Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    15549

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Dahobbs

  1. Dahobbs
    How does that change anything he said?
  2. Dahobbs
    Respect.
  3. Dahobbs
    Even if he drops out, is there time to replace with someone else?
  4. Dahobbs
    But that isn't the issue here. Cheap and solved solutions are available to mitigate this risk. This isn't about "every possible scenario" or "any and all hazards," and it isn't about perfect protection. It is about a solution that (1) is already employed in many locations, (2) is extremely cheap and easy to implement, and (3) addresses a demonstrable risk in certain more highly developed areas. What you're talking about is protecting pipelines from something like meteor impacts, missile strikes, or cloned dinosaur attacks. I agree, those would be silly and uneconomical to mitigate against. This situation isn't that. Just because it is relatively rare, doesn't mean mitigation is not worthwhile.
  5. Dahobbs
    I'm now curious if I've used you as an expert or cross-examined you before.
  6. Dahobbs
    Why is this still a fight? I actually agree that @Captainant is going a little hard with the anti-business rhetoric. But I don't understand your argument here at all. Energy Transfer considers itself part of the oil and gas industry. That should be the end of this argument. No one really cares how the finance bros think of it.
  7. Dahobbs
    How do you enforce that?
  8. Dahobbs
    1) not really the first time of one of these has been hit. It is the first time this particular one has been hit. 2) I guarantee you that many of the ones that are similarly situated already have protection. 3) I guarantee you this one will be protected after this event. This was an oversight. It was installed before the development in the area and was overlooked as a risk as the area continued to develop around it. When the cost of mitigation is a small fraction of yearly expected value of an incident, you do the mitigation.
  9. Dahobbs
    Explosions happen when laying pipe.
  10. Dahobbs
    What's wrong with my math? By your own account this valve existed for about 20 years, much of that time before the area was developed and had significant traffic. The evidence right now is that this is a once in 20 year event or possibly higher given the development in the area. If that is the case, and given the amount of money they have lost, a barrier is no brainer. I'm not moralizing. I'm not condemning. I'm running the numbers. This could be a .01% chance of occurring per year and it would still be economically beneficial to spend a few thousand putting in barriers. I don't know why you're fighting this. The math makes this an easy choice. This was an oversight, one I'm sure will be corrected.
  11. Dahobbs
    Those are contradictory statements. If it should build the barriers based upon economic impact, the risk isnt de minimis. Further, when evaluating risk, you have to look at likelihood of occurrence and magnitude of impact. Just run the numbers. Let's say this event has a 1% chance at happening in any given year (or a once in every 100 years event). And let's say the purely economic damage to the company if an event occurs is $5,000,000. That means the expected yearly damage is $50,000. So, purely from an economic perspective, if the company can spend any amount less than $50,000 per year to prevent the event, it should do so. When the cost of prevention is a few thousand dollars and when the possible damage is in the millions, prevention is economically beneficial even if the chance of occurrence is extremely low.
  12. Dahobbs
    So? It never occurred before. But it has occurred now. As you said, this valve was installed somewhere around 2002. If this is an event that occurs once every 20 years at this location, building the barrier is a no brainer economically. Even if it only occurred once every 100 years, it would still be no brainer. The cost of the prevention is de minimus compared to the expected damage. And the store is unlikely to have any liability, so not much financial incentive. Even if the pipeline has no liability to a 3rd party, its lost many many times the the cost of prevention purely in lost product and disrupted operations. Economically, building a barrier is the smart move. And I guarantee it will. Do you disagree?
  13. Dahobbs
    1) 100 feet is not that far. A car going 35 mph will cover it in 2 seconds. 2) the area has a decent amount of traffic. It isnt like a random spot in West Texas seeing a car once an hour or so. 3) the amount of damage that can be caused, both in lost product and disrupted operations and in damage to the surrounding area, greatly eclipses the few thousand dollars to install modest barriers that would prevent 99.99% of realistic situations. 4) I'll happily bet you $1,000 that once repaired, a barrier will be constructed at this location. It isn't about it being an evil oil and gas corporation. It is about what a responsible entity would do both to protect its own financial interests and to protect the public. This is a no brainer for any organization.
  14. Dahobbs
    You wouldn't do it everywhere. But I'd say one in the 4th largest city in the country probably has a higher likelihood of encountering a vehicle. Personally, I would start there.
  15. Dahobbs
    You'd have to say "Trump's Project 2025" or they would assume it is a Kamala thing.
  16. Dahobbs
    What in god's name is that?
  17. Dahobbs
    Setting aside issues like liability, I would think the disruption of operations and waste of product in an event like this would be enough to warrant this relatively meager proactive step. I'd say it was almost certainly an oversight that this particular valve wasn't already protected.
  18. Dahobbs
    Because of math. Kamala would still be getting more net votes for each black voter.
  19. Dahobbs
    I don't know, Energy Transfer Partners seems to feel differently. It posted a YouTube video entitled "We're Proud to be a Leader in the Oil & Gas Industry" I don't really get why this is so contentious either way.
  20. Dahobbs
    You could have just ended it there.
  21. Dahobbs
    I'm confused as to what Bama game you watched. Texas jumped out to the lead in the first half. Alabama is the one that responded late in the second and in the third quarter. Bama receivers had a total of 57 yards at half, pretty much all of which came on two plays during the last drive. Texas receivers had 88 yards, including a 44 yard TD to start the 2nd quarter. Worthy is clearly over Bond in terms of what he brought to our offense. But their skillset isn't exactly the same, although there is some overlap. That said, Bond is definitely better than injured Worthy that we kept getting against Washington. Helm over Sanders may legit be an argument at this point, and I'm shocked at that.
  22. Dahobbs
    That ratio is fairly concerning. Even in Houston, Texas, the ads I see both on TV (during football) and online favor Harris pretty significantly. I thought her campaign had big ad spends in PA, but I guess maybe they aren't targeting football?
  23. Dahobbs
    I don't think Rogan has ever challenged one of his interviewees, and I certainly don't think he would start with Walz. Rogan pretty much always buys into whatever his interviewee is saying (at least from what little I've seen).
  24. Dahobbs
    Yeah, a subsidiary that can take in additional investors makes a lot more sense than the rumor of them selling off the fabs entirely. Intel retains control (presumably wouldn't let ownership get deluded below that point), but can bring in fresh investors more easily. It would also allow a separate leadership team to be more laser focused on the foundry business.
  25. Dahobbs
    I'd say the most recent assassination attempt is about as good as it gets for him.

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...