BP wants $27m lawsuit cap!!!

by dsimms
1138 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
BP sucks, and now they do not want to take responsibily for anything, and now they are asking a judge to limit their lawsuits to $27m bucks...If you are greedy on wallstreet, you crash our economy, if you want to save a buck, you sink a oil rig.

I do not care if BP has to take out a loan..our govt should make BP
to pay 100% of the cleanup...$27m is just damn insulting!!!!!!

BP wants to blame others, and not take liability....
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    I don't think that is correct - it may be asking for a limit on class action lawsuits (per lawsuit).

    The claims system has evolved rapidly and lawyers as thick as flies on the coast right now. I wouldn't be surprised to see some limit imposed on the size of a suit that could be filed.

    BP has already paid out millions to states and initial payments to those who have filed claims.

    I think the claims will be paid and will say that BP has pretty much streamlined the claims process and provided multiple centers for filing claims. I just want the oil leak stopped and so far it hasn't happened.

    The round robin in front of Congress was funny, though, with BP pointing to TransOcean who pointed to Halliburton who pointed to BP - and Congress sat there looking innocent and outraged.
    Signature

    Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2095527].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Gravc
    Just on a side note I saw on the news last night that this spill has already cost them 8% of their profits this year. Ouch
    Signature

    Please read the sig file rules

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2097866].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    $27m over all is DUMB and hopefully NO judge would grant it. $27m for each person in a class action lawsuit outside of the spill is VERY generous!And HOW MANY would be hurt to THAT degree? Again, I am talking OUTSIDE of the spill. The spill(Stopping it, cleaning up the mess, and doing what they can to help restore wildlife) will likely cost many BILLIONS.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2097899].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author madison_avenue
    Oil is a natural substance, it comes out of mother earth, and as such is bio-degradable. If the wind direction would have been different ii would have dispersed into the sea without any adverse effect at all. It looks dramatic because it is black and gooey but is important to keeps things in perspective, it's only an oil spill not a nuclear leak, there are no long term implications. For clean up, a billion dollars here or there is peanuts for BP.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2098011].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      The environment still hasn't recovered from the Exxon Valdez spill over 20 years ago. This current spill is equal to one Exxon Valdez spill every 4 days. I don't think wind direction would have made any difference because it started affecting ocean life before it hit land. With a spill this big it was bound to reach shore though. Plus, it looks dramatic because it will be the largest oil spill ever and I don't think anyone knows what the effect will be on the economy and environment. However, thanks for downplaying this by saying at least it wasn't a nuclear leak. Do you work for BP?

      Originally Posted by madison_avenue View Post

      Oil is a natural substance, it comes out of mother earth, and as such is bio-degradable. If the wind direction would have been different ii would have dispersed into the sea without any adverse effect at all. It looks dramatic because it is black and gooey but is important to keeps things in perspective, it's only an oil spill not a nuclear leak, there are no long term implications. For clean up, a billion dollars here or there is peanuts for BP.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2098195].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        The environment still hasn't recovered from the Exxon Valdez spill over 20 years ago. This current spill is equal to one Exxon Valdez spill every 4 days. I don't think wind direction would have made any difference because it started affecting ocean life before it hit land. With a spill this big it was bound to reach shore though. Plus, it looks dramatic because it will be the largest oil spill ever and I don't think anyone knows what the effect will be on the economy and environment. However, thanks for downplaying this by saying at least it wasn't a nuclear leak. Do you work for BP?
        Thanks Tim I was thinking the same thing.
        Oil is a natural substance, it comes out of mother earth, and as such is bio-degradable. If the wind direction would have been different ii would have dispersed into the sea without any adverse effect at all. It looks dramatic because it is black and gooey but is important to keeps things in perspective, it's only an oil spill not a nuclear leak, there are no long term implications. For clean up, a billion dollars here or there is peanuts for BP.
        As for the reactor comment, they use natural substances also (uranium, Boron) so by your oil leak logic a reactor leak is safe also.
        Natural doesn't mean diddly squat here, over 200,000 gals. of oil spewing into the ocean isn't natural anywhere on this earth.

        You got the part about a billion being peanuts to BP right though.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2098251].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author madison_avenue
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        The environment still hasn't recovered from the Exxon Valdez spill over 20 years ago. This current spill is equal to one Exxon Valdez spill every 4 days. I don't think wind direction would have made any difference because it started affecting ocean life before it hit land. With a spill this big it was bound to reach shore though. Plus, it looks dramatic because it will be the largest oil spill ever and I don't think anyone knows what the effect will be on the economy and environment. However, thanks for downplaying this by saying at least it wasn't a nuclear leak. Do you work for BP?
        There does seem to have been a slight miscalculation by BP scientists, they never expected the slick to reach the coast. With Exxon Valdez that was heavy crude in a confined area this is light crude in a vast open gulf.

        The Gulf can absorb most things. Crude oil will dissolve in the 80 degree water temperatures, which are present in this case, and also dissolve in salt water, so even a large spill would not have been a problem .

        The problem is, this is a totally unpredictable huge spill with a pressurized gushing which no-one saw coming.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2098766].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by madison_avenue View Post

          There does seem to have been a slight miscalculation by BP scientists, they never expected the slick to reach the coast. With Exxon Valdez that was heavy crude in a confined area this is light crude in a vast open gulf.

          The Gulf can absorb most things. Crude oil will dissolve in the 80 degree water temperatures, which are present in this case, and also dissolve in salt water, so even a large spill would not have been a problem .

          The problem is, this is a totally unpredictable huge spill with a pressurized gushing which no-one saw coming.
          Well, oil will float to the top of water. The valdez was a LEAK. It had the decreasing pressure of the oil behind it. THIS is an opening into a pocket that may be under a lot of pressure, and even the weight of the water may speed things up. BESIDES, the farther down they go the more pressure they should expect. Don't forget, they can't even take a sub down there!

          As for crude dissolving, the actual oil, and many other products, WON'T! Maybe you are confusing that with impurities that could. AND, oil WILL disperse, over time. But we ARE talking about CRUDE oil and the heavier it is the more things you have like the tar balls.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2098819].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            For now, at least, BP's prodigious costs combating the oil spill in the Gulf are outweighed by prodigious profits.
            On Monday, BP said it spent $350 million in the first 20 days of the spill response, about $17.5 million a day. It has paid 295 of the 4,700 claims received, for a total of $3.5 million. By contrast, in the first quarter of the year, the London-based oil giant's profits averaged $93 million a day.
            The amount of oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico has been estimated at 5,000 to 25,000 barrels a day. In the first quarter, BP produced 2.5 million barrels of crude oil a day worldwide -- and it received $71.86 for every barrel.
            At $93 million a day in profits, BP makes $350 million in about 3.8 days. The Washington Post noted that Exxon, through a decision by the Supreme Court, was able to pay only $507.5 million of the original $5 billion in punitive damages that it had been assessed for the 1989 Valdez disaster.
            The Gulf can absorb most things. Crude oil will dissolve in the 80 degree water temperatures, which are present in this case, and also dissolve in salt water, so even a large spill would not have been a problem .
            B.S. - pure and simple. This massive amount of oil has upset the ecology of the western and mid-gulf region and threatens to do the same throughout the gulf waters.

            BP and gov say they can't accurately measure how much oil is leaking but I don't believe that. The oil is under pressure and BP knows how much oil entered that pipe before the accident....I think perhaps they don't want to mention that number.

            This is not a headline or a newsflash - this is a problem that could take decades for the gulf ecology to recover - if not generations. I hope that's not the case but that's what marine biologists think is happening.

            kay
            Signature

            Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2098868].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by madison_avenue View Post

      Oil is a natural substance, it comes out of mother earth, and as such is bio-degradable. If the wind direction would have been different ii would have dispersed into the sea without any adverse effect at all. It looks dramatic because it is black and gooey but is important to keeps things in perspective, it's only an oil spill not a nuclear leak, there are no long term implications. For clean up, a billion dollars here or there is peanuts for BP.
      You DO realize that radiation is FAR more natural than oil leaks of this magnitude, right!?!?!?

      I heard of a mexican IC company that had problems with its memory! The problem was traced to the CLAY used to make the ceramic coating for the circuits! It was RADIOACTIVE! Radioactivity can degrade the memory as easily as any computer.

      Madame curie died of nuclear poisoning from PITCHBLEND! A NATURAL substance! HERE is what wikipedia says:

      Skłodowska–Curie visited Poland a last time in the spring of 1934.[14] Only a couple of months later, Skłodowska-Curie died. Her death on 4 July 1934 at the Sancellemoz Sanatorium in Passy, in Haute-Savoie, eastern France, was from aplastic anemia, almost certainly contracted from exposure to radiation. The damaging effects of ionizing radiation were not then known, and much of her work had been carried out in a shed, without taking any safety measures. She had carried test tubes containing radioactive isotopes in her pocket and stored them in her desk drawer, remarking on the pretty blue-green light that the substances gave off in the dark.[citation needed]

      She was interred at the cemetery in Sceaux, alongside her husband Pierre. Sixty years later, in 1995, in honor of their achievements, the remains of both were transferred to the Paris Panthéon. She became the first - and so far only - woman to be honored in this way.

      Her laboratory is preserved at the Musée Curie.

      Due to their levels of radioactivity, her papers from the 1890s are considered too dangerous to handle. Even her cookbook is highly radioactive. They are kept in lead-lined boxes, and those who wish to consult them must wear protective clothing.[30]
      And that was BEFORE they could REFINE it!

      So your entire post is just wrong. When is the last time you saw a beach covered in oil from a NATURAL leak. When I was a kid, all the ones I saw were downright PRISTINE and the only dreck washed up was SEAWEED!

      BTW They had these glow in the dark dials on clocks when I was a kid. They were EVERYWHERE! They aren't anymore! Do you think maybe it was because THEY were RADIOACTIVE! They WERE, and were found to be dangerous.

      HERE is what wikipedia says about THAT:

      Radium was formerly used in self-luminous paints for watches, nuclear panels, aircraft switches, clocks, and instrument dials. In the mid-1920s, a lawsuit was filed by five dying "Radium Girl" dial painters who had painted radium-based luminous paints on the dials of watches and clocks. The dial painters' exposure to radium caused serious health effects which included sores, anemia and bone cancer. This is because radium is treated as calcium by the body, and deposited in the bones, where radioactivity degrades marrow and can mutate bone cells.
      ...
      As a result of the lawsuit, the adverse effects of radioactivity became widely known, and radium dial painters were instructed in proper safety precautions and provided with protective gear. In particular, dial painters no longer shaped paint brushes by lip. Radium was still used in dials as late as the 1960s, but there were no further injuries to dial painters. This further highlighted that the plight of the Radium Girls was completely preventable.
      ...
      Radium was also put in some foods for taste and as a preservative, but also exposed many people to radiation.[citation needed] Radium was once an additive in products like toothpaste, hair creams, and even food items due to its supposed curative powers.[2] Such products soon fell out of vogue and were prohibited by authorities in many countries, after it was discovered they could have serious adverse health effects. (See for instance Radithor.) Spas featuring radium-rich water are still occasionally touted as beneficial, such as those in Misasa, Tottori, Japan. In the U.S., nasal radium irradiation was also administered to children to prevent middle ear problems or enlarged tonsils from the late 1940s through early 1970s.[3]
      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2098738].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

        The key phrase here is "almost certainly" in the quoted Wikipedia article.

        Plainly, that is speculation on the part of the writer. What we know is that she had anemia. We DO NOT know that pitchblende killed her.

        Certainly, BP is liable for the oil spill and should pay all cleanup costs and damages to those whose businesses are harmed.

        That's no reason to resort to wishful thinking.
        OK, it IS possible that madame curie's ailment was simply an INCREDIBLE coincidence! Still, it is FACT that radiation can do that. AND, what I said about radium is ALSO fact! GRANTED one could argue that they were ALL alergic to horsehair, tough I have NEVER heard of an allergy working that way, and so few are alergic to horses, etc.... BUT, AGAIN, it is FACT it can do that.

        I was NOT trying to mitigate BP's liability. Quite the contrary!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2202607].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

          Nothing incredible about it at all. There are plenty of anemic people who do not handle low-radioactive materials.

          I'm glad we agree about BP's liability.
          She apparently treated this like a FREAK SHOW! The effects of radiation have little to do with STRENGTH, but EXPOSURE! SO, if she had 1/10th as much as 20 times, it would be roughly like twice the EXPOSURE, and do similar damage. Ask a doctor sometime. They ARE supposed to limit the number of xrays you get. BTW madame curies ore was probably NEVER much less than an xray machine. In fact, it was probably MORE!

          STILL, if she did this every day for YEARS, it is FAR worse than you having 50 xrays over one year.

          There IS a reason why the FDA OUTLAWED consumer use of radioactive substances.

          HECK, an atom bomb generally works by fission. Do you REALLY think you end up with what was in the bomb? It's going to be a lower grade radiation. The elements DEGRADE as part of the process. The extra material is used up in the explosion, and makes some relatively inert items radioactive. Yet it is STILL bad enough to strike fear in people. Some of that stuff, heck, MOST of it, is likely not much stronger than what madame curie used!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2204193].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            She apparently treated this like a FREAK SHOW! The effects of radiation have little to do with STRENGTH, but EXPOSURE! SO, if she had 1/10th as much as 20 times, it would be roughly like twice the EXPOSURE, and do similar damage. Ask a doctor sometime. They ARE supposed to limit the number of xrays you get. BTW madame curies ore was probably NEVER much less than an xray machine. In fact, it was probably MORE!
            Actually, the strength depends on a lot of things. The isotope, amount of time exposed, and the distance from the source are critical when talking about radioactive exposure.

            So the word strength is relative to a lot of things. How energetic the radiation is will determine how deeply it penetrates tissue. Right now there are highly energetic, essentially radioactive, particles that pass right through the earth and keep going. And if you're in the way... well...

            But for example, neutron radiation, that's perhaps the worst because it will penetrate unprotected tissue quite easily. What happens is due to its high energetic state it causes cell death and DNA damage, and it's the DNA damage that can lead to cancers, etc.

            Mdm. Curie most certainly died from long-term exposure to higher than safe, or recommended, exposure. The federal standard for annual exposure is 2000 mrems, or 2 REMS of radiation.

            X-ray machines deliver very low levels, and they're pulsed to decrease the exposure for safety reasons. I think it's a very safe bet to assume she received a great deal more than 50 exposures worth from an x ray machine. Plus it was daily exposure at higher levels. Back then, there were no studies that existed at all.

            I read something very recent about her. Don't remember why I was reading it. But what I did read, and this will give you an idea of the situation... her scientific manuals, her notes that she kept over the years, are sealed and cannot be handled because they are too radioactive to be safely handled. Imagine that?



            STILL, if she did this every day for YEARS, it is FAR worse than you having 50 xrays over one year.

            There IS a reason why the FDA OUTLAWED consumer use of radioactive substances.

            HECK, an atom bomb generally works by fission. Do you REALLY think you end up with what was in the bomb? It's going to be a lower grade radiation. The elements DEGRADE as part of the process. The extra material is used up in the explosion, and makes some relatively inert items radioactive. Yet it is STILL bad enough to strike fear in people. Some of that stuff, heck, MOST of it, is likely not much stronger than what madame curie used!

            Steve
            Atomic bombs do work by fission. It's the energy released when radioactive atoms are split that releases the tremendous energy.

            There are a ton of different kinds of isotopes created when an atomic bomb explodes, and many of them are very short lived. They have half-lives, just like you Kurt , and will degrade to safe energy levels.

            I do believe the materials released are a great deal more energetic than what Curie was dealing with.

