Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico

[joshsluss]

You can't be this ignorant............seriously........

The company who is responsible for this is British Petroleum, based out of Westminster, London. And so far, I have yet to hear about the UK even lifting a single finger to help out in this mess.

But......of course.....Obama decides that it's our problem now....we're at fault......therefore it's going to take even more American taxpayer dollars to deal with something we shouldn't have to deal with in the first place.

And what's even more outrageous than that is the fact that BP issued a statement saying that "they'd allow U.S. military help" in dealing with the oil problem.

Let's put this in layman's terms here...........

It would be like me p***ing all over my neighbor's lawn, and then having the audacity to demand that they clean it up.

Huh?

As far as I know, the gov't has held BP accountable for ALL cost EVEN with federal and coastal help...

I don't know what you're talking about...

Not that I stick up for Obama, but don't spew BS like BP's oil dispersement "project"...

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/how-much-will-bp-have-to-pay-for-the-oil-spill/19460144/

http://bayareahouston.blogspot.com/2010/04/bp-will-pay-baby-pay.html

http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/article/white-house-says-bp-will-pay-cost-of-cleanup/879727/Apr-29-2010_10-29-am/

http://www.sunherald.com/2010/04/29/2140134/white-house-says-bp-will-pay-cost.html

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/nation/white-house-says-bp-will-pay-cost-of-644071.html

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/04/22/4192820-white-house-says-bp-will-pay-cost-of-oil-cleanup

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRa44SlWkrKOJPnc89FUUYVt2c1wD9FCP97O3

Anyways... you get the idea...

[Siara]

The company who is responsible for this is British Petroleum, based out of Westminster, London. And so far, I have yet to hear about the UK even lifting a single finger to help out in this mess.

Do any of those big oil companies really have nationalities any more? Is Exxon American and BP British? It seems like they're all so multinational.... I think they're national in the sense that their governments can compel them to take responsibility for their mistakes. Like if BP refused to deal with the current spill the American government and the British government would step in. I'm pretty sure BP workers in America are protected by American law, though, and Exxon people in Britain work under British law. I don't think America would step in if Exxon did something like this off England's coast. They'd just shrug and assume it was the problem of the company.

Not meaning to go off topic but that's the scary thing about the Supreme Courts decision to let these companies finance political campaigns. Are they American or are they international?

My understanding is that BP is being cooperative. It's just that we didn't enforce our safety regulations and now there's little BP can do. England can't force BP to do anything more if no one knows what to do.

What do other folks here know about this?

Edited May 2, 2010 by Siara

[joshsluss]

Do any of those big oil companies really have nationalities any more? Is Exxon American and BP British? It seems like they're all so multinational.... I think they're national in the sense that their governments can compel them to take responsibility for their mistakes. Like if BP refused to deal with the current spill the American government and the British government would step in. I'm pretty sure BP workers in America are protected by American law, though, and Exxon people in Britain work under British law. I don't think America would step in if Exxon did something like this off England's coast. They'd just shrug and assume it was the problem of the company.

Not meaning to go off topic but that's the scary thing about the Supreme Courts decision to let these companies finance political campaigns. Are they American or are they international?

My understanding is that BP is being cooperative. It's just that we didn't enforce our safety regulations and now there's little BP can do. England can't force BP to do anything more if no one knows what to do.

What do other folks here know about this?

I think I pretty much nipped in the bud for ya there Siara...

[Siara]

Listen to this (about oil dispersants (or however you spell it))

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/05/01/nr.ott.oil.debate.cnn&hpt=P1&iref=NS1

The dispersants result in the oil killing marine life instead of coming on shore. It doesn't neutralize the problem.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Siara

[Astute One]

No preacherman. The lefties don't want control of the oil industry. They want alternative energy. Sorry.

But radicals want control.

There is no need for SWAT teams. OSHA can handle it. SWAT teams do not know anything about the oil business, oil proceedures, or oil regulations, or oil rig safety. Obama stopped all drilling in the GOM. Could these SWAT teams be to enforce the stop?

As dead fish Emanuel said, "never let a good crisis go to waste."

Note that emanuel was talking about the economic crisis which was self inflicted by the government who could have prevented it on more than one occassion.

Do you have any idea what this knee jerk reaction to crisis will do to the economy? This stop will cause massive job loss in the oil industry. This is an unnecessary action.

Could BO be using another crisis excuse to camouflage his attack on capitalism and America?

