to Stop the Oil Spill?
We
can't understand the big picture behind the Gulf oil spill unless we
know the underwater geology of the seabed and the underlying rocks.
For
example, if there is solid rock beneath the leaking pipes, with
channels leading to other underground spaces, then it might be possible
to seal the whole spill zone, with the oil - hopefully - oozing
somewhere under the seabed so that it won't spill into the ocean.
If,
on the other hand, there is hundreds of feet of sand or mud beneath the
leaking pipes, then sealing the spill zone might not work, as the
high-pressure oil gusher would just leak out somewhere else.
BP has never publicly released geological cross-sections of the seabed and underlying rock. BP's Initial Exploration Plan
refers to "structure contour maps" and "geological cross sections", but
such drawings and information are designated "proprietary information"
and have been kept under wraps.
It is impossible to determine the geology from drawings publicly released by BP, such as this one:
However, Roger Anderson and Albert Boulanger of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory describe the basic geology of the oil-rich parts of the Gulf:
Production
in the deepwater province is centered in turbidite sands recently
deposited from the Mississippi delta. Even more prolific rates have
been recorded in the carbonates of Mexico, with the Golden Lane and
Campeche reporting 100,000 barrel per day production from single wells.
However, most of the deep and ultra-deepwater Gulf of Mexico is covered
by the Sigsbee salt sheet that forms a large, near-surface “moonscape”
culminating at the edge of the continental slope in an 800 meter high
escarpment.
***
Salt is the dominant structural element of
the ultra-deepwater Gulf of Mexico petroleum system. Large horizontal
salt sheets, driven by the huge Plio-Pleistocene to Oligocene sediment
dump of the Mississippi, Rio Grande and other Gulf Coast Rivers,
dominate the slope to the Sigsbee escarpment. Salt movement is recorded
by large, stepped, counter-regional growth faults and down-to-the-basin
fault systems soling into evacuated salt surfaces. Horizontal
velocities of salt movement to the south are in the several cm/year
range, making this supposedly passive margin as tectonically active as
most plate boundaries.
***
Porosities over 30 percent and
permeabilities greater than one darcy in deepwater turbidite reservoirs
have been commonly cited. Compaction and diagenesis of deepwater
reservoir sands are minimal because of relatively recent and rapid
sedimentation. Sands at almost 20,000 feet in the auger field (Garden
Banks 426) still retain a porosity of 26% and a permeability of almost
350mdarcies. Pliocene and Pleistocene turbidite sands in the Green
Canyon 205 field have reported porosities ranging from 28 to 32% with
permeabilities between 400 mdarcies and 3 darcies. Connectivity in
sheet sands and amalgamated sheet and channel sands is high for
deepwater turbidite reservoirs and recovery efficiencies are in the
40-60% range.
See also this.
The
BP oil spill leak is occurring in the "Macondo" Prospect, Block 252, in
the Mississippi Canyon Area of the Gulf (much of the oil-rich areas
under the Gulf are in the Mississippi Canyon and Fan areas: "In the central Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi Canyon and Fan system is the dominant morphologic feature").
If
the geology at Block 252 of the Macondo Prospect is like that described
by Anderson and Boulanger for most of the oil-rich portion of the Gulf,
then it might be difficult to stop the oil gusher without completing
relief wells (which will take a couple of months).
Specifically,
if there are salt layers on the top of the seabed, with high porosity
near the surface, and salt movement, then sealing the whole leak zone
might not work. The oil pressure is coming up at such high pressures (more than 2,000 pounds per square inch),
that sealing the leaking riser and blowout preventer might just mean
the oil squirts out somewhere else nearby, if the salty, porous rock is
not solid enough to contain it.
Unless the government
releases details of the geology underlying the spill site, people will
not have an accurate picture of the oil spill situation. And failure to
release such information may prevent creative scientists from coming up
with a workable solution.
The first draft of Anderson and Boulanger's paper, in 2001, stated:
No means currently exists to produce oil and gas to market from such water depths!
(exclamation point is Anderson and Boulanger's).
If the geology at Block 252 is like that described by Anderson and
Boulanger for most of the oil-rich portion of the Gulf, then it might
be difficult to stop the oil gusher without completing relief wells
(which will take a couple of months).