            You talk about industrial processes of old. I read about the women who used to paint the radioactive lithium on watch faces back in the early part of the 20th century. Naturally, many of them died of various cancers and organ failures. It is a known fact that these poor people would stick the paint brushes in their mouths to make the brush have a better point when they painted the radioactive lithium on the watches. Insane.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2204844].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post


              There are a ton of different kinds of isotopes created when an atomic bomb explodes, and many of them are very short lived. They have half-lives, just like you Kurt , and will degrade to safe energy levels.
              Ken's favorite beer is brewed about half a mile down-stream from the nuke plant he worked at....It's called "Miller Half Life".

              Seriously, if we had real fusion, it's estimated a single bucket of sea water could generate enough power to supply Los Angeles for a month. The downside is, in the wrong hands the same bucket of sea water would have the power to destroy Los Angeles.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2205663].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post

              It is a known fact that these poor people would stick the paint brushes in their mouths to make the brush have a better point when they painted the radioactive lithium on the watches. Insane.
              Yep, THAT is why I brought up the idea of allergies to horsehair! 8-) It isn't so insane if the paint is SAFE. But the paint isn't safe.

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2206518].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                I do not think BP will file BK unless the rhetoric and posturing in the US drives it to do that.

                When this began BP had 7 billion in cash assets - and then that was raised to 10 billion it seems as the seriousness of this leak became clear.

                The current effort is to paint BP as a huge, nasty, threatening entity. The TRUTH is that these violations could not have occurred if OUR officials were doing their jobs - and they haven't been doing their jobs for about 10 years!!

                BP is British - and yet no one here is talking to the Brit leaders about the problem. BP leaders are be avoided as no one want to be associated with the problem - so all the info is second, third and fourth hand....and much of it probably is wrong.

                If you watch the news shows critically - you will see scientists and oceanographers not associated with BP explain why there had to be a serious of steps to try to cap the well and explain why no one is able to determine how much oil has escaped.

                These scientists are followed by political hacks who appear only to shift all the blame to BP and away from D.C. On a state level - did any governor examine the evironmental statements of rigs operating 12-50 miles from their coastline. Who read the statement about protecting non-existent seals in the Gulf? Who approved leases with such statements submitted?

                If this isn't a wakeup call for all of us to demand the people we hire do their jobs and stop kowtowing to big corporate money - I don't know what is.

                What responsibility did TransOcean have to make sure BP's lease applications were properly done? What responsibility did Halliburton have when it proceeded with adding cement in a way that was not safe or acceptable according to Transocean?

                The goal seems to be to distract people by pointing to Hayward or only to BP and ignoring the dozens or hundreds of people paid by US who were not doing their jobs. Everyone involved in this mess and responsible for it needs to be exposed. This includes BP - but a lot of other people, too.

                kay
                Signature

                Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2206580].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author rondo
                  Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                  BP is British - and yet no one here is talking to the Brit leaders about the problem. BP leaders are be avoided as no one want to be associated with the problem - so all the info is second, third and fourth hand....and much of it probably is wrong.
                  It's 40% British owned and 39% US owned.


                  Andrew
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2206656].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author NicheCowboy
      Originally Posted by madison_avenue View Post

      Oil is a natural substance, it comes out of mother earth, and as such is bio-degradable. If the wind direction would have been different ii would have dispersed into the sea without any adverse effect at all. It looks dramatic because it is black and gooey but is important to keeps things in perspective, it's only an oil spill not a nuclear leak, there are no long term implications. For clean up, a billion dollars here or there is peanuts for BP.
      spoken like a true BP stockholder.

      If it's so "natural", why is so much wildlife already dying???
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133543].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author NicheCowboy
        "The Gulf of Mexico is a crime scene," said Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation, "and the perpetrator cannot be left in charge of assessing the damage."

        Truer words have never been spoken.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133553].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by NicheCowboy View Post

        spoken like a true BP stockholder.

        If it's so "natural", why is so much wildlife already dying???
        NO, it IS natural! Madison Avenue is probably some poor kid that is TROLLING! Someone should dunk madison in the crude oil. The attitude would change REAL quick!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2134449].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I don't know if anyone mentioned this but BP Leader Dude just said in a interview that...

    .. this spill is small compared to the total ocean in the gulf of Mexico.

    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2098944].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      I don't know if anyone mentioned this but BP Leader Dude just said in a interview that...

      .. this spill is small compared to the total ocean in the gulf of Mexico.

      TL
      MAN, sometimes theey say the DUMBEST THINGS! ANOTHER MIRACLE!!!!!! PLEASE, SOMEONE tell those idiots to stop acting SO STUPID!!!!!!!!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2099512].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dsimms
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      I don't know if anyone mentioned this but BP Leader Dude just said in a interview that...

      .. this spill is small compared to the total ocean in the gulf of Mexico.

      TL
      He basicly said it was a tiny spill compared to the size of
      the ocean...this is what I heard:

      Its nothing, we do not care, its just a tiny
      spill that we can just wipe up...

      and he did not tell our reporters this, he told
      some reporter in another country this statement.

      and to think that BP pays this guy a lot of money

      BP - FIRE HIM NOW!

      and for the guy that basicly said this is nothing if it went the
      other way..this is why we see waves coming to shore, and
      not the other way around. wind normally blows over shores, not away from them...

      for something that is not much a big deal, it has already affected
      people in this already dead economy, people are already going out
      of business because for some reason, they can not sell seafood with
      an extra scoop of BP oil....business'es are closing down, and anyone
      that is in the seafood business over there are losing jobs, or
      already out of work for probably a long time to come, this may not
      be a big deal because this person does not live around the oil
      spill, but if he did, and he was in the seafood business, then he
      would be singing another tune.."pay me BP, pay me now..."

      and disasters like this will be cause and effect...

      disaster = gas goes up = food goes up = higher costs, and so on...

      so it is a big deal...and its not so much until it trickles down....

      as for their profits, for each day this oil spill goes on, they are
      losing a day worth of profits...and they have billions of $$$
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2099537].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author madison_avenue
    steve

    As for crude dissolving, the actual oil, and many other products, WON'T! Maybe you are confusing that with impurities that could. AND, oil WILL disperse, over time. But we ARE talking about CRUDE oil and the heavier it is the more things you have like the tar balls.
    Yes this is true to an extent, but most of the light crude on the surface will dissolve and dissipate however there is some residue which as you say is heavier, this residue will gradually sink down to the bottom of the ocean floor.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2099347].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by madison_avenue View Post

      steve



      Yes this is true to an extent, but most of the light crude on the surface will dissolve and dissipate however there is some residue which as you say is heavier, this residue will gradually sink down to the bottom of the ocean floor.
      It DISSIPATES, it does NOT dissolve! HEY, it hasn't in millions of years, what makes you think it will in a few months or years? And WHO CARES if it is on top of the ocean? If it goes to the bottom, don't you care about the health of the plankton, algae, catfishh, small fish, crustaceans, dolphins, seals, **********YOU************? Or do you not eat fish or plants or animals, or drink water? The oil may not DISSOLVE, but it CAN be pulled up with OTHER poisons! HEY, ever hear of DDT? It was a similar kind of poison. GRANTED, a BIT more deadly, but really no less pervasive or dangerous in the scheme of things. Oil is a product that is technically illegal to even throw away! Go to some oil change place, and ASK!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2099506].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      And what happens when the residue sinks to the bottom of the ocean? It's not like the bottom isn't important. In fact what grows on the ocean floor and the life that lives there is very important to the overall ocean environment.

      Originally Posted by madison_avenue View Post

      steve

      Yes this is true to an extent, but most of the light crude on the surface will dissolve and dissipate however there is some residue which as you say is heavier, this residue will gradually sink down to the bottom of the ocean floor.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2099566].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dsimms
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        And what happens when the residue sinks to the bottom of the ocean? It's not like the bottom isn't important. In fact what grows on the ocean floor and the life that lives there is very important to the overall ocean environment.
        Even if this tiny leak compared to the vast ocean was fixed this very second, then there would still be damage for many years to come.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2099643].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by madison_avenue View Post

      steve



      Yes this is true to an extent, but most of the light crude on the surface will dissolve and dissipate however there is some residue which as you say is heavier, this residue will gradually sink down to the bottom of the ocean floor.
      You are wasting your time here with this -- you need to go convince the dying life forms that it's all just fine and dandy.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2101199].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Do you guys realize how TINY the items in a nuclear bomb are? The particles are SO tiny! Everything is SO tiny! And one tiny thing goes in and causes it to basically overflow. NO big deal! NO microscope, save perhaps the BIGGEST most state of the art electron microscope or better, could EVER hope to see such a small thing. Well, that one tiny action releases other components that are TINY, but there are perhaps hundreds of times as many. So the same thing happens with a couple hundred other items(let's call them ATOMS).

    Now that might be a nuisance. But nothing spectacular, except that it happens at close to the speed of light.

    So what happens of this story? This one VERY tiny particle that isn't even NEARLY as big as a hydrogen ATOM, causes the near simultaneous destruction of others that increase in number exponentially at each stage and each happens at SLIGHTLY less than the speed of light.

    Science calls this a chain reaction, and the destruction of all this is called a nuclear explosion. That one RIDICULOUSLY TINY explosion that you would likely not even be able to see under the average microscope, EVEN in the dark, is enough to destroy the GALAXY if the ATOMs are large enough, and there is enough material. Simply because of its affect on the surrounding atoms.

    To say that a minor leak is nothing is crazy. Look at the DDT that was left. For YEARS the eco system was hurt.

    Oil has a LOT of poisons, and a lot of sea creatures can be adversly affected. What happens if salmon start to spawn, and the area is polluted by oil? A WHOLE AREA's population of salmon could be WIPED OUT! The SAME is true of TURTLES! Maybe WHALES! Alll creatures that may gather in the same place at about the same time.

    And the runoff poisons that humans might not appear to be affected by may affect FROGS! So THEY could die. They are susceptible to various things.

    And things that don't really hurt humans could hurt small animals that keep being eaten by larger animals until humans ingest the larger animal and get a MEGAdose that CAN hurt them.

    So a LITTLE drop of oil in the wrong place at the wrong time WILL damage that area! And we are talking about a LOT more than a mere drop. Does ANYONE know how much oil there is? Will this well run for MONTHS? YEARS? HOW long!?!?!?!? We know just ONE day is TOO LONG!

    BTW nearly every dangerous item is natural or has a natural analogue. SHAKESPEAR spoke of poisons!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2100770].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      "bp oil dude" has an agenda - he's looking at billions in potential liability and also fighting information from insiders about the lack of attention to safety of their processes... The gulf of mexico has about 600,000 square miles - oil now covers about 4000 square miles and it's still spewing At what point do you think it might be a problem? 100k square miles - 50k square miles? It's true the oceans can process some oil - there is oil that leaks consistently from the floor of the ocean normally. The problem is this upsets the balance - it's like removing one link in a food chain. It doesn't seem like a huge deal if one species disappears - until everything above that link starts dying out. I'm waiting for someone to announce that the tar balls that washed up on a beach a couple miles from me yesterday are really only cow patties kay
      Signature

      Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2100808].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author myob
        Have no fear, Kevin Costner is here! Costner got into the oil cleanup business courtesy of his brother, who developed this here oil filteration machine. They've got a business going on, "Ocean Therapy Solutions" and showing demonstrations of the device. Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nunguesser says "with these odds and percentages, it only makes sense. Let's give it a try."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2100838].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by myob View Post

          Have no fear, Kevin Costner is here! Costner got into the oil cleanup business courtesy of his brother, who developed this here oil filteration machine. They've got a business going on, "Ocean Therapy Solutions" and showing demonstrations of the device. Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nunguesser says "with these odds and percentages, it only makes sense. Let's give it a try."

          Kevin Costner Helps To Fight Spill
          Now THAT is a nice solution! Both 200 gallons a minute? MAN is that fast! Of course, they would have to do this really AFTER the well is capped, and it will take a LONG time!

          But a centrifuge could certainly work, and they claim to have it done. Of course, diesel is lighter, and less invasive, than crude, so the machine probably won't work as fast or as well with crude.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2100869].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        "bp oil dude" has an agenda - he's looking at billions in potential liability and also fighting information from insiders about the lack of attention to safety of their processes... The gulf of mexico has about 600,000 square miles - oil now covers about 4000 square miles and it's still spewing At what point do you think it might be a problem? 100k square miles - 50k square miles? It's true the oceans can process some oil - there is oil that leaks consistently from the floor of the ocean normally. The problem is this upsets the balance - it's like removing one link in a food chain. It doesn't seem like a huge deal if one species disappears - until everything above that link starts dying out. I'm waiting for someone to announce that the tar balls that washed up on a beach a couple miles from me yesterday are really only cow patties kay
        The guy that says it is only a small part of the bay should have that much crude oil added to his bath/shower, and be provided only gray water to boot. Let's see how business like he looks the next DAY, and how healthy he looks the next WEEK, if he is even still alive. GEEZ, I can't even stand to have caprylic acid on my hands for long! And IT is good, harmless, and PURE. For those that don't know, it is a FATTY acid, and feels like vegetable oil. Add all the poisons in CRUDE oil, and FORGET IT!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2100853].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      SHAKESPEAR spoke of poisons!

      Steve
      Shakespeare may have talked the talk, but Socrates walked the walk.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2100823].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Heysal,

    That is ALMOST as good as my idea, and FAR easier. Put him where there are a llot of bears and wolves and see if he can somehow convince them that it is ok that their habitat might be hurt, etc... That the bears might not have any more salmon. 8-/ He probably won't be around to argue his position anymore.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2101704].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Well, with a couple correct measurements, the speed could be figured out that way. One person tried to determine the amount of OIL given the speed of flow using the spead at which features are moving. HIS estimate? 70,000 barrels of oil a day.

    To put that into perspective, that is about 0.349% of the us daily usage of oil! About 287 wells at this rate would provide ALL the US oil.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2101733].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author madison_avenue
    What's the alternative to BP? People whinge about reliance on Middle-East oil etc etc but then use petrol(gas) like water. It has to come to out from somewhere, in the Middle East a lot of the oil wells are less than 5,000 feet deep but they are digging on land . Russia has dug a well 40,000 feet deep but this is also on land.

    BP has tunneled 5,000 feet under the ocean, this is much harder, to get at the oil. Undertaking a task like this is like going to the moon something will inevitably go wrong at sometime.

    The only alternative I can see is to use less oil, but is this feasible?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2102184].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by madison_avenue View Post

      What's the alternative to BP?
      MAN what a #$%^&* statement! BP DOES have competitors!

      BP has tunneled 5,000 feet under the ocean, this is much harder, to get at the oil. Undertaking a task like this is like going to the moon something will inevitably go wrong at sometime.
      THAT is the problem!!!!!!!!!!!

      Originally Posted by madison_avenue View Post

      The only alternative I can see is to use less oil, but is this feasible?
      We aren't in the 1950s anymore! Then again, the overall period of high use of oil products out of pure "necessity" was pretty short lived. So YEAH, it was, and IS feasible!

      I remarked just YESTERDAY to someone about how the airline industry is going and the looming disaster, and the GM disaster that was ****OUTLAWED**** in 1890!!!!!! The subprime deal that caused this depression was ****OUTLAWED**** in 1933!!!!!! Maybe if people spent more time looking at the past to see what may happen in the future, we can stop doing all this ridiculous stuff! HECK, I bought a home about 10 years ago. One reason was because,(OK, I was an IDIOT!) I figured that we had people that had IQs over 50 in the government and they would stop doing what they did. They DIDN'T! That helped enable the subprime business. I was a good risk, and even refinanced my home to make things better. Most others WEREN'T a good risk!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2102365].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    There have been alternatives to oil now for most of what we do with it -- but the guys at the top are making enough money to rule the world from oil, so we have not been allowed to use alternatives.

