libertee, My normal carry is a stainless Charter Arms 44 Spec -- I love the S&W Mod 69 I own but the Charter Arms is half its weight (~19 ounces ) -- hardly even know you're carrying it.
You need to head VFR Direct in burners (IMMEDIATELY) to the nearest insane asylum
US is teamed with Iran right now --- State is backing down with the rhetoric and sanctions
Real chummy as we speak --- Liar Obama's Val Girl has got the stick
Great company, fine products
Why build em when you've already got em?? Kiloton "babies" , not quite the crowd pleaser variety yet
The Saudi "takedown" of hydraulic fracking may be a blessing in disguise --- delays the inevitable peak, but you can rest assured there's known decline curves thereafter and US production will do nothing but fall and fall while brent just keeps going skyward.
They're running rigs in overdrive giving away oil today --- stooopid strategy.
They produce a BOE (barrel of oil equivalent) for $3.25 in USD costs ---- thank you collapse of the ruble (they pay their costs in rubles)
Then it falls to $3.5B once the ambiguous, no current legal standard "gross negligence" "ruling" is overturned.
BP will end 2015 with $40B cash in the bank and they'll end up paying the $3.5B mentioned above sometime in the 2022-2023 timeframe ---- after the entire fracking industry has collapsed having hit their production capability in 2019-2020 --- the decline rates thereafter are EXTREME, RAPID, GUARANTEED and oil will be heading to the $200/barrel range
20% - 30% below the next cheapest producer
Ambiguity reigns supreme across the courts regarding the current definition of "gross negligence" and "willful misconduct" under CWA. No legal standard, no "gross negligence" fine, period. It then falls to the lower penalty:
3.19M barrels x $1100/barrel = $3.5B
BTW -- hey earth to oneway ------------your earlier "financial" comments (remember your nonsensical accounting comments) about BP were truly hilarious --- don't do "math in public" or come across like you know GAAP, int'l accounting practices, FASB, etc --- bad form all the way around but do keep the stooopid comments coming as it adds an entertaining element to this board for the regulars...........
Hey Clarence Darrow ----Yep it's "fantasy land" when XOM's Valdez case is in appeals for 21 years and it's only been 4 years since BP's Macondo incident........... appeals in the courts have at least 9-10 years to go if not longer
Hey clueless --- late breaking news flash for you---their current share buyback was approved byt the board and announced months ago.
The last buyback finished up months ago (another breaking news item for your) and the BP current share buyback bots have been running for weeks, albeit recently stopped --- get your sierra straight.
Gotta just love the court system
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Classic bunker (Maginot Line) strategy building a 600-mile "wall to keep ISIS out".............it won't happen, period and ISIS has stated they "want in on Saudi" --------translation: future MAJOR disruptions in Saudi oil supplies ---- plan on it.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
This is typical (e.g. Hewlett) for firms pre-merger. BP's massive reserves are pristine, severely undervalued and the fox has entered the hen house.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Having been to London just recently, I can add that the numbers favor such a combination from a competitiveness, scale point of view. My estimate is there's a better than 60/40 chance these two UK-incorporated companies pair up --- they're already deep into JVs, other collaborations which causes XOM and others some legal, pre-emption complications. A RDS/BP merger is cleaner than many realize -- some management req'd in the downstream area but beyond that it's likely 100% cleared hot by the EU, DOJ, etc.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Wow -- your comments are right out of fantasy land ---each and every item you bring up shows a complete lack of understanding of the Army, DOD procurement, this competition, and the firearms markets.
I have to laugh --- where did you come up with that "torture test.....specific criteria assigned by the highest ranking officers" mush?
And the "Army is making it appear that competition exists within the government" brain fart??
And the icing on the cake is that off the wall Davis Bacon Act remark ??? Hint: it only applies to construction or public works, NOT this procurement. You also won't find the DOD teaching it or even bringing it up at their acquisition schools (e.g Fort Belvoir).
BTW -- I've spent more time on Combat Arms Ranges, time in the cockpit, and time directly involved in government acquisitions (both inside the government and selling firearms and other things to the government) than I can count.
Get a grip --- 99.9% of what you've posted is pure, uninformed, unadulterated BS..
Bottom line; this is a difficult competition, S&W didn't do itself any favors teaming with GD and the chances of them getting completely blindsided are very high === they don't know what they don't know, period.
Your comments are about the most uninformed I've read in some time ---
"it's all about playing a pricing game right now" Everyone (at least for those who work DOD procurement) already have a good sense of the pricing numbers ---- it's no secret ---just dial up the DOD Comptroller's Page and look at the Army budget line for this procurement -- the teams already know the target numbers per end item (the govt hands it to them on a silver platter)............more importantly, pricing is only one piece of a government acquisition --- other selection factors matter and often do override pricing (happens all the time in the Pentagon). Contracting officers are "by law" mandated to award to technically compliant low cost bidders but there's quite a bit of runway to deal with in that "technically compliant" area
"the military has already chosen which handgun they want" --- pure nonsense --- each service has differing views as of today and there is general and documented DISAGREEMENT across the services, joint communities, etc as to "which handgun they want"
"they want the M&P" --- who are the "they"? The source selection will consist of 10s if not larger numbers of multi-service representatives and the last time I checked "they" could go to jail if "they" said "they" wanted the M&P -- that's a BS statement.
"they will pretend to be interested in the other bids" --- that's not how DOD acquisition works and if any of the competitors congressional representatives even caught a whiff of such nonsense, the procurement would be cancelled that day
BTW - they "denied" Beretta because it was a last minute, desperate "Unsolicited Proposal" that lacked technical merit, period.
"it's all about the contract details now" --- that's interesting since it's 100% about the competition right now--- the contract details are 100% irrelevant at this point.