Specifically, if there
are salt layers right under the sea floor, high porosity near the
surface or salt movement, then sealing the leak by plugging the risers
and blowout preventer might not work. The oil pressure is coming up at
such high pressures (more than 2,000 pounds per square inch), that sealing the leaking equipment at the level of the seabed might just mean the oil will flow out somewhere else nearby.
The
government must publicly release details of the geology under the spill
site. Until it does so, people will not have be understand what is
going on. And failing to release such information may prevent creative
scientists from around the world from coming up with a workable
solution.
In addition, the first draft of Anderson and Boulanger's paper - released in 2001 - stated:
No means currently exists to produce oil and gas to market from such water depths!
(exclamation point is Anderson and Boulanger's).
In
other words, while BP, its subcontractors, and the government were all
negligent with regard to the Deepwater Horizon operation, it should be
noted that drilling at such depths is new technology, operating in
largely uncharted conditions. As such, the dangers of deepwater
drilling in general should not be underestimated. The geology
of the oil-rich region in the Gulf makes drilling difficult, and oil
spills appear to be tough to contain in general.
Oil Is Considered A National Security Issue
So
why are oil companies being allowed to drill so deeply under the Gulf
in the first place? In other words, why has the government been so
supportive of deepwater drilling in the Gulf?
The answer - as Anderson and Boulanger note - is
that there is a tremendous amount of more oil deep under the Gulf, and
that the United States government considers oil drilling in the deep
waters of the Gulf as a national security priority:
The
oil and gas industry and the United States government both face
tremendous challenges to explore discover, appraise, develop, and
exploit vast new hydrocarbon reserves in waters deeper than 6000 feet
in the ultra-deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico. Yet these new reserves of
hydrocarbons are needed to offset the economically detrimental,
long-term decline in production from within the borders of the United
States***
If successfully developed, the new play
concept would fill an essential gap in the overall strategic defenses
of the United States by decreasing the gap that results in the nation's
dependence on foreign oil and gas reserves in this volatile and
hostile, post 9/11 world. However, the successful production of oil and
gas from this new carbonate play concept requires much more
cost-efficient evaluation and appraisal technologies than exist today
to economically conduct exploration, appraisal, and development
activities. These new technologies must be developed before production
can be practical in the ultra-deepwater operating environment.... The
Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Gas Trust Fund of the DOE has as its
mission to cut costs and time-to-market not incrementally, but
radically, so that the United States can optimally utilize these
strategic hydrocarbon reserves. The DOE, with extensive
industry,academic and non-governmental assistance, developed an
Offshore Technology Roadmap ...,***
The U. S. Energy
Bill of 2002 has allocated significant resources to fund innovative
industry, academic, and national laboratory research initiatives to
develop the new technologies necessary to explore and produce these new
ultra-deepwater reserves economically. The purpose is not only to
impact the national defense, but also to regain our international
technological leadership in the deepwater, recently lost to the
Brazilians, Norwegians, and Europeans.***
Congress, never a
big friend to energy interests, has acted to create the Ultra-deepwater
Trust Fund that would add an astounding $200 billion by 2017, if
successful at developing the new production technologies required.
So
the Department of Energy and Congress have committed to development of
the deepwater Gulf oil reserves in the name of national security. This
also helps explain why Obama has been pro-drilling in the Gulf.
But let's take a step back and ask why the government considers oil a national security priority in the first place?
Well, the U.S. military is the largest consumer of oil in the world. As NPR reported in 2007:
All
the U.S. tanks, planes and ships guzzle 340,000 barrels of oil a day,
making the American military the single-largest purchaser and consumer
of oil in the world.
If the Defense
Department were a country, it would rank about 38th in the world for
oil consumption, right behind the Philippines.
As Reuters pointed out in 2008:
U.S.
military fuel consumption dwarfs energy demand in many countries around
the world, adding up to nearly double the fuel use in Ireland and 20
times more than that of Iceland, according to the U.S. Department of
Energy.