    Even if we all just stopped using plastic bags and poisonous plastic containers for storing food we could save hundreds of millions, possibly a billion, gallons a year, plus we would produce less waste - toxic waste at that. Just by using natural fiber bags for shopping and putting our food in glass containers when we refrigerate it. Just by walking when we go somewhere that's only a few blocks away instead of driving we could save millions of gallons a year, and our population would be healthier and environment would be that much cleaner.

    There was not one true reason that we needed to drill there. With a few more refineries the US has plenty of oil, it's not oil we lack, it's refineries. I know someone in oil exploration, and the amount of new oil resources found in just the last couple years is staggering - most are in safe locations. So what the hell is all this underwater stuff about? Why is there no news about the fact that gulf drilling could have "accidentally" tapped Mexico's oil cavities?
    This whole thing from conception to enactment was nothing but pure politics - and I can't go there from here.

    I also wonder if your specialty isn't disinformation for a lucrative oil concern.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2102363].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author femfatale68
      Horrible! And mortified is the only word I can use to describe something that bugs me personally. I am new to the forum and exploring exciting new things related to my years of sales and marketing experience. However, I have my day job! And in my day job
      I sell modeling tools to companies like BP and the Nuclear plants and the Aerospace gov't related communities. These design tools model failures -- like explosions and breakage and what if scenarios-- it tells management how to spend their money and to plan for safety like replacing parts every so often and taking things out of service for maintenance!!!!! So I am wondering today- Where is their safety group? What are BP Safety & Reliability engineers up to these days? Do they even have one? Or are they hiding their faces?

      This device or sophisticated hunk of metal contraption that is dropped at the VERY bottom of the sea where it's difficult to get to----- and this device pumps oil from a hole under ground and up and out-- this mechanical device should not have been implemented without a plan that covered all risk scenarios and one that covered the safety of the waters-- the neighboring ecology and humans involved and the reliability of it's parts and systems and components that needs maintenance and timed outages. That is a Safety, Risk And Reliability plan.

      Disgusted and mortified. You know, at one time several years ago they were interested in purchasing our products (a good deal at $50,000) would be in my best interest to contact them now... after they turned me down earlier this year?!!! I suppose the mighty have fallen....

      So BP-- WHERE IS YOUR SAFETY RISK & RELIABILITY GROUP?

      Apparanetly Tony Hayward is reported on UK telegraph dot com to to make Safety and Reliability priority now.

      After a horrible fact that could have been prevented years ago by implementing a safety and reliability program that works!!!!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2176795].message }}
      • Originally Posted by femfatale68 View Post

        Horrible!
        I sell modeling tools to companies like BP and the Nuclear plants and the Aerospace gov't related communities. These design tools model failures -- like explosions and breakage and what if scenarios-- it tells management how to spend their money and to plan for safety like replacing parts every so often and taking things out of service for maintenance!!!!! So I am wondering today. What are BP Safety & Reliability engineers up to these days? Where is their safety group? Do they even have one? If so, what on earth were they thinking- that this hunk of metal dropped at the bottom of the sea would not ever fail? Ever? ?
        The petroleum industry probably has a lot to answer for. I tried to do a bit of research into this and whilst it's a bit sketchy it might not be possible to stick the safety bit totally at the feet of BP.

        It seems that Halliburton were responsible for the concreting work around the pipe with the displacement of the built up gas around the pipe a key risk. Halliburton are already being investigated according to the LA Times for this and another similar incident I believe just off Australia.

        The problem will be the politics around it with different representatives being on the end of lobbying money from the different companies. This situation isn't just about an ecological disaster. As we've seen from the Russian natural gas story energy security is a massive priority to the point that it's almost become a weapon in economic warfare

        The view over here in the UK is that it's probably time for a change within the organisation. Hammering them into oblivion with overly punitive fines whilst would give a certain sense of satisfaction would hurt America also. Although it's called BP I saw something that pointed to 30% US ownership either through institutions or individuals. If those institutions are pension funds (as it seems many of them are in the UK) that could hurt a lot of people who think they have no connection to it
        Signature

        Be a business - wherever you are http://nomadentrepreneur.blogspot.co.uk/

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2176941].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author femfatale68
          Originally Posted by Andrew Leatherland View Post

          The petroleum industry probably has a lot to answer for. I tried to do a bit of research into this and whilst it's a bit sketchy it might not be possible to stick the safety bit totally at the feet of BP.

          It seems that Halliburton were responsible for the concreting work around the pipe with the displacement of the built up gas around the pipe a key risk. Halliburton are already being investigated according to the LA Times for this and another similar incident I believe just off Australia.
          If Halliburton was on contract for BP than they have the same expectations and report reliability data to and for BP. So it goes to say that if BP had no program or had a weak one-- than it would be safe to say that Halliburton would be held to the same weak or non-existant program.

          I'm sure they all thought they were untouchable....

          I do hear what you are saying on the political and market side of things- it's complicated, alright. It usually takes a massive jolt like disaster as this to initiate change. It will be interesting to see what happens. Meanwhile it's the ecological part that is the highlight because the thing hasn't been capped off yet-- and that is the mortifying part. They weren't prepared!

          Once again the old boy scout motto prevails-- Be prepared!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2177148].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    People claims that what-ever BP has to pay will be ultimately paid by the consumer in higher prices.

    I say we should boycott BP gas period.

    I'm certainly not filling up my car at a BP gas station.

    They should be shunned.

    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2105115].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      People claims that what-ever BP has to pay will be ultimately paid by the consumer in higher prices.

      I say we should boycott BP gas period.

      I'm certainly not filling up my car at a BP gas station.

      They should be shunned.

      TL
      I'm with you on that one....especially since it appears their MAJOR concern is how they can save their oil instead of minimizing the environmental damage this cluster&^%$ this has/is/will cause....

      They're not trying to CAP it....they're only trying to CAPTURE it.
      Signature
      Professional Googler
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2105135].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Dave Patterson View Post

        I'm with you on that one....especially since it appears their MAJOR concern is how they can save their oil instead of minimizing the environmental damage this cluster&^%$ this has/is/will cause....

        They're not trying to CAP it....they're only trying to CAPTURE it.
        Well, I agree to a degree. But trying to cap it CAN be a serious problem. Let's say that the stuff was coming out at 300PSI. That is a LOT of force! To find something that can adequately seal at 300psi could be very difficult. Until they can do that, retrieving the oil may be FAR easier to do, and might have been the best option.

        NOW, I say CAP IT, PERIOD!!!! NOW!!!!!! Time has run out.....

        Three or four large plumes have been found, at least one that is 10 miles long and a mile wide, said Samantha Joye, a marine science professor at the University of Georgia.

        Researchers Vernon Asper and Arne Dierks said in Web posts that the plumes were "perhaps due to the deep injection of dispersants which BP has stated that they are conducting." BP has won government approval to use chemicals on the oil near where it is gushing to break it up before it rises to the surface.

        The researchers were also testing the effects of large amounts of subsea oil on oxygen levels in the water. The oil can deplete oxygen in the water, harming plankton and other tiny creatures that serve as food for a wide variety of sea critters.

        Oxygen levels in some areas have dropped 30 percent, and should continue to drop, Joye said.

        "It could take years, possibly decades, for the system to recover from an infusion of this quantity of oil and gas," Joye said. "We've never seen anything like this before. It's impossible to fathom the impact."
        I figure we are at the start of the 3rd stage of a 6 stage process that, locally(the definition of local is growing everyday it isn't plugged) could lead to complete extinction of marine life and start affecting land life, including humans. Most creatures in the waters around the area now affected NEED that oxygen, or are dependent on creatures that do.

        And the dispersants aren't going to necessarily help. WHO CARES how it looks? Take vegetable oil, put it in REAL chocolate milk, and throw THAT on the ocean! One guy says it looks like that ANYWAY! I would prefer THAT to crude oil! The milk would degrade and maybe provide food for the creatures. The VEGETABLE oil would have little impact(And, if whales happen to breath it in, it will likely irritate them, but not kill.), and likely degrade. But CRUDE OIL? DISPERSANTS? FORGET IT!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2105187].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      People claims that what-ever BP has to pay will be ultimately paid by the consumer in higher prices.

      I say we should boycott BP gas period.

      I'm certainly not filling up my car at a BP gas station.

      They should be shunned.

      TL
      The sad fact is that they are right! YOU'RE right also(PLEASE SOMEONE, STOP ME! 8-(). The problem is HOW do you find out who is getting oil from BP? They are a HUGE company! when I went into denmark, I was SHOCKED to find a company called Q8. In English, that sounds a bit like kuwait. It turns out it IS kuwaiti oil. Then again, Marathon is an AMERICAN company. But marathon probably has relations with OTHER oil companies. PERHAPS even BP.

      But YEAH, if BPs costs go up, do you think THEY will just eat it? NOPE! Their prices will go up. It may be FRACTIONS of a penny per gallon, and the ppump prices might not go up for a while longer, but even if THAT happens, other things will be cut or prices will go up. When prices DO go up, competitors will raise THEIR prices, and the whole thing will appear to be due to the refineries or the cost of oil in general. And so it continues....

      Steve

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2105143].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Edit: Ooops. My buddy Steve already posted this.

        Now scientists are saying huge plumes of oil are underneath the gulfs surface. Some as large as 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick. What will happen with these globs of oil? Nobody really knows but it can't be good.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2105200].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      People claims that what-ever BP has to pay will be ultimately paid by the consumer in higher prices.

      I say we should boycott BP gas period.

      I'm certainly not filling up my car at a BP gas station.

      They should be shunned.

      TL
      A boycott on BP will have negligible effect. BP earns over $93 million a DAY, so the cleanup costs and litigation estimated to top over a few billion dollars over the next few decades is just the cost of doing business. Oil market speculators will be the ones driving up gas prices, not BP. Also there is pending legislation to add another 1% federal tax on EVERY barrel of oil from any source. Greed can never be capped.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2105268].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
        Originally Posted by myob View Post

        Greed can never be capped.
        No reality checks please....
        Signature
        Professional Googler
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2105282].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author myob
          Check this out. Average gas prices going up soon.

          Gas Price Historical Price Charts - GasBuddy.com
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2105321].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by myob View Post

            Check this out. Average gas prices going up soon.

            Gas Price Historical Price Charts - GasBuddy.com
            This would be the oil companies spin on that.
            Two year ago gas was 4.20 a gal.
            So at 3.00 a gal. gas prices have gone down in the last two years
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2105342].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by myob View Post

        A boycott on BP will have negligible effect. BP earns over $93 million a DAY, so the cleanup costs and litigation estimated to top over a few billion dollars over the next few decades is just the cost of doing business. Oil market speculators will be the ones driving up gas prices, not BP. Also there is pending legislation to add another 1% federal tax on EVERY barrel of oil from any source. Greed can never be capped.

        What will happen if no one in the US goes to a BP gas station???



        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2105413].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          What will happen if no one in the US goes to a BP gas station???



          TL
          They would change the name of their stations to something like Gas Express, then they would lower their prices till they suckered everyone in and then raise them again.
          Of course they would remove any reference to BP

          I never get BP gas to begin with so me boycotting them is senseless in a way. Also I wonder how many of the Mom and Pop gas stations/convenient stores already get their gas from BP and we don't know about it.

          I hate to say this, but given the size and scope of these big oil companies I don't think there is much people like you or I can do to harm them.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2105478].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            They would change the name of their stations to something like Gas Express, then they would lower their prices till they suckered everyone in and then raise them again.
            Of course they would remove any reference to BP

            I never get BP gas to begin with so me boycotting them is senseless in a way. Also I wonder how many of the Mom and Pop gas stations/convenient stores already get their gas from BP and we don't know about it.

            I hate to say this, but given the size and scope of these big oil companies I don't think there is much people like you or I can do to harm them.

            I wonder what the effect of 75% of BP gas station customers not going to BP anymore would do to BP's bottom line?

            BP does have gas stations going under names other than BP and it's easy to discover what names they are going under.

            Sure, they could try to change their name etc. but with the internet and just a handful of anti BP sites they could be closely monitored and punished.

            If they lower their prices - good - they certainly won't be making as much profit off US customers as they were making before.

            If any company deserves to be punished it's BP and they should be.

            There must be something the people of the US can do to punish BP for the damage they have inflicted on our environment.

            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2105603].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              I wonder what the effect of 75% of BP gas station customers not going to BP anymore would do to BP's bottom line?

              BP does have gas stations going under names other than BP and it's easy to discover what names they are going under.

              Sure, they could try to change their name etc. but with the internet and just a handful of anti BP sites they could be closely monitored and punished.

              If they lower their prices - good - they certainly won't be making as much profit off US customers as they were making before.

              If any company deserves to be punished it's BP and they should be.

              There must be something the people of the US can do to punish BP for the damage they have inflicted on our environment.

              TL
              If you find something let me know.
              Like I said I already don't use their gas or any other products, I've had a bug up my butt against BP for so long I don't remember why anymore.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2105677].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author myob
                No one has punished Exxon for the 11 million gallon oil spill in Valdez back in 1989. Also Mobile Oil was responsible for up to 30 million gallons of petroleum spills for decades in Brooklyn NY up until the late 1950's. Exxon and Mobile merged in 1999 to become ExxonMobil. They sell under diffrent brands like Exxon, Mobil, Esso, Imperial Oil Limited, and also owns hundreds of smaller subsidiaries. Even if we could even identify them, can you boycott them all?

                BP hasn't even come close to what ExxonMobil has done to our environment - yet. Like Valdez and Brooklyn, this will go on for decades and never get cleaned up.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2105793].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              I wonder what the effect of 75% of BP gas station customers not going to BP anymore would do to BP's bottom line?

              BP does have gas stations going under names other than BP and it's easy to discover what names they are going under.

              Sure, they could try to change their name etc. but with the internet and just a handful of anti BP sites they could be closely monitored and punished.

              If they lower their prices - good - they certainly won't be making as much profit off US customers as they were making before.

              If any company deserves to be punished it's BP and they should be.

              There must be something the people of the US can do to punish BP for the damage they have inflicted on our environment.

              TL
              If they lower prices, it may be through affinity credit(so the REAL cost is HIGHER), or they may put more additives into the fuel, etc... The law DOES have SOME tolerance there.

              I disagree that BP is ****THE**** culprit. They appear to be only ONE of about 3, maybe 4. The MAIN company may be involved with ALL offshore rigs. The OTHER company may be involved with many. Let's not get TOO carried away with blaming BP 100%. Good luck trying to boycott the other 2-3 though.

              I WILL say that they had NO business having such a get together, or having people SLEEP at such a CRITICAL time! They should have waited at LEAST another 24-48 hours before even celebrating. Had they done so, they would be more sure that all was taken care of, people would have taken more care, and maybe the accident never would have happened.
              Had the accident happened, MAYBE there would have been something they could have done. I believe the responsibility for THAT WAS 100% BP!

              The BIGGEST thing that can be done is sanctions/fines by the US government(It could maybe affect over 55% of BPs bottom line!!!!!). Unfortunately, that would have to be the FEDERAL government, and BP has friends in VERY high places in the US. I COULD say more, but....

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2105727].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                Yes, the US government could do a lot but won't unless there is a huge public outcry about this spill. If there is enough support for strong sanctions/fines and that would translate to a political advantage for those in coming elections then things could happen no matter how many friends in VERY high places they have. I wonder if there will be the huge public outcry though. Especially if the leak is successfully closed soon. The public has a short attention span these days.
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post


                The BIGGEST thing that can be done is sanctions/fines by the US government(It could maybe affect over 55% of BPs bottom line!!!!!). Unfortunately, that would have to be the FEDERAL government, and BP has friends in VERY high places in the US. I COULD say more, but....