These types of accidents haven't happened in the GOM in a very long time because these types of accidents are virtually impossible.

Why now?

Why right after BO opens other shores to drilling?

Why can't the flow be shut off? What is wrong with the blowout preventer?

Exposions don't occur at the well head in 5,000 feet of water. There is no oxygen. So, the explosion happens at the surface. The valve should be able to be shut off by turning a switch. Why happened to it?

These are the answers needed.

http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/04/29/bp-oil-spill-investigation-will-focus-on-blowout-preventers/

Too bad the evidence is in 5,000 feet of water. I smell more of Emanuel's dead fish, and I'm not talking about an environmental disaster.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Astute One

[Astute One]

Listen to this (about oil dispersants (or however you spell it))

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/05/01/nr.ott.oil.debate.cnn&hpt=P1&iref=NS1

The dispersants result in the oil killing marine life instead of coming on shore. It doesn't neutralize the problem.

The solution to pollution is dilution.

[ninjadude]

The solution to pollution is dilution.

no. The solution to pollution is to not do it in the first place. (and yes I realize oil leaks naturally)

Edited May 2, 2010 by ninjadude

[ninjadude]

But radicals want control.

the GOP had it and screwed up the country.

These types of accidents haven't happened in the GOM in a very long time because these types of accidents are virtually impossible.

the possibility is not zero.

Why now?

because your GOP pals at Haliburton just finished working on the rig.

[J.B.]

the GOP had it and screwed up the country.

the possibility is not zero.

because your GOP pals at Haliburton just finished working on the rig.

Virtually impossible does not = 0. It equals a low chance.

Haliburton may or may not be to blame.

Politics in general screw up the country, though the GOP have raised it to an art.

[Astute One]

the GOP had it and screwed up the country.

If you want to see who is screwing who, you may be interested in this, but you will most likely shoot the messenger.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4171077/obamas-shocking-blueprint-for-america/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r3:c0.000989:b33514536:z6

[Ryinrea]

If you want to see who is screwing who, you may be interested in this, but you will most likely shoot the messenger.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4171077/obamas-shocking-blueprint-for-america/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r3:c0.000989:b33514536:z6

This lays the problem. Fox News I think you would benefit from this show

Bill O'reliy at his best

The first guy was 9/11 victim son who signed a no war petition.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Ryinrea

[Corp]

Well I see today that the oil company has promised all costs that result from cleaning this mess up, so that's good news. Bad news is they're talking at least another week of leaking oil before anything can be done.

[ShadowSot]

Pictures taken from Pensacola beach yesterday:

Link

Took some pictures while I had the chance yeserday. Not so many of the water itself, took a few of the critters that are washing up.

Now, this is normal this time of year, as rough as the water is.

Most of these critters will be killed by the oil spill. Not just the ones that nromaly die from the rough waters, but just from the polluted water.

The filter feeders will likely take a heavy hit, and of course the fish and birds.

Large loss to porpoises, sea turtles, coral, ect.

This will seriously affect the tourism and fishing economy in Florida and other states on the coast.

Obviously Louisiana has already been hit.

Aside from this, at least here in Pensacola, a lot of the poor or homeless supplement whatever food they get by the fish they pull out of the bay, and that'll soon be contaminated.

I'm not a environmentalist hippy, but I've lived by the water my entire life. I love the water, and well...

This affects me deeply.

[Siara]

Pictures taken from Pensacola beach yesterday:

Link

I'm not a environmentalist hippy, but I've lived by the water my entire life. I love the water, and well...

This affects me deeply.

I'm sorry for your loss.

[ninjadude]

Bad news is they're talking at least another week of leaking oil before anything can be done.

What makes you say that? They are trying to cap the well.

[Siara]

What makes you say that? They are trying to cap the well.

They're making containers to drop over the leaks and hoping to drain the oil that accumulates in them. I think the week is the time needed to get the containers & pipes made and figure out exactly where to position them.

[Lord Umbarger]

To no one in particular, to every one in general:

Sure, drilling for oil at sea is risky... BIG TIME risky. But, what options do we have? How many of us would be willing to give up better than 90% of our disposable medical supplies, inexpencive goods, computers, televisions, building products, food packaging,... oh, yeah, and trucks to deliever all these and other needed supplies?