And as I summarized last year:
Sara Flounders writes:
By
every measure, the Pentagon is the largest institutional user of
petroleum products and energy in general. Yet the Pentagon has a
blanket exemption in all international climate agreements.
***
The
Feb. 17, 2007, Energy Bulletin detailed the oil consumption just for
the Pentagon's aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities that
made it the single-largest oil consumer in the world.
***
Even
according to rankings in the 2006 CIA World Factbook, only 35 countries
(out of 210 in the world) consume more oil per day than the Pentagon.
***
As I pointed out out last week:
Professor Michael Klare noted in 2007:
Sixteen
gallons of oil. That's how much the average American soldier in Iraq
and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis -- either directly, through
the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by
calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in
Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region
(including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf) and you
arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone.And in 2008, Oil Change International released a report showing
that [b]etween March 2003 and October 2007 the US military in Iraq
purchased more than 4 billion gallons of fuel from the Defense Energy
Support Center, the agency responsible for procuring and supplying
petroleum products to the Department of Defense.
Indeed, Alan Greenspan, John McCain, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, a high-level National Security Council officer and others all say that the Iraq war was really about oil.
Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says that the Iraq war alone will cost $3-5 trillion dollars.
And economist Anita Dancs writes:
Each year,
our military devotes substantial resources to securing access to and
safeguarding the transportation of oil and other energy sources. I
estimate that we will pay $90 billion this year to secure oil. If
spending on the Iraq War is included, the total rises to $166 billion.
Are you starting to get the picture?
In addition, experts say that the Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this, this and this.
Personally,
I strongly believe that it is vital for our national security - and our
economy - to switch from dependence on oil to a basket of alternative energies. As I pointed out Friday:
It's
not just the one BP oil rig. For example, since the Deepwater Horizon
oil drilling rig exploded on April 20th, the Obama administration has
granted oil and gas companies at least 27 exemptions
from doing in-depth environmental studies of oil exploration and
production in the Gulf of Mexico. Then there are the 12 new oil and gas
drilling rigs launched in the U.S. this week.And a whistleblower who survived the Gulf oil explosion claims
in a lawsuit that BP's operations at another oil platform risk another
catastrophic accident that could "dwarf" the Gulf oil spill, partly
because BP never even reviewed critical engineering designs for the
operation. And see this.***
And the Department of Defense also apparently has some issues with extensive off-shore drilling for security reasons.
Many still believe that alternative energy is an expensive, unrealistic pipe dream.
But that is no longer necessarily true, especially when the externalities of environmental and military costs are taken into account.
But existing national policy is to do whatever is
necessary - drilling deep under the Gulf and launching our military
abroad - to secure oil. Until we change our national security and
energy policies, future mishaps - environmental, military and economic
- may frequently occur.
H/t: Rusty Shorts.
»
- advertisements -
Then you expect that having the Navy at the leak site will bring on a miracle and stop the leak? What method do you expect the Navy to employ that is not available to BP.
GW has done a great job developing a scare piece conspiracy theory. The only piece of the puzzle that he ignores is the attack of that North Korean mini sub that really set it off.
It should be noted that all of these wells are drilled and controlled while drilling using a drilling fluid or mud that is overweight compared to the formation pressures. It was the weight of 18,000 ft of 16 ppg mud that had the well under control. They ran pipe and cemented it to seal off the bottom. Then they set a cement plug in that pipe and were preparing to set another one when something failed. It has not been determined what the exact cause of that failure was or exactly what test was not done correctly. When they were getting ready to set the second plug they changed out the mud for seawater to a depth of about 8,000 ft. Seawater is lighter than the mud they displaced, less pressure on the bottom and for well control, here it comes. Something failed with the cement job and possibly the pipe string. The BOP could have failed to operate for several reasons, most likely because it had a drill pipe joint in the jaws and could not cut that. The question is about what was missed in the test readings or calculations of how the job was run. The important point to note is that The Well Was Under Control while drilling We don't know what BP discovered with this well. It is possible that the well confirms that there is an entirely different and new O&G horizon at the greater depths and it could have a tremendous amount of oil. It could be a real game changer in US reserves.