                Steve
                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2107360].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  Yes, the US government could do a lot but won't unless there is a huge public outcry about this spill. If there is enough support for strong sanctions/fines and that would translate to a political advantage for those in coming elections then things could happen no matter how many friends in VERY high places they have. I wonder if there will be the huge public outcry though. Especially if the leak is successfully closed soon. The public has a short attention span these days.
                  That is the problem with people like you, you feel it is SO simple. And there IS a large public outcry. GRANTED, most people don't endanger their jobs, etc... to get the idea through the politicians thick heads by making Washington DC so full of people that all streets must be closed, etc....

                  HECK, one person, after staying in line for the whole day to get "reimbursed" for lost business, said that the payment was less than 1/3rd of what he usually gets. That was picked up by the news. The FULL impact may NEVER be known.

                  All any thinking person knows is that it is worse than anyone can imagine. The sun is blocked off, water is polluted, oxygen is depleted, the debris can kill even by merely changing the climate around egg clutches or very young/small fish. And that isn't even mentioning the effects of petroleum by products. And do you have ANY idea how much oil is needed to even spread the plume by 1foot, at this time?

                  And HOW could people claiming to care SO much about the environment not care about THIS? THIS is, to the fish, worse than global warming and most other things put together.

                  But politicians are paid a LOT to ignore this, and they have a mindset that they are totally isolated even from this planet.

                  Steve
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2108335].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                    You know Steve, the problem with you is you are an arrogant prick. That's pretty simple also. Geesh, I wasn't even disagreeing with you.

                    By the way, you are just plain wrong is you think their is a huge public outcry. Here's just one article about a poll that shows how wrong you are:

                    "The poll also found that the public still supports the idea of drilling offshore for oil and gas. By 50 percent to 38 percent, more people favor increased coastal drilling for oil and gas than oppose it."

                    "Poll detects little anger over oil spill"
                    http://www.dailymail.com/News/Nation...d/201005130850

                    Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                    That is the problem with people like you, you feel it is SO simple. And there IS a large public outcry. GRANTED, most people don't endanger their jobs, etc... to get the idea through the politicians thick heads by making Washington DC so full of people that all streets must be closed, etc....

                    HECK, one person, after staying in line for the whole day to get "reimbursed" for lost business, said that the payment was less than 1/3rd of what he usually gets. That was picked up by the news. The FULL impact may NEVER be known.

                    All any thinking person knows is that it is worse than anyone can imagine. The sun is blocked off, water is polluted, oxygen is depleted, the debris can kill even by merely changing the climate around egg clutches or very young/small fish. And that isn't even mentioning the effects of petroleum by products. And do you have ANY idea how much oil is needed to even spread the plume by 1foot, at this time?

                    And HOW could people claiming to care SO much about the environment not care about THIS? THIS is, to the fish, worse than global warming and most other things put together.

                    But politicians are paid a LOT to ignore this, and they have a mindset that they are totally isolated even from this planet.

                    Steve
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2109304].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                      You know Steve, the problem with you is you are an arrogant prick. That's pretty simple also. Geesh, I wasn't even disagreeing with you.

                      By the way, you are just plain wrong is you think their is a huge public outcry. Here's just one article about a poll that shows how wrong you are:

                      "The poll also found that the public still supports the idea of drilling offshore for oil and gas. By 50 percent to 38 percent, more people favor increased coastal drilling for oil and gas than oppose it."

                      "Poll detects little anger over oil spill"
                      Poll detects little anger over oil spill* - Nation and World - Charleston Daily Mail - West Virginia News and Sports -
                      Well, there are ALL sorts of polls. And the dailymail speaks like white middle aged men are OK with such drilling. Well, it is funny since I believe that describes most of the people I saw waiting in that line, and the one complaining how the reimbursement is less than 1/3rd what he would normally get. Anyway, I COULD start showing how you are wrong, but that would get too political. If ONLY it were so simple.

                      HECK, one thing I HATE about rush limbaugh(He is really too tolerant of pollution and corporate greed for my liking) is that he feels people can do ***NO*** wrong to the environment. Well, I guess this rig has changed his opinion THERE! You think *I* am arrogant? Try listening to the old rush when people spoke of people hurting the environment. If this swayed HIS opinion, you know it likewise affected MANY more.

                      And I doubt ANYONE thinks gas will get down to 35 cents just by drilling. It may cost more that that just to REFINE it.

                      Steve
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2109405].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          What will happen if no one in the US goes to a BP gas station???



          TL
          When I was in california, I NEVER saw a BP station! ****NEVER****!!!! Do you REALLY think NONE of that gas goes elsewhere? I once worked at a cell phone company that used to have *****NO***** customers! But they made MILLIONS! HOW? They bought cells in little markets NOBODY wanted! There were really NO customers there! AT&T, for example, had NO customers or cells there! ****BUT**** when an AT&T customer "roamed" in that area, THEY WANTED SERVICE! So AT&T had to pay this other company for the privilege! So YOU might not have THOUGHT you were a customer. You may not have ever THOUGHT you paid them. They may not have known who you were. If you traveled through their areas, you probably paid roaming charges or your provider certainly did. That is how verisign makes most of its money today probably.

          I suspect BP does the same sort of thing.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2105671].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            When I was in california, I NEVER saw a BP station! ****NEVER****!!!! Do you REALLY think NONE of that gas goes elsewhere? I once worked at a cell phone company that used to have *****NO***** customers! But they made MILLIONS! HOW? They bought cells in little markets NOBODY wanted! There were really NO customers there! AT&T, for example, had NO customers or cells there! ****BUT**** when an AT&T customer "roamed" in that area, THEY WANTED SERVICE! So AT&T had to pay this other company for the privilege! So YOU might not have THOUGHT you were a customer. You may not have ever THOUGHT you paid them. They may not have known who you were. If you traveled through their areas, you probably paid roaming charges or your provider certainly did. That is how verisign makes most of its money today probably.

            I suspect BP does the same sort of thing.

            Steve
            There are at least 10k gas stations under the BP banner across the country.

            For you Steve...

            BP also goes by the name of Aral and...

            ... Arco stations in the south, southwest and west coast.

            From the BP website...

            BP US Retailing:

            As the second-largest gasoline marketer in the United States...

            ...BP offers consumers quality gasoline designed to meet the needs of the variety of gasoline-powered vehicles in the US.

            BP is dedicated to producing fuels that help improve automotive performance, efficiency and emissions.

            BP provides customers with fuel for transportation and energy for heat and light.

            BP is the single, global brand formed by the combination of the former British Petroleum, Amoco Corp., Atlantic Richfield (ARCO) and Burmah Castrol.

            Every year, over 22 billion gallons of fuel are sold annually through the BP and ARCO branded retail outlets.

            Every day, BP serves 50 million gallons to our valued consumers via more than...


            ... 10,000...



            ... BP-branded retail locations east of the Rockies, and another 1,500 on the West Coast via the ARCO brand.

            To find a complete list of BP and Arco stations, visit BP invigorate | Your Local BP.

            Must go to a new Mexican restuarant with wife and kid and return by NBA game time.


            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2105822].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              There are at least 10k gas stations under the BP banner across the country.

              For you Steve...

              BP also goes by the name of Aral and...

              ... Arco stations in the south, southwest and west coast.
              I have *****NEVER***** seen an ARAL station!

              ARCO WAS ATLANTIC RICHFIELD, an AMERICAN company! It was sold to BP in 2000.

              ARCO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

              When I was at ARCO, it was AMERICAN!

              From the BP website...

              BP US Retailing:

              As the second-largest gasoline marketer in the United States...

              ...BP offers consumers quality gasoline designed to meet the needs of the variety of gasoline-powered vehicles in the US.

              BP is dedicated to producing fuels that help improve automotive performance, efficiency and emissions.

              BP provides customers with fuel for transportation and energy for heat and light.

              BP is the single, global brand formed by the combination of the former British Petroleum, Amoco Corp., Atlantic Richfield (ARCO) and Burmah Castrol.

              Every year, over 22 billion gallons of fuel are sold annually through the BP and ARCO branded retail outlets.

              Every day, BP serves 50 million gallons to our valued consumers via more than...


              ... 10,000...



              ... BP-branded retail locations east of the Rockies, and another 1,500 on the West Coast via the ARCO brand.

              To find a complete list of BP and Arco stations, visit BP invigorate | Your Local BP.

              Must go to a new Mexican restuarant with wife and kid and return by NBA game time.


              TL
              OK, Try petitioning the US FEDERAL government for sanctions! They could *****REALLY***** hurt BP! Maybe they can force the release of American assets, and hurt them even MORE. It won't happen, but you can TRY!!!!!

              BTW ABOUT ARCO... From wikipedia...
              The Atlantic Petroleum Storage Company's heritage dates to 1866; it became part of the Standard Oil trust in 1874, but achieved independence again when Standard Oil was broken up in 1911.
              HERE, let me translate this for you!

              The Atlantic Petroleum Storage Company's heritage dates to 1866; it became part of the Standard Oil trust in 1874.

              The government determined it was ILLEGAL since S/O violated the 1890 sherman antitust act and the government forced it to break up in 1911, and ARCO was, again, a separate company

              As I said, "too big to fail" is a MYTH! What they are REALLY saying is they want things their OWN way and FORCE it by not enforcing the law! And S/O used to be a HUGE company. They were perhaps the only supplier of oil products to the US and perhaps the world. EXXON, currently the biggest company in the US, used to be PART of SO! AGAIN, from wikipedia...

              Exxon is a brand of motor fuel and related products sold by ExxonMobil. From 1972 to 1999, Exxon was the corporate name of the company previously known as Standard Oil Company of New Jersey or Jersey Standard.
              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2105850].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matt-Marketing
    The US must be off there rocker if they allow this to go ahead

    BP should be made to clean 100% of the oil spill up
    didnt they make a few billion Profit last year that
    would be enough Ah!

    Matt
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2108351].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Matt-Marketing View Post

      The US must be off there rocker if they allow this to go ahead

      BP should be made to clean 100% of the oil spill up
      didnt they make a few billion Profit last year that
      would be enough Ah!

      Matt
      The US can't exactly order them to clean up. It is kind of like BP is a stubborn (ahem) donkey. The US has to use carrots and sticks! After all, it IS a BRITISH company!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2108553].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        BP should be made to clean 100% of the oil spill up
        That's how many people seem to think about the spill - but it ignores reality. You cannot un-ring this bell - the damage is done and will continue to occur over a long period of time.

        Oceanographers with scientific background and experience have encountered huge pockets of crude oil beneath the surface of the gulf in deep water. One such mass measured 3x10 miles in size.

        BP says they are now siphoning off "some" of the gushing oil - but estimates they are getting 1000 barrels which is a small percentage of the total spilling each day.

        BP continues to be able to set some rules as they please - scientists with the instrumentation/expertise to measure how much oil is spilling daily were not allowed by bp to place their instrumentation near the spill. Videos of the leak are only released when BP chooses and they seem to withhold more footage than they release.

        Anyone who watched 60 minutes last night may have a glimpse of how big a fuss this may cause in the end.

        kay
        Signature

        Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2108733].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          One such mass measured 3x10 miles in size.
          That amazes the hell outta me.


          BP continues to be able to set some rules as they please - scientists with the instrumentation/expertise to measure how much oil is spilling daily were not allowed by bp to place their instrumentation near the spill. Videos of the leak are only released when BP chooses and they seem to withhold more footage than they release.

          kay
          So does this. But on the other hand, it doesn't considering the bigger picture
          of things. I'm certainly not up on this, but is this located in international
          waters? I don't understand how they can enforce this other than with force,
          which I'm sure they would have no problem doing.

          I usually like to avoid being captain obvious, but there's the greater good
          that should come before BP's image and profits, etc. But it sounds almost
          stupid even saying that considering the things that some entities have gotten
          away with over the generations.

          This is criminal.

          But what will change as a result of this? Nothing, I believe. Well, maybe gas
          prices and the price of anything containing petroleum products. No rant, I'm
          too tired of this to even bother which is not good, either.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2109014].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post

            That amazes the hell outta me.



            So does this. But on the other hand, it doesn't considering the bigger picture
            of things. I'm certainly not up on this, but is this located in international
            waters? I don't understand how they can enforce this other than with force,
            which I'm sure they would have no problem doing.

            I usually like to avoid being captain obvious, but there's the greater good
            that should come before BP's image and profits, etc. But it sounds almost
            stupid even saying that considering the things that some entities have gotten
            away with over the generations.

            This is criminal.

            But what will change as a result of this? Nothing, I believe. Well, maybe gas
            prices and the price of anything containing petroleum products. No rant, I'm
            too tired of this to even bother which is not good, either.
            International waters are actually past about 370.4KM! This violated US space the INSTANT that spill came within 370.4KM of the US. So it is now a US issue! Technically, the US could go there and start a war, it is THAT bad! So BP has NO rights to privacy from the US, and the US can, and SHOULD, enforce ANY efforts to seal that and/or assess its damage.

            International waters are provided as a general courtesy between governments and it is OK as long as criminal acts or sovereign rights violations are not committed. In this case, BP has done both. If it were intentional, and BP were doing nothing to fix it, you could bet that BP wouldn't be allowed anywhere near the rig.

            IMAGINE if the taliban did this. The US might be tempted to just go out, obliterate them, and work on cleaning up the spill.

            UPDATE, TRUTH COMES OUT!!!!!

            He also said that both Transocean and BP engineers were well aware of problems with the rig's blowout preventer, which he said was damaged in a test weeks before the blowout. The damage occurred to the annular seal of the BOP, which grips around the drillpipe and is of vital importance in measuring the well's downhole pressures and monitoring whether any natural gas is getting into the well. During the test, when the BOP's rubber seals were clamped on the pipe, someone inadvertently activated machinery that pulled up the pipe. The intense friction degraded some of the replaceable rubber grips. Williams said the rig's mud handlers reported that bits and pieces of that rubber came up the well. Furthermore, one of the BOP's control pods had gone out, and the device had suffered a loss of hydraulic pressure.
            UNREAL!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2109102].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          That's how many people seem to think about the spill - but it ignores reality. You cannot un-ring this bell - the damage is done and will continue to occur over a long period of time.

          Oceanographers with scientific background and experience have encountered huge pockets of crude oil beneath the surface of the gulf in deep water. One such mass measured 3x10 miles in size.

          BP says they are now siphoning off "some" of the gushing oil - but estimates they are getting 1000 barrels which is a small percentage of the total spilling each day.

          BP continues to be able to set some rules as they please - scientists with the instrumentation/expertise to measure how much oil is spilling daily were not allowed by bp to place their instrumentation near the spill. Videos of the leak are only released when BP chooses and they seem to withhold more footage than they release.

          Anyone who watched 60 minutes last night may have a glimpse of how big a fuss this may cause in the end.

          kay
          Hopefully, everyone realizes the visible oil on the top is MAJOR and a MAJOR disaster, but really minor compared to everything else involved here. I am generaly against doing things that can't be controlled when there is a problem anyway, but this just makes big oil exploration even LESS likely to be ramped up. And they claimed earlier that they had 5000BPD, Unless they sealed around the fitting, which is unlikely and would be FRONT PAGE NEWS, 1000BPD would be just the tiniest dent. MAYBE it would be ENOUGH of a dent to facilitate them using something to seal it though. They really have to do SOMETHING.

          BTW I relatively recently took positions, so I didn't really realize. With the accounts I have been dealing most with, 1% of the holdings are in BP! 8-( It isn't doing very well. It is now well below its 200 day moving average. A competitor, I just recently took a position in, is still 10% ABOVE the 200 day moving average, and even above the 50 day.

          So BP stock IS being depressed, more than its competitors. by something that likely happened within the past 20 days, and the current trend is DOWN. Hopefully, they are feeling it.

          BTW the positions were through basically a mutual fund and recomendations that I just quickly checked to make sure they were reasonable at the time.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2109066].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author NicheCowboy
      Originally Posted by Matt-Marketing View Post

      The US must be off there rocker if they allow this to go ahead

      BP should be made to clean 100% of the oil spill up
      didnt they make a few billion Profit last year that
      would be enough Ah!