Look, we can bash the oil addiction all we want but, that's not really a smart argument. Firstly, there are NO suitable replacement technologies on the market or even the horizon right now. Wanna git rid of oil? Fine, I'll believe you when you stop using all the products that are made from petroleum products.

So, until Captain Kirk, Darth Vader or someone from Elf village steps out of the mother ship and gives us something better, we really should sit down, shut up and realize that there ARE risks involved in having a modern civilization.

Mistakes have been in the past and will be made in the future. Those who screw up should be punished and safety regulations should be enforced. Violators should be hit and hit hard. This is where we should focus our attention. When something better comes along, we can focus on re-tooling the planet. Until then, there is no sence in eating tofu and whining about how the world doesn't listen to enough Bob Dylan. The truth is, if I were to turn off the valve right now and stop all the oil flow on the planet this very night, there'd be a whole lot of people dying tomorrow. And even more over the following days and weeks and months.

The risk is just the price that we have to pay and should expect to pay. There ARE going to be accidents.... really, really bad ones. But, if we want to have the benefits of that tech, we have to expect there to be bad times from it. If you are a subsistance farmer, you don't sit down and watch your family starve simply because the crows are going to eat part of your crops or there might be a freak storm a week before harvest that wipes out all your crops. No, you get up with the chickens, plow the field and take that risk. Life with that risk is better than dying because you didn't take it.

<end of rant>

Edited May 4, 2010 by Lord Umbarger

[keithisco]

You can't be this ignorant............seriously........

The company who is responsible for this is British Petroleum, based out of Westminster, London. And so far, I have yet to hear about the UK even lifting a single finger to help out in this mess.

And what's even more outrageous than that is the fact that BP issued a statement saying that "they'd allow U.S. military help" in dealing with the oil problem.

Let's put this in layman's terms here...........

It would be like me p***ing all over my neighbor's lawn, and then having the audacity to demand that they clean it up.

Obviously YOU are............

Its not BP rtesponsibility... its TRANSOCEAN Inc, who owned the rig, were doing the drilling , and it was THEIR workers that manned the rig.

Transocean ARE responsible, a USA business.

So it looks like you were p***ing on your own lawn, so you clear it up...

[Lord Umbarger]

Its not BP rtesponsibility... its TRANSOCEAN Inc, who owned the rig, were doing the drilling , and it was THEIR workers that manned the rig. Transocean ARE responsible, a USA business. So it looks like you were p***ing on your own lawn, so you clear it up...

Not to throw a spanner in the works here but, isn't all of the international water actually under the jurrisdiction of the UN? No, really, I seem to remember that being part of some new "International Maritime Law" that went into effect a few years back. I don't remember how far back but, it's been in the last 18 yers or so.

Nonetheless, the company that was on the scene when it happened should be responcible for it. The shareholders and other companies that own stock in it will loose cash too because of it. Sort of like if Miller Beer looses a trainload of beer, Miller takes the loss but, on down the line, Phillip Morris looses money too because they own Miller.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Lord Umbarger

[ShadowSot]

I'm sorry for your loss.

It's not my loss, well, not just my loss.

[Siara]

Not to throw a spanner in the works here but, isn't all of the international water actually under the jurrisdiction of the UN? No, really, I seem to remember that being part of some new "International Maritime Law" that went into effect a few years back.

That's a good question. Why is it that we control where people drill in the Gulf when we don't own the Gulf? Obviously, I'm glad we can control drilling but-- how is it handled? Through the UN?

[Corp]

What makes you say that? They are trying to cap the well.

From what I understand they're trying a number of possible options but from the one article I say they were saying that it looked like it would be a week before they could make a serious effort at stopping the leak.

[keithisco]

That's a good question. Why is it that we control where people drill in the Gulf when we don't own the Gulf? Obviously, I'm glad we can control drilling but-- how is it handled? Through the UN?

I suspect that the USA's continental shelf extends well beyond 200 Nautical Miles (would need verifying thogh) , therefore you have jurisdiction and exploitation rights at least that far into the Gulf. I believe however that the actual Sea itself you only have jurisdiction out to 12 or 24 nM (IE exclusive Fishing rights).

[Siara]

Good news: BP has succeeded in shutting off the smallest of the leaks.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/05/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T2

They used a slip valve, (not the steel boxes they've been constructing).

[Ryinrea]

Good news: BP has succeeded in shutting off the smallest of the leaks.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/05/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T2

They used a slip valve, (not the steel boxes they've been constructing).

That is really good news.