An interesting well testing this deep horizon theory of drilling below the salt weld is the Davy Jones well of MMR. While the water depth for MMR is about 50 ft., the well depth is much greater than the BP well. MMR is currently waiting on the fabrication of the necessary equipment and pipe to test and produce the Davy Jones. It is not particularly the water depth that is presenting the problem for them. It is the BHT and BHP that are in a different dimension.
It appears that there is a great deal more supply to be developed and produced at a fairly reasonable cost. The alternative energy advocates have always stated that "if only oil prices were a bit higher, we would be profitable." If they cannot produce it to compete with $70 oil they don't have anything that I want to pay for in the first place.
Interestingly enough if BP had just paid attention to the bits of rubber annular ring coming up in the mud 3 weeks before... (prima facia indication of breach...) and if the Haliburton cement job held... and the BOP with it's known defects (bad battery, defective ram shears...) had worked... and they had listened to the Schlumberger boys... they would not have had a problem in all probability.
The technology was not the problem here... gross negligence and human error were.
Like it or not we will develop these offshore resources... hopefully more safely in the future. (Just place some close family members of the CEO's on the deck of the drilling rig... problems solved!)
Oh right... Korea
Just to add a little, the navy has no experience in this type of operation nor equipment, all the experience is had by the oil companies and their suppliers. The depth is roughly twice the crush depth of a modern sub. In-situ welding cannot be done at below about 1,000 feet. Dozens of crazies proposing instant fixes don't help either.
Two relief wells are being drilled in parallel but this takes a long time maybe two to three months. This was the solution for the Ixtoc oil spill in Mexico's shallow 160 feet Campeche Sound three decades ago. None of the other options such as the junk shot also being worked on have been done at these depths. BP has been gathering booms from around the world, including Brazil, Spain, China and Britain, and pushing manufacturers to make more, with a goal of accumulating 3.5 million feet, or roughly 600 miles.
All told there are tens of thousands of people working their asses off on this.
Don't worry... they will figure it out... they just have to that's all.
If you re-examine the BP relief well drill plan however they will be engaging in horizontal drilling through a large section of the highly porous reservoir in the process. This will just serve to bring in much more oil than required to relieve the pressure in the immediate area of the leaking well to allow it to be sealed.
Production well anyone?
And Korea............
This genuinely is a catastrophe, and I don't think it is yet widely understood the potential magnitude of the impact.
A challenge we have is that the environmental movement tends to be against everything. Nothing is without risk. We should more strategically evaluate options, and choose the less bad of a group of non-perfect solutions. Being against everything can lead, as in this case, to pursuing the worst possible option . . . deep water drilling.
“Fools rush in where Angles fear to tread.” And history tends to repeat because human behavior doesn’t appear to have changed for the duration or recorded history.
If the inside story ever becomes available, IMO, we are going to find that an upper level manager,(Veep or even President) was pushing the troops to “Get it Done”.; and without spending too much money. They are down at 5,000 feet (pressure 1,768 psi). They were probably not prepared for the formation of methane hydrate in their first “dome” because they didn’t know that methane hydrate existed. The people that knew the risk were bypassed as “negative”. And the oil producing layer is ~5, 000 feet below that.. The laws of natural science being what they are, the possibilities can be predicted. But managers who have staff that busted their butts to make improbable things happen can begin to think that the most optimistic view, generated by “back of the envelope” calculations is one that they can get away with.
In this very high profile case, you can bet that the ambitious manager will be toast. While many of the workers that were on the rig are dead.
Rebel,
Makes absolutely ZERO sense, whe we have above ground reserves with huge reserves, not being tapped.
Which is more dangerous?.
Simple.........the one not a 5k feet.
Just the logisitcs at any repairs at 5k feet is mind boggling.
Just for the sake of argument....let's say that the US enters (or creates) World War III, and the supply of oil from Argentina, Iran & others is cut off. Wouldn't you sleep better at night knowing that our government did not deplete ALL the natural resources, but in fact, left it for future use? The way I see it, the US has been riding shotgun while the others pump oil unmercifully and get drunk off the profits. One day the other oil producing countries will be too drunk to drive and that is when the servant becomes the master.
I would feel better if we had a coherent energy policy focused on development of a viable, sustainable alternative energy. The government has never had a real strategy.