      Matt
      Money should be the least of their concerns.

      Justice Department needs to become involved. Any laws or regulations that were broken, those responsible should be sent to prison. Absolute criminial negligence.

      If I am drinking and driving and kill someone, how is this different than these negligent acts by BP that have killed workers? Why is there a double standard? Why should they get off with a fine while the average Joe would go to prison?

      BP's safety record looks like a drug dealers rap sheet...

      http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/0...-of-legal.html
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133601].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dsimms
    BP CEO: Tony Hayward is the one that stated that this is just a tiny spill compared to the size of the ocean. MORON!

    BP: FIRE TONY HAYWARD

    BP ALSO REFUSES TO MEASURE HOW MUCH OIL IS FLOODING INTO THE OCEAN.
    GEE, I WONDER WHY THEY REFUSE TO MEASURE THIS?

    The govt is normally quick about fining compaines..I wonder why I have not heard about the govt fining BP for this disaster...I am sure when the fine comes along, they will do everything they can to get out of it, and appeals will go on for years to come, I know this because they want the govt to limit their liability and lawsuits...If our govt is smart, no more bailouts, and force BP to pay 100% of all damages/claims.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2109725].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by dsimms View Post

      BP CEO: Tony Hayward is the one that stated that this is just a tiny spill compared to the size of the ocean. MORON!

      BP: FIRE TONY HAYWARD

      BP ALSO REFUSES TO MEASURE HOW MUCH OIL IS FLOODING INTO THE OCEAN.
      GEE, I WONDER WHY THEY REFUSE TO MEASURE THIS?

      The govt is normally quick about fining compaines..I wonder why I have not heard about the govt fining BP for this disaster...I am sure when the fine comes along, they will do everything they can to get out of it, and appeals will go on for years to come, I know this because they want the govt to limit their liability and lawsuits...If our govt is smart, no more bailouts, and force BP to pay 100% of all damages/claims.
      If I were the government, I would wait until the spill was cleaned up, or a year, depending on which came first. Why fine them $5billion, if it costs $10 billion? And, if the spill weren't cleaned up, I would make it known that it would be more of a TAX than a fine.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2109858].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    There is more fishy about this spill than just what has been discussed here. I'm starting to think there was purposeful sabotage involved. I know that as much is being covered up as possible, and nothing seems to fit with normal procedures - nothing adds up from either the official or the conspiracy side of this one.

    Tim - Poll - number one, most people don't realize there is more to this one than MSM is feeding them - two, so many polls are being so rigged now that they are becoming useless.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2109827].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      There is more fishy about this spill than just what has been discussed here. I'm starting to think there was purposeful sabotage involved. I know that as much is being covered up as possible, and nothing seems to fit with normal procedures - nothing adds up from either the official or the conspiracy side of this one.

      Tim - Poll - number one, most people don't realize there is more to this one than MSM is feeding them - two, so many polls are being so rigged now that they are becoming useless.
      You can't poll ANYONE about ANYTHING in one place for a NATIONAL poll and claim it is valid! ALSO, you can NOT leave questions open to interpretation! For some reason, "pollsters" don't seem to understand that! So even most "honest" ones are just GUESSES at best!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2109879].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      There is more fishy about this spill than just what has been discussed here. I'm starting to think there was purposeful sabotage involved. I know that as much is being covered up as possible, and nothing seems to fit with normal procedures - nothing adds up from either the official or the conspiracy side of this one.
      Sal:

      halliburton BP deepwater - Pesquisa do Google

      If this post is somewhat political, please Mods, delete it. I don't see any problem BUT...

      Signature
      People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2117539].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso View Post

        Sal:

        halliburton BP deepwater - Pesquisa do Google

        If this post is somewhat political, please Mods, delete it. I don't see any problem BUT...

        NOPE, they want to MAKE it political! APPARENTLY, HERE is what happened!

        Transocean's part had a defect. That was exacerbated by some careless BP person pulling up the bore while the Transocean part was tested. The Transocean part BROKE! Haliburton performed an operation which apparently MIGHT have gone better had the Transocean part worked. There was an explosion, Transocean's part failed, and the gusher occured! Here is part of a description in the transocean biased report:

        According to oil experts, the timing of the initial blast points to problems with cementing, typically one of the most troublesome parts of the drilling process.

        Faults in the process have caused explosions in the past; over the past 14 years, 18 of 30 blowouts have been linked to cementing. Typically, a faulty cement plug at the bottom of the well or cement between the pipe and well walls that did not harden is to blame.

        Last August, Halliburton was the cementer on a well in the Timor Sea that blew out and caused tens of thousands of barrels of oil to leak. "The initial likely cause of gas coming to the surface had something to do with the cement," Robert MacKenzie, managing director of energy and natural resources at FBR Capital Markets, told the Wall Street Journal.

        So WHAT was Transocean's part supposed to do? Well, here is a somewhat BP biased report:

        Transocean admits India BOP 'issues' - Upstream Online

        HERE is the detail on the actual purpose:

        Blowout preventer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        The invention and use of BOPs were instrumental in the ending of oil gushers, which were dangerous and costly.
        Sound familiar!?!?!? So transocean was the company that made the part everyone depended on! Want to be REALLY outraged? NEW NEWS!

        Suit Accuses Transocean of Inflating Stock - ABC News

        Transocean CEO Steven Newman is also named as a defendant. In an appearance before a U.S. Senate committee on May 11, Newman said the explosion was caused by a failure of drilling cementing, casing or perhaps both. He dismissed suggestions that the blowout preventer, or BOP, owned by Transocean may have been a cause.

        The suit alleges that Transocean was aware of studies showing potential problems with BOPs. In addition, another BP project being drilled by Transocean in June 2000 was shut down for several months because of a problem with a BOP, the suit said.

        Transocean also was issued citations in 2005 and 2006 by regulators in Great Britain for failing to maintain a BOP properly and for problems with testing BOPs, the suit alleges.

        "Defendants failed to disclose the serious risks Transocean faced as a result of its ongoing utilization of deficient BOPs," the suit says. "Defendants also omitted to disclose that on numerous prior occasions, Transocean had been censured or otherwise disciplined for BOP failures and problems."
        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2117797].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dsimms
    BP does not want people knowing how much oil is coming out of the well. BP is putting stuff on the water to make the oil sink so it can not be seen from the air, they also refuse to measure how much oil is coming out so not to let everyone else know...do you see a pattern from BP?

    BP is disorting the actual facts by hiding stuff, so when damages come along, then they can say it isnt so, its not that bad, so if it does not look bad, then maybe they can limit their damages.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2109927].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by dsimms View Post

      BP does not want people knowing how much oil is coming out of the well. BP is putting stuff on the water to make the oil sink so it can not be seen from the air, they also refuse to measure how much oil is coming out so not to let everyone else know...do you see a pattern from BP?

      BP is disorting the actual facts by hiding stuff, so when damages come along, then they can say it isnt so, its not that bad, so if it does not look bad, then maybe they can limit their damages.
      That might work out in the middle of nowhere, but they are SO close to an area some know like the backs of their hands, that they WILL be caught if they try to do that. Anyway, eveyone KNOWS it is bad, and every day makes it worse. And let's not get caught up with BP. Transocean is no saint either!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2110024].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
    Well, I'm not surprised to hear about screwed-up tests, or tests that
    revealed problems and nothing was done about it. Although, if there
    were serious issues discovered two weeks before the blowout, then two
    weeks isn't enough to do anything. I do know that much from having
    worked in maintenance all my life, until just recently, lol. I'm outta the
    maintenance business for good it looks like. But that's my choice.

    This is such a classic example of what I've seen so many times. There's
    a potentially serious condition, but fixing it requires losing money and
    costs a lot to repair. I could give you some juicy examples from the nuc
    industry, but probably shouldn't so I won't.

    I'm curious about the statement that it was sabotage. Nothing would
    surprise me, anymore, absolutely nothing. Hell, I remember reading some
    things that presented a compelling argument about TMI being a sabotage
    op perpetrated by the oil industry. Think it's irrational to even suggest
    that? Well, just one (large) oil company makes 100 M per day. I think that
    offers a good enough reason to do something like that.

    It all stanks.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2110022].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post

      Well, I'm not surprised to hear about screwed-up tests, or tests that
      revealed problems and nothing was done about it. Although, if there
      were serious issues discovered two weeks before the blowout, then two
      weeks isn't enough to do anything. I do know that much from having
      worked in maintenance all my life, until just recently, lol. I'm outta the
      maintenance business for good it looks like. But that's my choice.

      This is such a classic example of what I've seen so many times. There's
      a potentially serious condition, but fixing it requires losing money and
      costs a lot to repair. I could give you some juicy examples from the nuc
      industry, but probably shouldn't so I won't.

      I'm curious about the statement that it was sabotage. Nothing would
      surprise me, anymore, absolutely nothing. Hell, I remember reading some
      things that presented a compelling argument about TMI being a sabotage
      op perpetrated by the oil industry. Think it's irrational to even suggest
      that? Well, just one (large) oil company makes 100 M per day. I think that
      offers a good enough reason to do something like that.

      It all stanks.
      A LOT of the trouble with capping the leak is the pressure, from the well, no means of directing things, and visibility. Those weren't issues until AFTER the leak. 2 weeks THEN is like 2 months or maybe 2 YEARS now! ALSO, if they knew about the failure 2 weeks earlier, WHY did they decide to rely on it working properly? IT is like needing electronic nevigation on a plane, finding out 2 weeks before you leave that there is a problem, and deciding to leave without fixing it. You could die, just because you decided not to fix it.

      Say it took them 10 months to fix it. They could have WAITED to celebrate and seal it, and could have delayed things until it was fixed. They could have GIVEN themselves an extra 10 months! They could have formulated plans, and gotten support, just in case. Heck, MYTH BUSTERS is better prepared! Once it blew, TIME'S UP!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2110055].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        A LOT of the trouble with capping the leak is the pressure, from the well, no means of directing things, and visibility. Those weren't issues until AFTER the leak. 2 weeks THEN is like 2 months or maybe 2 YEARS now! ALSO, if they knew about the failure 2 weeks earlier, WHY did they decide to rely on it working properly? IT is like needing electronic nevigation on a plane, finding out 2 weeks before you leave that there is a problem, and deciding to leave without fixing it. You could die, just because you decided not to fix it.

        Say it took them 10 months to fix it. They could have WAITED to celebrate and seal it, and could have delayed things until it was fixed. They could have GIVEN themselves an extra 10 months! They could have formulated plans, and gotten support, just in case. Heck, MYTH BUSTERS is better prepared! Once it blew, TIME'S UP!

        Steve
        Just from my experience in the nuke plant, I would bet the engineers were still trying to
        figure out the best way to approach this when it blew. There's engineering assessing and
        evaluating, then coming up with a plan. Then the plan has to be approved. For a problem
        like was explained above, approval of a plan would have to come from layers of management
        above engineering.

        Then actually planning the work, getting all the necessary parts in place, and possibly
        needing to manufacture specialty parts, etc. Then getting all the specialists in place to
        do the work, etc. Considering the working conditions... more planning, equipment, etc.

        I've seen jobs, in the nuke plant, that were rehearsed for weeks before the job actually
        happened. The conditions were such that maximum efficiency was needed in addition to
        doing the repair properly. I took part in those several times, and it was weird. We were
        going through it all, and there were engineers and all kinds of management in/out just
        standing there watching us to make sure we knew what we were doing.

        But yes, the issue of visibility. I was thinking about that earlier today. One thing's for
        sure, they can't just let it bleed forever.

        I was also thinking about how it could be fixed, or stopped. Of course it can be done. I
        have no doubts about that. But it's gonna be extremely painful because it will take time
        to implement. Obviously, things are gonna get a lot worse in the mean time.

        They'll have to make something to stop it. Ideally, something that can be put into place
        that will also allow for pressure release so they can get the damn thing on it. Then step
        it down, close the orifice, until it's stopped. Or, provide a permanent means for diversion
        into something that can still capture and use the oil. I mean an alternate piping pathway
        to another platform perhaps.

        They can't force a plug into it, I'm guessing. So the only thing to do is accomplish it with
        incremental pressure relief. Unless of course they come up with something truly creative.

        Another thing I was thinking about was the fact that there seems to have been no
        existing contingency plan for this. I'm sure these people have thought about this possibility,
        but it sounds to me like nothing existed, no contingency plan. There should have been some
        kind of emergency response plan with something already built that could be brought in and
        used.

        One thing about the nuclear industry and the effects of TMI. The nuke industry has gotten
        such a bad rap over the years. But I will tell you that every single possibility (but not for
        every infinitely possible) disaster or an emergency has been covered. It's true. And it's
        impressive because in very many ways the nuke industry has their stuff in one sock. But
        they were forced to do it because of TMI.

        The oil industry has not been forced, to my knowledge, as much as the nuke industry. Also,
        I believe the overall management of nuclear power is much more socially responsible than
        other energy industries.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2110152].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post

          Just from my experience in the nuke plant.
          ...Which explains Ken's "other" left hand.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2110276].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Ken,

          The nuclear industry has been LUCKY! They probably USUALLY have decent redundancy, watchful people, etc... But they DON'T have every single possibility covered. Suppose it got TOO hot, all the backup systems failed, etc... You could, at the very LEAST have a major meltdown and radiation exposure. Want proof? Two names... Chernobyl and three mile island! Some of that might be that people know what COULD happen with the biggest disaster.

          As for Oil, some people make it CLEAR they have NO idea how bad things can be! We had the SAME thing happen HERE, in MA, that happened in that OIL well. If you think about it, it was the SAME thing! OK, it was WATER instead of oil! It may have been a lower pressure. But people went without water for DAYS! STORES had all their water sold at like $4 for a liter, or MORE! Restaurants CLOSED and some had to offer canned drinks instead of draft on mere RUMOR! But it took DAYS to get things restored! And that was when they KNEW where the problem was, had a way to cap it, etc.... OH YEAH, they could also work on it with ALL technology and effort at their disposal.

          Crews race to fix break in Boston's water supply - TODAY Food and wine

          So how much harder is it to work on a well under a mile of water, with a noxious substance, on unstable soil, etc...?

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2110711].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            Ken,

            The nuclear industry has been LUCKY! They probably USUALLY have decent redundancy, watchful people, etc... But they DON'T have every single possibility covered. Suppose it got TOO hot, all the backup systems failed, etc... You could, at the very LEAST have a major meltdown and radiation exposure. Want proof? Two names... Chernobyl and three mile island! Some of that might be that people know what COULD happen with the biggest disaster.
            I'll edit my post as soon as I'm done with this. I really didn't think
            anyone would really think all the infinite possibilities are covered.
            Sorry if I misled you, or anyone else.

            Steve, I don't really need proof. I worked in one for almost 11 years.
            I hope that lends me some credibility in your eyes. But if it doesn't,
            that's ok too. lol.

            Even if all power was lost, there are protection systems in place
            that can accomplish the most important concern, and that's
            keeping the core covered. I know this because I was there.

            If you're trying to make the point that nothing horribly wrong could
            never happen, it's not necessary. Anything made by humans will not
            be perfect, and I was not trying to imply that nor would I ever imply
            that.

            But I will tell you that the odds of another TMI are extremely remote,
            and the events that led to what happened at Chernobyl would never
            happen in the US. I hope it's not necessary to get into details because
            it's really not necessary, in my opinion.

            Also, I strongly disagree with your statement that they've been lucky.
            There's a great deal that luck has nothing to do with. And to say "usually"
            has "decent" redundancy? There is always much more than decent
            redundancy. I know because I worked on it. It's much more than decent.