The One is giving you an energy policy. It is a variation on the Kenya / Haiti energy useage solution.
Walk. In the daytime.
It would be better if gas was taxed at a similar level to europe so that fuel efficient cars were more popular. The funds raised could be used to develop a decent high speed rail system for example, in the second year...
Tony, share a little of what you are smoking with everyone.
Why the F*** would you want to give government one more penny? Like they would "lockbox" any new taxes for a new program even if it was feasible?
What happened to the "big tobacco" billions? They were supposed to be for non smoking campaigns, but somehow they found their way to general funds.
Social security? ummm yeah, trust the govt criminals with your money. That has worked out real well.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
-- P.J. O'Rourke
Exactly.They have had 40 years to prepare for this and they haven't done a damn thing
What we need is responsibility and accountability damn it.
Just like the publicly funded rail systems in bankrupt Europe. This would create yet another trust fund that would be robbed daily by CONgress to buy votes. The biggest frauds foisted upon the US Citizens...bigger than SnL, Enron, and TARP combined.
Govt needs to get out of the way, and stop tinkering with grand, centrally planned, social engineering projects. This way the market would be on the path to a far better plan by now.
Agree that the government messes up most things it touches. Also, Cap and Trade is nothing but an excuse to tax and spend.
That being said, I still think energy policy is something that has to be established by the government. The problem is that oil is cheap, until it is gone, and once it is gone, there is no time to create an alternative. During the 70's crisis, there were a lot of innovative ideas that were initiated. Then, when oil got cheap again, all these projects died on the vine. I think this is one of those few cases where the free market does not completely work. Cheap oil means no work on alternatives.
excellent point rebel and you didn't even have to bash hippies to make it.
The root cause of all of this can be traced to the tumor of artificial "growth" induced in today's economy by the cancer of the fraudulent fiat money system. The world economy today is one big giant tumor ready to explode.
Haha. That is what I always say. People start arguing with me about problems and it is possible to trace back almost every problem to the fraudulent fiat money system. Then they always wonder why I bring it into the economic realm.
No kidding. Fiat money introduces so much ridiculous waste into the economy. Zillions of people driving around in circles to play a part in the great Keynsian game.
Golf?
Threesome?
Gay threesome if it's truly Keynsian.
Hello, Apostate, fancy meeting you here. We met above on Sudden Debt's comment.
Seemingly we agree here -- that's good.
Pegged it, Gordon. See my comment above. It's all about money.
Whether ya make a few bucks over the economics of the gushing Gulf seabed, or having that house in The Hamptons. What's the diff? Blatant self aggrandizement is the culprit, and that is not being addressed. Make your money, but don't stick it in the face of a shrimper who has just lost his livelihood.
Indeed GG. The race to the bottom discourages thrift, by enticing folks to part with ever devaluing currencies to buy crap they don't need, before the money they do have devalues further...gotta beat inflation.
Eventually the music (growth) stops at the upper limit of the planet's ability to support our weapons grade stupidity.
"weapons grade stupidity" yep, gotta love his expression !
+ infinity
+10000000000000000000
That is the core issue, isn't it?
why doesn't the writer mention the reason why Oil companies are having to drill in the tough spots in the first place? could it be the counter-culture induced environmentalism policies that prevent drilling closer to shore? yes. the hippy trip is long since over. it's time to get back to sensible domestic energy policy. in my opinion, pure capitalism with clearly defined laws based on property rights.
limit drilling in shallow water which has been done for 50 yrs with little to no environmental damage..but force drilling in deep water with high risk and costs..gotta love government and the eco movement forcing big oil into risky projects that will either bk them or produce a tragic spill or both. cynical I am. Our greatest energy reserves and the safest to extract are off limits and nuclear has been killed while France runs on nuclear power..oh well they (elites) must know better why they do what they do .
We have huge LAND based reserves, not being touched.
We have more Natural Gas Reserves than ALL of the Middle East combined, we have the Bakken fields, and we have just discovered another reserve, near to Bakken as LARGE as Bakken......
We have Anwar, the Eco Nazi's are as much to blame, forcing deep water drilling when we have land based reserves that need drilling first.