            I will also say this: Yes, there are groups of failures that impact the same
            systems and cause the same types of failures. And for the 'types' of
            failures that you would never want to have happen, yes Steve - they are
            covered with contingency plans in place.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2111008].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post

              But I will tell you that the odds of another TMI are extremely remote,
              and the events that led to what happened at Chernobyl would never
              happen in the US. I hope it's not necessary to get into details because
              it's really not necessary, in my opinion.
              I wasn't disputing your experience, merely stating what could happen, etc... And YEAH, chernobyl isn't the BEST example. I know the US doesn't allow such reactors, and the US ones are better. STILL, there can be problems, and that is all I am saying.

              Also, I strongly disagree with your statement that they've been lucky.
              There's a great deal that luck has nothing to do with. And to say "usually"
              has "decent" redundancy? There is always much more than decent
              redundancy. I know because I worked on it. It's much more than decent.
              Well, I have just seen too many OTHER redundant systems fail. Didn't that happen at three mile island?

              I will also say this: Yes, there are groups of failures that impact the same
              systems and cause the same types of failures. And for the 'types' of
              failures that you would never want to have happen, yes Steve - they are
              covered with contingency plans in place.
              OK, I have seen all sorts of things go wrong, and all could be part of a nuclear power plant. I will admit that problems seem to be RARE! I WILL admit there is generally a fair amount of time to react. There are often many things that can be done. But still, nothing is perfect and, in such things, if someone says they have EVERYTHING covered, it may be best to RUN!

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2111077].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
    I don't remember what kind of reactor Chernobyl had. But I was only
    referring to what caused it to happen, the root cause. They basically
    were flying by the seat of their pants while running a series of power
    tests. They were inducing power fluctuation tests while restricting
    coolant flow - pretty sure that's what they were doing.

    We all had to sit through a bunch of movies about all that stuff. It was
    interesting, but it was a long time ago. But basically, the operators
    at Chernobyl were extreme dumbasses that day. The fluctuations got
    out of control. Wildly swinging, and the perturbations throughout the
    rest of the plant couldn't keep up. They uncovered the core - end of
    story. I saw the saddest movie about that. I wrote about it in a post
    a long time ago when someone posted pictures of it and was talking
    about it.

    No, nothing is absolute. But nuke plants are much safer than people
    realize. I wouldn't worry about them. Unless you want to.

    Oh... TMI. I'm trying to remember this really excellent movie we saw
    about TMI. Actually, all the redundancies in place now are the result of
    what happened at TMI. There's a great deal engineered into nuke plants
    that basically cover, sorry for that word lol, the types of failures that
    happened at TMI.

    I'm too lazy to google it. If I did I would remember it pretty well because
    that movie was very detailed. What happened at TMI actually had
    several contributing factors behind it. One thing was either a failure, or
    an 'out of service' type of over-pressure device that the control room
    operator didn't know about. Sounds crazy, but things were different
    back then. There were other things. It really was like all the planets
    kind of lined up day. lol. Terrible way to put it. I guess anything's possible,
    but they really do have redundancy for the redundancy for the...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2111117].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dsimms
    Everything on every major system is breaking down. The govt doesnt care because it costs to much to fix everything, so why should BP be any different? Our roads, plants/refinaries, sewer, electric, dams...they are all past their prime...this is why they call it patch and pray...I seriously do not think any of our major systems will last another 50 years...no way in hell...everything is out-of-date, and nobody wants to flip to money either to fix EVERYTHING or REPLACE everything...

    Since greed is the factor, then I would not be surprised if there is another oil rig or two just on the loom of disaster...and would not be surprised if another one sank in the next 5 years or so...I bet you can go into any land refinary, or oil platform and find all sorts of violations... its all about the almightly dollar...

    oh no, another refinary blew in TX...

    why am i not surprised...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2111178].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Actually there is another rig at risk - the Atlantis, also in the Gulf. Warnings were first issued months ago by a whistle blower who told of the cost cutting and risks being taken - nothing has been done.

      Absolute power corrupts absolutely - and greed has destroyed more civilizations than any natural disasters.

      The oil is beginning to show up on shores just west of here and some of the wetlands in Louisiana are contaminated with it now.

      The outcry will get louder when the loop current takes this oil through the keys and up the east coast. It doesn't look like that can be prevented now.

      ...and still BP is running the show and other scientists and engineers are kept out.
      Signature

      Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2111551].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Apparently, BP was earlier held to task for poor maintenance, etc... I wonder if they realize that the SLIGHTEST imperfection or weakness can be used, by the pressure and debris, to RIP a hole in whatever! It is like those bags with a little cut. The bag may be something one couldn't rip with 200lbs of pressure, but the tinniest little cut and a 2year old little girl who is WEAK with hunger could rip through it BY ACCIDENT!

    HECK, that basically happened with my aorta. Withstanding as much as about 200lbs of pressure my whole life(DECADES), and a tiny little cut, and the whole thing rips in SECONDS! There is another little weakness that is threatening to grow. If it bursts, I'M DEAD! WHY? Because all the pressure will be released at once, and my chest would be filled with a pool of blood, JUST like what is happening with that rig, and the gulf!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2112290].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sarahberra
    What?? Wall street fuels the economy and the gov is trying to take over that as well. (Who really is greedy) If the govt continues to spend trillions of dollars that will crash our economy -not wall street executives. Also keep in mind that not everyone with money is greedy etc. There are plenty of really good hard working people with a lot of money and they help out those who are unfortunate and take care of their own families. There are also a lot of really poor people who are ****ty human beings- who steal from welfare, suck the system dry and do drugs. Not everyone on welfare does this, but a person's character is based on their choices and decisions in life. Stop listening to the media and start educating yourself. I am so tired of farmers and small business people being bullied because they want to take care of their families. Yes there are greedy executives, but there are also really greedy poor people who are just too lazy to lift a finger. They think everyone owes them.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2112369].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      What is your point? That poor people are running BP? That the oil spill isn't a prime example of greed outstripping common sense?

      What happened is due to a huge corporation that was supposed to be meeting certain requirements and getting certain permits - and didn't. Instead they were allowed by the very govt agencies supposed to oversee the drilling - to put profit above safety and take risks that should never have been taken.

      The govt has no clue what to do because they've been letting companies like BP do whatever they wanted for years. Now there will be a "commission" to "look into the problem". And no one wants to admit THEY have allowed the oil companies to run the regulations and pay off the regulators.

      Too friggin little - and too damned late.
      Signature

      Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2112444].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dsimms
    BP CEO Tony Hayward said the oil damage will be modest....I wonder
    if he can spell the word I-D-I-O-T!

    really?

    If he was on a shore line, out of work with a fishing pole,
    then I guess he would not be saying that.

    BP has also refused to let others come in and measure
    the flow of oil that is gushing into the gulf.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2113501].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author madison_avenue
    The reason for the somewhat indulgent approach of the government is that both parties Democrat and Republican want to increase drilling for oil. Obama want's to increase drilling; Palin want's to increase drilling, even to include a wildlife reserve in Alaska.

    BP is only doing what the politicians want it to do, albeit willingly and making a good money as they do it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2113825].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
      Originally Posted by madison_avenue View Post

      The reason for the somewhat indulgent approach of the government is that both parties Democrat and Republican want to increase drilling for oil. Obama want's to increase drilling; Palin want's to increase drilling, even to include a wildlife reserve in Alaska.

      BP is only doing what the politicians want it to do, albeit willingly and making a good money as they do it.
      Well yes, of course. If there was no demand for oil, BP would have to sell something else.
      But none of those points are the point.

      All of those goals can be accomplished in a manner that is responsible to not only society
      but to the environment. I believe that's the point, in addition to others.

      But it's a tired song watching the same things happen over and over again.

      Corporate heads pay more heed to stock prices, bonuses, gold-plated toilet handles, and
      whatever else more than they do to anything else. Everything else - the environment,
      safety - only get lip service.

      What those people always fail to get, and I've seen it hundreds of times in my life, is if they
      do things the right way - they will profit more in the long term. It's really incredibly simple.
      But they are always myopic in their approach and perspective on these matters.

      Take care of the damn equipment, do things right - and it will last longer, break less often,
      prevent catastophes just like we're seeing now, and they'll make more money. Think of all the
      profits that are pissing into the water, right now as I write this. Think of all the money that
      will spent on cleaning up. The law suits, bad image (not that they really care about that.),
      etc.

      But, they'll have NO problems passing on the costs of their arrogance, incompetence, and
      stupid mistakes onto US. Right? Right? Yes... that's right.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2113896].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        A new question is being asked here this week.

        When there was a large oil spill in the mideast, the oil company immediately brought in tankers that basically vacuumed the surface oil and water which greatly limited the damage of the spill.

        Not happening here - why not? Because the tankers are more profitable hauling oil than saving the environment? And because in the US, the oil companies call the shots.

        I have reduced my own gasoline consumption by 50% in the past year - even though I still drive an SUV (it suits my lifestyle and needs).

        I know I will never as long as I live buy gas from BP again - I'll walk first.

        kay
        Signature

        Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2116942].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          A new question is being asked here this week.

          When there was a large oil spill in the mideast, the oil company immediately brought in tankers that basically vacuumed the surface oil and water which greatly limited the damage of the spill.

          Not happening here - why not? Because the tankers are more profitable hauling oil than saving the environment? And because in the US, the oil companies call the shots.

          I have reduced my own gasoline consumption by 50% in the past year - even though I still drive an SUV (it suits my lifestyle and needs).

          I know I will never as long as I live buy gas from BP again - I'll walk first.

          kay
          MOST oil eventually gets water in it, so water isn't really meaningful from a refining standpoint. If not for the fact that vacuuming wouldn't really solve anything in the scheme of things, I would wonder the same. An actual SPILL is limited, and they could vacuum it up. The water will separate, they can return it, and end up not only cleaning the spill, but recover the oil. It is win/win. HERE, they use the term spill, but that is really kind of silly. It is a GUSHER! SURE they could vacuum up SOME, but all the rest goes all over, etc.... BP will look like they are merely trying to save the oil, and it may be basically lose/lose.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2117052].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dsimms
    "I know I will never as long as I live buy gas from BP again - I'll walk first."

    BP is not going to care if you walk, there are many others that will not walk

    and if you fall along the roadside, do you think that BP truck is going to
    stop and help you up? hell no, he is going to the next gas station so
    others do not have to walk These big and powerful compaines do not
    care about us, as they have plenty of others that will do business with them.

    and most will get gas out of convinence, they are not going to go 5 miles
    out of the way to a non-bp station if there is a bp station right in front of them.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2117060].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by dsimms View Post

      "I know I will never as long as I live buy gas from BP again - I'll walk first."

      BP is not going to care if you walk, there are many others that will not walk

      and if you fall along the roadside, do you think that BP truck is going to
      stop and help you up? hell no, he is going to the next gas station so
      others do not have to walk These big and powerful compaines do not
      care about us, as they have plenty of others that will do business with them.

      and most will get gas out of convinence, they are not going to go 5 miles
      out of the way to a non-bp station if there is a bp station right in front of them.

      And that is a crying shame.

      Most people won't have to go 5 miles to find another gas station.

      The American public should be in the mood to punish BP.

      I bet a concerted effort would easily & permanently cut their retail gas station sales by 20-50% in weeks.

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2117147].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Well, where I live now, they DO have BP stations. Luckily, most of the closer ones are AMERICAN! I'll buy THERE, at the american companies! I also won't buy any more of their stock, if I can avoid it.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2117466].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
    yawn. lol.

    scary part? the world's full of this stuff that no one knows about. (yet) doh!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2117894].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      So now tar balls are showing up on Key West beaches and they think they may be from a passing ship:confused:
      Plus on the news they quoted a BP exec. as saying the environmental impact would be very, very, mild:confused::confused::confused:
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2117915].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Fox news just reported that one professor upped his estimate to 100,000barrels/day. They said that would mean it is already 4 times as bad as the exxon valdez disaster. Louisiana is seeing symptoms of the disaster. Oil in the marshes, dead animals, and other animals are running inland like there is some approaching storm.

    They don't think this will EVER come back.

    At least some animals have the ability and knowledge, to get away. Hopefully they won't be hurt.

    BP paid florida to run a "tourism campaign"(Read help in a conspiracy to shift bome blame away from BP, at the possible expense of florida and travelers). Again, the news anchor said it MIGHT be clean, for the next 3 days at least.

    ALSO, it looks like this may hit CUBA!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2118380].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2118436].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
    Ok, so far I got this:

    Someone screw up.
    Oil is spilling fast and furious.
    They can't stop it.

    Right?

    OK, here's the bad news: If the guy that screw up can't stop this mess NOW, the oil will reach Atlantic Ocean.

    All marine life DEAD in a matter of weeks (imagine the implications to world ecosystems) , all fishing prohibited (fishing industry dead in a couple weeks), oilly shores all over Europe, Africa and Atlantic Islands (dead tourism)...

    Can you say "we're in deep trouble?"
    Signature
    People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2119770].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    BP PR dude called the spill an...

    "industrial accident"

    On TV today.



    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2121450].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      BP PR dude called the spill an...

      "industrial accident"

      On TV today.



      TL
      YEP, a nuclear explosion at a bomb making plant would ALSO be an industrial accident. OOPS! That doesn't make it ANY better! BP could have removed SO much of the bad press, etc... by telling the TRUTH! The TRUTH is that they are not 100% to blame. They might have like 60% of the blame, maybe less. That is STILL not great, but certainly better than 100%. Alas, they seem to just WANT to look bad. Oh well, it is too late now!

      As for the REST of the blame? One company has ALREADY had plenty of bad press, and the OTHER made such an accident FAR more likely. BP is guilty only of bad planning, poor support, having managerial control over the rig, not INSISTING that the BOP get repaired, and the careless act that made the BOP WORSE! Haliburton, likewise, should have INSISTED that the BOP be FIXED! A problem like they had, has happened almost 20 times(IIRC)! The BOP was what limited the impact.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2121523].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        YEP, a nuclear explosion at a bomb making plant would ALSO be an industrial accident. OOPS! That doesn't make it ANY better! BP could have removed SO much of the bad press, etc... by telling the TRUTH! The TRUTH is that they are not 100% to blame. They might have like 60% of the blame, maybe less. That is STILL not great, but certainly better than 100%. Alas, they seem to just WANT to look bad. Oh well, it is too late now!

        As for the REST of the blame? One company has ALREADY had plenty of bad press, and the OTHER made such an accident FAR more likely. BP is guilty only of bad planning, poor support, having managerial control over the rig, not INSISTING that the BOP get repaired, and the careless act that made the BOP WORSE! Haliburton, likewise, should have INSISTED that the BOP be FIXED! A problem like they had, has happened almost 20 times(IIRC)! The BOP was what limited the impact.

        Steve
        The truth is, if it was their rig that exploded they are 100% to blame.
        It's like one of our better presidents said years ago "The buck stops here".
        Work or equipment provided by other companies may have failed, but in the end it was and is BP's responsibility to over see and sign off on whatever happens on their rig.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2121576].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author dsimms
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          The truth is, if it was their rig that exploded they are 100% to blame.
          It's like one of our better presidents said years ago "The buck stops here".
          Work or equipment provided by other companies may have failed, but in the end it was and is BP's responsibility to over see and sign off on whatever happens on their rig.
          I agree with that 100% - now if they had contacted another
          company to fix the problems, and they failed to fix them,
          then I could see them blaming another party...
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2121586].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by dsimms View Post

            I agree with that 100% - now if they had contacted another
            company to fix the problems, and they failed to fix them,
            then I could see them blaming another party...
            They DID contact another party to fix the problems! TRANSOCEAN! The WHOLE idea of the BOP is to PREVENT and act as a safety to limit and PREVENT the blow out that happened!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2121627].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by dsimms View Post

            I agree with that 100% - now if they had contacted another
            company to fix the problems, and they failed to fix them,
            then I could see them blaming another party...
            Nope still their fault
            I've owned my own landscape business and ran the physical side of a few apartment complexes to name a couple of things. If a problem came up on my watch that required an outside contractor, it was my job to oversee whatever they where doing and be 100% sure the job was done right or it was my head.