Here is one recent update on the Bakken:
May 07, 2010
Prediction of one million barrels per day from Bakken Oil Field by 2020
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/05/prediction-of-one-million-barrels-per.html
Reading the nutters complain that no one has found ONE monster oil field that will supply everyone's energy needs forever causes amazement. The oil we have now was discovered one field / well at a time. But they advocate covering hundreds of thousands of acres with solar panels that barely work and cost many multiples of the oil. It is much like believing in the Cargo cult.
I really wish people would stop talking rubbish about the Bakken formation.
Sure, up to 3.5bn barrels might be recoverable, but net energy is low, extraction costs are high (as are start-up costs), the product is kerosene, which means refinery costs will be high as well, and this entire process is completely experimental, as it never has been rolled out in large-scale production.
ANWR is 5-16bn barrels recoverable, enough to run the US for probably up to 12 months at current consumption levels, but there are substantial technical issues - no pipeline, and melting permafrost.
Bakken is deep, 10000 feet and more, hot, shale oil that requires frac technology to produce. Well performance falls off rapidly; comparison of shale oil production (which at the depth and temperature is mostly gas liquids and gas, just like the Horizon volcano) to converntional reserves is erronious. Nobody yet actually knows how much oil might come from Bakken, only that it will require higher costs to recover that today's pricing can support (just like shale gas). With QE and inflation, we'll soon all be able to afford $7.00 per gallon oil product, though, so why let reality get in the way?
The Bakken field is a popcorn fart. It's all blown out of proportion.
The US ilitary is on the verge of becoming Oil-independant, if that makes you feel better.
As usual, National Security is hyped as more important than the cradle of our food chain. If the Gulf of Mexico is turned in to a bowl of toxic soup, the repercussions will be felt for generations. In fact, if enough oil is permitted to shoot out of this underwater volcano, it could mean the end of all living things.
I think I'll hang on to my puts for a while on BP :)
Already over 450% profits and rising, Jihaa!
Now isn't that special. You've profited from the situation and you've come here to tell us about your investing prowess. Methinks you have chosen a right and proper user name.
gloatFunction: intransitive verb
Etymology: akin to Middle English glouten to scowl and perhaps to Old Norse glotta to grin scornfully Date: 1605
To observe or think about something with triumphant and often malicious satisfaction, gratification, or delight
You rock Rocky.
Thanks, but I don't want to gloat in your praise, George. It's sick that the Gulf is an oil slick and somebody thinks it's cool to make money off it. Do it, but keep it to yourself. It's not cool to do a peacock walk as well.
It's a trading blog.
Buying puts or shorting BP is a rational response to the crisis. Shorts help get rid of crappy companies like BP. They're doing a lot more to force justice on the company than you are by whining.
You are correct, Apostate, generally speaking. ZH is more economically oriented than ecologically slanted. This post by George Washington, however, does have a technical and somewhat political theme. That makes my comment cogent, whereas, posting ones trading profits is irrelevant. The post by Sudden Debt was off topic, and that prompted my reply. I hope we part in peace on the matter.
Rocky, I'm with you as usual. I am physically ill about the oil spill. I can't get the stomach to stop turning over. Something tells me this is much more than just a money-making "never let a good crisis go to waste" situation. Imagine when it starts raining oil slicks in a few months from the evaporation. Then what are the peacocks going to short? uphill traffic? Howabout, the "no white after labor day" rule.? Blue fin tuna? no, sorry that's restricted, well, then Sushi, surely that's a good short for you. Although I'm not sure if there's a sushi index??? I don't know that much about finance. But my question is this.
Does anyone have an idea how to make money off the solution? If we made it pay double for the profits from the solution do you think this would change the long-term outcome environmentally? . And along those lines, can all the hot women start lavishing attention on the geeks who have been good husbands and fathers. Why can't we incentivize the the sacred for awhile? or are we all just going to hell anyway
I am hanging onto puts too but buying some cheap ST calls too just in case.
BP to merge with BUBBA GUMPS:
http://williambanzai7.blogspot.com/2010/05/bp-to-merge-with-bubba-gumps....
nice!