            If BP hired or contracted the repairs to another company it is still BP's total responsibility to oversee and approve the work.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2121629].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author dsimms
              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              Nope still their fault
              I've owned my own landscape business and ran the physical side of a few apartment complexes to name a couple of things. If a problem came up on my watch that required an outside contractor, it was my job to oversee whatever they where doing and be 100% sure the job was done right or it was my head.

              If BP hired or contracted the repairs to another company it is still BP's total responsibility to oversee and approve the work.
              only if it was an easy and shut case like that...lets say BP contacted
              a contractor to fix these problems prior to the explosion, and it did not
              get done, some of that liability could go toward the contractor for
              not fixing the repairs, boom, rig sinks...did the contractor not do
              the work, were they aware of the massive problems that resulted
              in the rigs explosion? This is why they are playing the blame game.

              If it was an open and shut case, then the govt would just come out and say BP gets 100% of the blame, this is why they are investigating this on who is going to get blame, of course, I suspect that BP will get most of
              the blame if not all of it, otherwise, they would not be investigating on who is going to get the blame...
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2121681].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                Originally Posted by dsimms View Post

                only if it was an easy and shut case like that...lets say BP contacted
                a contractor to fix these problems prior to the explosion, and it did not
                get done, some of that liability could go toward the contractor for
                not fixing the repairs, boom, rig sinks...did the contractor not do
                the work, were they aware of the massive problems that resulted
                in the rigs explosion? This is why they are playing the blame game.

                If it was an open and shut case, then the govt would just come out and say BP gets 100% of the blame, this is why they are investigating this on who is going to get blame, of course, I suspect that BP will get most of
                the blame if not all of it, otherwise, they would not be investigating on who is going to get the blame...
                Tho some of the problem may be because of contractor work, in the end it still falls on the owner. If the contractors where on schedule then they have no blame at all. If they are behind schedule it still falls on BP to find out why and get back on schedule. If the contractors didn't get something done, BP should of been well aware of it.
                Now I'm not saying BP shouldn't go after any contractors they used that didn't complete their contract in an excepted way. But it still all falls on BP for hiring the contractors and approving any of their work.
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2122029].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          The truth is, if it was their rig that exploded they are 100% to blame.
          It's like one of our better presidents said years ago "The buck stops here".
          Work or equipment provided by other companies may have failed, but in the end it was and is BP's responsibility to over see and sign off on whatever happens on their rig.
          You're RIGHT! I just hope that transocean gets enough blame that THEY ALSO pay! As for haliburton, it looks like they are the LEAST culpable. But you are certainly right! As I said, they are BAD, they should have handled things better, and SHOULD pay! I would just like to see transocean pay ALSO! Not INSTEAD, but in ADDITION TO!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2121619].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Why is nobody reporting that it was BP that was behind the Valdez spill.....is it because the world population would want the heads of the people who allowed them to do it again?

    The Oil is about to hit the current loop. Stock up on tuna - it might be the last ocean fish you ever eat.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2121537].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Why is nobody reporting that it was BP that was behind the Valdez spill.....is it because the world population would want the heads of the people who allowed them to do it again?

      The Oil is about to hit the current loop. Stock up on tuna - it might be the last ocean fish you ever eat.
      The valdez was EXXONS deal! Are you saying BP had something to do with THAT also!?!?!? Things are clouded, because the BP disaster is SO huge, nobody has anything to compare it to. The best they can do is compare it to the valdez. The valdez was almost like water draining from a swimming pool. BAD, but NOTHING compared to the BP gusher that is like a broken water main. Of course, even THAT doesn't describe it adequately.

      How's this? Based on the latest estimates, compared to what I remember the earlier ones being, that ONE gusher puts out enough oil to provide for almost 1% of the oil in the US!

      US 20,680,000 bbl/day (2007 figure)
      HIGH est: 200,000 bbl/day

      BTW Sobering thought. #2 on this list was listed as the #3 consumer, CHINA at 7,578,000 bbl/day!
      Saudi arabia is 10th at 2,311,000 bbl/day!


      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2121639].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dsimms
    If I had known this thread would be popular,
    then I would have offered BP stock at rock bottom prices

    Join the BP business opportunity matrix...
    "We spill the oil, you pay for the cleanup"
    Guarnteed! and you will not get a refund.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2121551].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Yes - Exxon was dealing with BP on that as well.

    There are also scientists who are now saying that this spill, if not stopped very soon will lead to the extermination of large human populations. So what are reporters and politicians going to say? "Sorry we just killed so many of your population by allowing the use of a company that caused a major problem before when we knew damned well a mistake on this one would be catastrophic, but hey - they were cheap and I got large personal assets for hiring them." At this point of time the only thing they CAN do is downplay what is in store because people ARE going to panic when they figure it out and it would be just as well they panic in small groups at this point.

    Another thing I have mentioned before, is that those oil caverns appear to be connected to the Mexican oil source cavities. Yet I have heard absolute squat from anyone about what they are saying about all this - and I'm sure that they aren't silent.

    I just think there is so much more going on than you or I will ever hear.

    A lot of hilarious crap going on. I wonder who's going to suck on the murder charges? Yeah, I know.........what murder charges. When people allowed corporations and their controllers to become as large as they have become, it was tantamount to allowing raptors, gorgons, and Tyrannosauruses to be recreated, over-populate, and over-run the earth. You build unstoppable predators, and sooner or later you get eaten.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2121726].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Yes - Exxon was dealing with BP on that as well.

      There are also scientists who are now saying that this spill, if not stopped very soon will lead to the extermination of large human populations. So what are reporters and politicians going to say? "Sorry we just killed so many of your population by allowing the use of a company that caused a major problem before when we knew damned well a mistake on this one would be catastrophic, but hey - they were cheap and I got large personal assets for hiring them." At this point of time the only thing they CAN do is downplay what is in store because people ARE going to panic when they figure it out and it would be just as well they panic in small groups at this point.

      Another thing I have mentioned before, is that those oil caverns appear to be connected to the Mexican oil source cavities. Yet I have heard absolute squat from anyone about what they are saying about all this - and I'm sure that they aren't silent.

      I just think there is so much more going on than you or I will ever hear.

      A lot of hilarious crap going on. I wonder who's going to suck on the murder charges? Yeah, I know.........what murder charges. When people allowed corporations and their controllers to become as large as they have become, it was tantamount to allowing raptors, gorgons, and Tyrannosauruses to be recreated, over-populate, and over-run the earth. You build unstoppable predators, and sooner or later you get eaten.
      The extinction is NOT far fetched! Like I said, we were on the beginning of stage 3 of perhaps 6. Well, it looks like stage 6 has ALREADY started around louisiana! NOT ONLY is it

      1. affecting the top, which looks ugly, blocks out light, affects water foul, insects, some mammals, some reptiles, amphibians, etc.....

      2. affecting the oxygen level which will end up affecting ALL other water creatures.

      3. affecting the bottom, which will affect scavengers, eggs, some young, etc....

      BUT, it is NOW....

      4. Affecting the coasts which affects many other reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and insects.

      5. Hurting some plants and animals that live in that habitat.

      In louisiana, they are saying that species have ALREADY died out.

      Frankly, if this were to cover the whole ocean, basically all life in the oceans would CEASE! Imagine the migratory creatures! THEY may disappear. And what if the oil just kept gushing? It is unlikely, but what if? And could noxious byproducts invade water supplies?

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2122551].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        The extinction is NOT far fetched! Like I said, we were on the beginning of stage 3 of perhaps 6. Well, it looks like stage 6 has ALREADY started around louisiana! NOT ONLY is it

        1. affecting the top, which looks ugly, blocks out light, affects water foul, insects, some mammals, some reptiles, amphibians, etc.....

        2. affecting the oxygen level which will end up affecting ALL other water creatures.

        3. affecting the bottom, which will affect scavengers, eggs, some young, etc....

        BUT, it is NOW....

        4. Affecting the coasts which affects many other reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and insects.

        5. Hurting some plants and animals that live in that habitat.

        In louisiana, they are saying that species have ALREADY died out.

        Frankly, if this were to cover the whole ocean, basically all life in the oceans would CEASE! Imagine the migratory creatures! THEY may disappear. And what if the oil just kept gushing? It is unlikely, but what if? And could noxious byproducts invade water supplies?

        Steve
        Yes - that's the general scenario, and why they are keeping so muffled, I believe. Unless they stop that flow and do it soon, there's a lot of this planet that is going to be purely FUBAR.

        The climate is getting colder and we have 6.75 bil to feed and are killing off food sources. The chain reaction is going to be devastating - the cold will also mean floods and crop-killing cold snaps. With around 33 countries which have surviving populations purely because of financial aid right now it could get extremely ugly very fast. There will be a lot of immigration/emigration - but where are these populations going to go without hurting their host? Everyone is already stretched beyond carrying capacity already.

        I would like to hear a very non-censored version of this one in "investigation" as if we could trust them to do a completely above-board investigation. A LOT of money is going to change hands on this one....but I wonder if they are bringing the last spill into it? There was quite a rumble over whose fault it was last time. I'm almost certain that one has been sealed and buried but some will remember or know what newspapers or old magazines still have archives.

        In the long run though - if they don't get it plugged and plugged real fast - it's not going to matter one rat's patoot who's fault it was because we'll be too busy dealing with the aftermath to take time to point.

        I don't swallow that there was a lapse in inspection and reporting either - I think this was pure purposeful sabotage by idiots who did not realize exactly how devastating to the whole world this action might be. Even BP knew the size of what they were dealing with this time and already experienced the one spill. I don't think they had anything to do with it - - even money can't bend common sense THAT far.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2123091].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          I don't think they had anything to do with it - - even money can't bend common sense THAT far.
          OH, it is SHOCKING how much destruction has been caused for MONEY! HECK, WWII basically started over it. I could say FAR more, but that would be.....

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2124516].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Well that's true, Steve - a lot of death and destruction goes on for greed. But this still boggles the mind - pm coming. I can't give my points here.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2124776].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      The crude has finally reached Louisiana marshes and is coating everything in sight. Mississippi has been lucky so far as the oil has moved south and we've had only dead turtles, dead dolphins, some distressed birds and a few tar balls. That could change any time and we know it.

      Hurricane season starts on June 1 - the conditions in the water this year are the same as we had in 2005 (katrina). If the oil isn't cleaned up by August when hurricanes are most likely to be in the Gulf - the oil could be carried miles inland.

      The sheen reached the loop current early yesterday and it looks like some of the crude will also catch that current. That takes it to Miami - the keys - and up the east coast.

      YESTERDAY - bp admitted for the first time that the leak is much larger than they've been telling the public. An oceanographer now estimates what has leaked to far is the equivalent of SEVERAL Valdez spills.

      The tube they inserted is siphoning of 5k barrels a day - which is what they were saying was the total leak.....but what is still leaking is many times 5k a day. The actual leak is now being estimated as high as 100k barrels a day. BP will not allow scientists in to measure it.

      Next try is to use the junk shot, then mud, then heavy cement to try to close the leak. This could turn the leak into a gusher if the pipe damaged by the sinking platform (which did not disengage as it should have) cannot carry the load of mud.

      NOAA should be leading this along with the EPA. Until yesterday, the EPA has bowed to BP and allowed them to use chemical dispersants that are known to be highly toxic. There are tons of less toxic dispersants sitting in Texas unused - they were ordered by BP initially after the spill and not used.

      In several countries of the world (japan, for example) there are mini-subs designed to do repair work at one mile depths. The US doesn't have such subs because we wouldn't spend the money to develop them.

      Oceanographers and scientists who might be able to find some solution are not being allowed in the area - the coast guard seems to be limited to being a liaison with the states for the most part.

      BP promised 25 mill to LA, MS and AL to help them fight the encroaching oil but has not paid those amounts.

      YESTERDAY, D.C. finally issued a demand for information. Only been a month or so - glad someone noticed this is a crisis, not a regional problem.
      WHY did the govt take notice? Because of the 60 minutes interview that aired Sunday. The secrets came out - finally.

      The truth is, if it was their rig that exploded they are 100% to blame.
      BP ignored the advice of TransOcean when changing from exploratory well to producing well. They wanted to get the oil flowing faster - they ignored damaged that occurred to the fittings near the ocean floor (human error caused damaged to the sleeve 2 weeks before - not repaired).

      BP was told by transocean that all three of the cement "sleeves" needed to be installed completely before removed the drilling mud. BP was in a hurry and argued with TO and took charge - pumping out the drilling mud after only two of the sleeves were installed. They were told it was dangerous - they went ahead because they had a group of bigwigs on the platform for a celebration of the drilling success and their "safety" record.

      BP took over and did the changeover their way - ignoring TO's advice - and it blew up. The problem isn't only the one mile depth - but the fact that this was the deepest well drilled below the ocean floor. They don't know how much is there or what that oil field is connected to - or what the pressure is if the rest of the pipe gives way. This is a frightening scenario and the damage will be catastrophic no matter where the majority of the oil goes.

      Bobby Jindal in Louisiana is ticked off - and not shy about saying so.
      Signature

      Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2124889].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Russia has used nukes in cases like this and have had extreme success with them. They also move fast so when accidents happen they are stopped almost immediately. The fact that scientists weren't allowed in there just reeks of something else going on than just BP. The catastrophe wasn't contained to their own area and there was no damned way that they should have had any say in keeping anyone out that needed to be there to measure or repair that was sent in.

    As far as the amount of the leak -- it's been discussed by scientists already, but MSM didn't and gov officials lied their faces off so people think nobody knew. They knew. It was just kept quiet as possible. Once those plumes hit the loop it became a waste of time to try to cover it up any more.

    My question is why after a whole month this isn't fixed when Russia is able to fix their accidents over-night?
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2125007].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Russia has used nukes in cases like this and have had extreme success with them. They also move fast so when accidents happen they are stopped almost immediately. ...

      My question is why after a whole month this isn't fixed when Russia is able to fix their accidents over-night?
      You are actually advocating using NUKES!?!?!? YIKES! If this were another country, and the spill were bigger, and the bomb more reliable, MAYBE, but wouldn't the US get upset and consider it an ACT OF WAR!?!?? To use it on your OWN land, is INSANE!

      Russia historically hasn't been that careful OR honest, and they certainly haven't taken care of things quickly.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2125363].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Someone told me that Russia used nukes to stop oil leaks. From what I have heard they haven't done this since the 60s. Not sure, but using nukes to stop an oil leak seems pretty risky for several reasons.

      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Russia has used nukes in cases like this and have had extreme success with them. They also move fast so when accidents happen they are stopped almost immediately. The fact that scientists weren't allowed in there just reeks of something else going on than just BP. The catastrophe wasn't contained to their own area and there was no damned way that they should have had any say in keeping anyone out that needed to be there to measure or repair that was sent in.

      As far as the amount of the leak -- it's been discussed by scientists already, but MSM didn't and gov officials lied their faces off so people think nobody knew. They knew. It was just kept quiet as possible. Once those plumes hit the loop it became a waste of time to try to cover it up any more.

      My question is why after a whole month this isn't fixed when Russia is able to fix their accidents over-night?
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2125376].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Lawrh
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Someone told me that Russia used nukes to stop oil leaks. From what I have heard they haven't done this since the 60s. Not sure, but using nukes to stop an oil leak seems pretty risky for several reasons.
        The Soviets used nukes for a lot of things in the 50s and 60s. Even blasting out salt mines. The result is that many areas of the former Soviet Union are so badly irradiated that no human can live anywhere near. The Politburo demonstrated that no matter what the ideology, politicians can be profoundly stupid.
        Signature

        “Strategy without action is a day-dream; action without strategy is a nightmare.” – Old Japanese proverb -

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2125435].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Lawrh View Post

          The Soviets used nukes for a lot of things in the 50s and 60s. Even blasting out salt mines. The result is that many areas of the former Soviet Union are so badly irradiated that no human can live anywhere near. The Politburo demonstrated that no matter what the ideology, politicians can be profoundly stupid.
          It is IRONIC that the US iodizes salt, presumably to help provide iodine and help the thyroid. MEANWHILE, according to lawrh, russia uses nukes to mine salt that, so iradiated, has the OPPOSITE effect!!!!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2125458].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Lawrh
            The salt mines that got blasted were for the creation of toxic waste dumps, not mining.

            I got my dates wrong in my last post. The Soviet program went from 1965 to 1989. There were 115 blasts. Here's a link that describes the program and lists the blasts.


            Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
            Signature

            “Strategy without action is a day-dream; action without strategy is a nightmare.” – Old Japanese proverb -

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2125509].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author myob
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        ... Not sure, but using nukes to stop an oil leak seems pretty risky for several reasons.
        If nukes don't work in stopping the leak, we'll at least have lots of free fish floating in the Gulf. Ready to eat freshly nuked: dolphins, black sea bass, flounder, mackeral, snapper, barracuda, and other surprises. Maybe even some sea turtles and fried in the sky poultry. Yum!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132319].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          Using nukes - or any bombs is nuts to me. The effect could opening the entire oil field. The oil is under extreme pressure - a bomb could easily open a hole to allow more oil to escape. Don't even mention the radioactivity....

          The "hair" idea has also been debunked - because it doesn't work.

          Junk shot and mud is next. If that doesn't work the leak may continue for two more months (at least) until the other emergency wells are drilled. At least that's what BP is saying here at the moment.

          kay
          Signature

          Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132341].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            Using nukes - or any bombs is nuts to me. The effect could opening the entire oil field. The oil is under extreme pressure - a bomb could easily open a hole to allow more oil to escape. Don't even mention the radioactivity....

            The "hair" idea has also been debunked - because it doesn't work.

            Junk shot and mud is next. If that doesn't work the leak may continue for two more months (at least) until the other emergency wells are drilled. At least that's what BP is saying here at the moment.

            kay

            I agree it's scary...It's almost like they're trying to make 2012 come true by starting a chain of events now.

            If they do try a bomb, I'm guessing they'll also consider the MOAB which is the most powerful, non-nuclear bomb...This is one of those thing were they better be 110% sure before they go experimenting with nukes.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132369].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author myob
              Try this experiment: Stop a garden sprinkler leak by tossing a hand grenade on it. The physics principle still applies at 5,000 feet under water with oil pressure at 15,000psi.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132449].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            The "hair" idea has also been debunked - because it doesn't work.
            This won't STOP the leak but....stand back and let a couple of good 'ol boys show the geniuses how to clean up their mess....

            Signature
            Professional Googler
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132470].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by Dave Patterson View Post

              This won't STOP the leak but....stand back and let a couple of good 'ol boys show the geniuses how to clean up their mess....

              YouTube - CWRoberts Presentation 2.wmv
              Burning for energy sounds GREAT, until you realize this is CRUDE oil! It has a LOT of contaminants, and burning it could be almost as bad as burning TIRES! and if we are going to have a skimmer, why not do it NOW!?!?!?

              ALSO, crude oil has a lot of noxious stuff hay won't pick up. They are using purer oil.

              It's times like this I wish I had a ship. You could have 2 pumps. have one connected to a small sealed container with just THREE entry points, ONE would be close to the bottom, and go to the pump that would have an outlet into the air above the ocean. A second would be in the ocean starting JUST BELOW the oil, and go to a point near the top of the sealed container. The third would be on the bottom of that sealed container and have a line going to just above where the outlet is. That could go to a much larger container. A switch could be driven by the conductivity of the water to turn the outlet, to the ocean, pump off, and the one from the ocean on. once the water has dropped below the outlet, to the larger tank.

              Would it plug the leak? NOPE! But what it COULD do is get a LOT of the oil. Nearly all of the liquid going to the large tank would be oil, and all of the liquid going back to the ocean would be anything but. IMAGINE! If you could collect even 1000 gallons in a day, you could maybe finance a fleet of such boats to go out and clean up 10s of thousands of gallons a day, and Maybe use some of the money to lobby to shut the stupid thing down.

              I figure if we are going to give ideas as to cleanup, and speak of skimmers, etc... I might as well put a simple idea out that will work. It is SIMPLE! Water constantly comes in, contaminated with oil. Oil floats to the top. EVENTUALLY, it goes above the outlet and the oil drops down to the tanker area. JUST before water is about to go through that pipe, the input stops, and the output pump pumps it out. It falls to a certain point, the output stops, and the input pump turns on, and the whole cycle repeats. It will basically act like a cross between a vacum cleaner and a skimmer.

              As for plugging up the hole, I don't even want to replace the lights on my living room, and stairway ceiling. They are over 12 feet in the air, etc... I certainly don't want to go in space, etc... I would be fine in a sub, but in the murky darkness, trying to manuver like that, etc? NO THANKS!

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132638].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Tim - Nukes have worked for their leaks - 5 or 6 times. Of course, we aren't talking about Mushroom clouds over the country - smaller ones on the range of dynamite. I'm sure there are some risks.....but at the rate that stuff is being pumped into the water, and considering the size of the caverns, if they can't get their butts in gear and get something to work real fast, I'm thinking that nukes would be a very much lesser of two evils. I'm trying to find some stats now and afraid when I find them I'm going to need a clear runway to the porcelain. This is making me sick fast.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2130711].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Lawrh
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Tim - Nukes have worked for their leaks - 5 or 6 times.
      Sal, they used nukes 5 times to seal leaks. None of the leaks were oil, they were high pressure natural gas leaks. As per the link in my last post the average non military blast was 12.5 kilotons. To put out a gas well that had been blowing out for three years they used a 30 kiloton bomb, for another high pressure blow out they used a 47 kiloton bomb.

      30 kiloton and 47 kiloton. Hiroshima was 13 kilotons and Nagasaki was 21. We are talking big booms. Yes, mushroom clouds.

      The concept of using nukes is compelling as a last resort, but there has been no previous use of bombs smaller than Hiroshima for sealing gas wells and no use ever for sealing oil wells.
      Signature

      “Strategy without action is a day-dream; action without strategy is a nightmare.” – Old Japanese proverb -

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2130783].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Interesting Lawrence - I didn't go into the research that far - just knew that underwater nukes had worked and that Russia has suggested it for this one. I pretty much trust their scientists actually. I'm thinking that at the pressure of a mile of water that size of a blast would be greatly muffled, but not sure about the radiation effects. Over here there are so many species becoming deformed from the DDT and other estrogenics in so many sunscreens (even our kids are becoming gender confused from it) that nobody will even notice the effects of the Nukes, LMAO....oh crap...that's not funny.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132123].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Interesting Lawrence - I didn't go into the research that far - just knew that underwater nukes had worked and that Russia has suggested it for this one. I pretty much trust their scientists actually. I'm thinking that at the pressure of a mile of water that size of a blast would be greatly muffled, but not sure about the radiation effects. Over here there are so many species becoming deformed from the DDT and other estrogenics in so many sunscreens (even our kids are becoming gender confused from it) that nobody will even notice the effects of the Nukes, LMAO....oh crap...that's not funny.
      Well, Hiroshima's and nagasaki'ss blooms were PLANNED and ENHANCED at the last minute for effect. It made it clear what happened, put up a large display, and made them more destructive. It was done by blowing them up BEFORE they hit the ground. SO, of course, ones closer won't be QUITE so dramatic. ALSO, Water WILL muffle radiation. In iradiation chambers, the radioactive substance is lowered into water while food and all are put in the chamber. When it is sealed, the substance is raised. STILL, a nuclear explosion would cause a HUGE concussion that could KILL fish, iradiate fish, etc... and EVEN cause a tsunami! It would be hard to predict the range of the effects.

      As for gender confusion, there ARE testosterone supplements and prohormones that make women seem more masculine and men seem more feminine(Endogenous production of testosterone can shut down, and excess testosterone may become estrogen)! Still, MOST women try to stay away from that, and MOST men that might use them know they can cause problems, and may take measures to reduce the effects. OBVIOUSLY, Arnold had a doctors advice, and probably limited exposure. He later had kids which MANY that took testosterone and had such success, at the time, couldn't do. As shown on house, some topical applications are just STUPID, for the SAME reason!

      NOW, they even have LH stimulators that can trigger puberty earlier. YOUNG kids taking these may end up being shorter, and the only other real affect on girls will be that they may be more likely to become pregnant. Outside of female fertility, they are used to create more endogenous testosterone and fertility in males.

      As for estrogen, it is ALL OVER! And male fertility has been dropping QUICKLY! ALSO, apparently the Y chromosome is now mutating! According to some articles I have read, the last generation of humans, if we live that long, may be only female, and maybe some sterile males.

      And then there are drugs, like propecia, that interfere with fetuses becoming healthy males!
      THEY may end up looking in every way female, and probably WILL end up effectively being lesbians. So you might have real gender confusion THERE. I don't know of anything that could have the same effect on seemingly full males though.

      SOME people apparently DO, so the story goes, have testosterone resistance. In most cases, this COULD probably be explained by the anti-5 alpha reductase.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132284].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    BTW If I were a RUSSIAN, on RUSSIAN SOIL, I wouldn't trust their judgement. They are where we were in like the 1800s! THAT is why the U.S. created the FDA, etc.... People even sold radium contaminated liquids as TONICS! I saw some documentaries about the stuff that was sold then, and the outcomes. It was NOT pretty. Russia is careless about such things in the SAME way.

    I trust them EVEN LESS HERE because, if we don't fix this, this leak could affect THEM! If we blow up a atomic bomb here, they may NEVER NOTICE! ALSO, the bomb COULD hurt our cost, economy, etc.... People may move away from the blast because of even FEAR of irradiation. The SAME thing happened in RUSSIA also! So it would be seen as a WIN/WIN for THEM! Their government AND country would win.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132317].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Though MYOBs statement is crazy(The idea behind the bomb in the ocean I would think is that the walls could collapse, and cause debris in the well that could slow or stop the gusher, so it isn't quite like that garden hose sprinkler.), that is the way the "myth busters" think. Like Kurt said, they better be DARN sure before they try something so drastic! As bad as this gusher(that MOST have called juust a LEAK) is, even the gusher some here FEAR is not NEARLY as bad as it could get. Not NEARLY! Let's say some jerk decides to blast an atom bomb(or maybe even a CONVENTIONAL one) some distance below the ground. It COULD conceivably cause a much LARGER gusher which could pale in comparison to a larger volcano also caused, cause a huge splash that could rival katrina AND a tsunami. WHO KNOWS? This is an AWFULLY deep well.

    Back to the myth busters. Today I saw one where they used fertilizer, black powder, and gun cotton to make explosive trousers, and didn't even get smoke. well, they used fertilizer in the OK bomb, black powder can smoke, and potentially explode, and the "myth busters" THEMSELVES earlier used gun cotton that was near explosive. Yet they "debunked" such "myths"!

    And I knew as a little kid that low power hydrolysis of water couldn't create oxygen or hydrogen economically enough to be of much use. Yet the "myth busters" used "PLANS"(though they later referred to online patents!) to create a gas replacement. Not surprisingly, it FAILED! What surprised ME was that they used aa hydrogen tank OUT IN THE OPEN to prove it might have been possible. They seemed surprised on their second successful attempt when they got a fire. They weer LUCKY! If jamie were in front, and the car was a bit older, the fire could have spread to the battery, caused an explosion, and he could have gotten burned by sulfuric acid! But "Don't try this at home, [they're] what you call experts."! YEAH RIGHT!

    If they want to debunk a myth, maybe they can expose companies, like NTP that file FALSE patents "patenting" obvious things hoping that ONE DAY some company, like RIMS, may actually figure out how to apply such technology, so they can sue them!

    RIM, NTP and Patent Madness - Mobile and Wireless from eWeek

    THAT was what their "PLANS" were! I knew about this about 40 years ago! HOW!?!?!? It was in a little science book I had! The holders of that "patent" probably aren't nearly as old as I am. It is basically PUBLIC DOMAIN! That patent shouldn't have been allowed to be filed, but they hope that ONE DAY someone will find water with a weaker bond, or better electrodes, or a higher power source that still can't be used to power moters, etc... and THEN they use that "patent" to SUE!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132536].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    What I don't understand is that this should REALLY only be good for those coming in say the next week! Those coming a week later should KNOW that there is NO way such a claim can be made. Those comiing an appreciable distance LATER must plan far in advance, and telling me it is pristine NOW doesn't help me in making arrangements 3+ weeks out.

    Frankly, any thinking person expecting to be there by Thursday or later should treat that like a claim that it won't rain in the next month, ESPECIALLY given the fact that they want to try a major attempt on tuesday! Usatoday is STILL saying there is a threat!

    Despite previous spills, oil cleanup research falls short - USATODAY.com

    The coastguard ACTUALLY said it would take "an act of God" to avoid it!

    Florida Braces for Oil Spill, Impact on Tourism Industry - Yahoo! News

    Floridians breathed a sigh of relief on Wednesday when the Coast Guard confirmed that the dozens of tar balls found washed up near Key West this week were not from the massive BP oil spill out in the Gulf of Mexico. But it was the briefest of respites. Almost simultaneously, the Coast Guard said tendrils of the BP spill had entered the Gulf's Loop Current, which could carry it not only toward Florida's west coast but down to the Florida Keys, and perhaps on to Miami's beaches, beginning as early as next week. Said Coast Guard Rear Admiral Paul Zukunft: "It would take an act of God" to avoid that scenario.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133292].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author johnsongt
    Im pretty sure if you want to make money or as you said "Save a Buck" it would not involve the product you are selling getting wasted day after day and to add insault to injury they have to pay for removing, dispersing, and clean up of thier sole product. Im not in favor of them but it is quite clear NO ONE wanted this to happen Cheers..
    Ps dont flame me just my view.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133318].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by johnsongt View Post

      Im pretty sure if you want to make money or as you said "Save a Buck" it would not involve the product you are selling getting wasted day after day and to add insault to injury they have to pay for removing, dispersing, and clean up of thier sole product. Im not in favor of them but it is quite clear NO ONE wanted this to happen Cheers..
      Ps dont flame me just my view.
      Well, dispersing it may be doing NOBODY a favor, and HAS led to BAD PR against them!

      Nobody is saying they WANTED this, only that they were VERY careless! They are too isolated also. FRANKLY, if someone wants to do that, it should be a US company, as they will have MORE interest in taking care of it. We have a british and swiss company managing it, and they just don't seem to care.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133387].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Should be an interesting week - EPA ordered BP to stop using the highly toxic dispersant they are using - and BP has now refused to stop.

        All of our brown pelicans in Louisiana and MS are in their breeding grounds this month - they disappear to the marshes along the coast every year at this time.

        Hundreds of them are now threatened with oil and wildlife groups are trying to capture and clean them quickly to save as many as possible. Many have been found floating dead in the water inside the berms. 50 miles of coast in Louisiana is coated with heavy crude and oil mixed with toxic dispersant. The oil has gone 12 miles into the marshes so far.

        Meanwhile Jindal in LA wanted to build berms by dredging sand to protect the wetlands - and the EPA tells him it will need to "study the impact of berms on the environment". To his credit, Jindal has now basically said "screw that" and is proceeding without their permission.

        This is the same EPA that allowed the oil companies to do their own "environmental impact" studies on the consequences of deep drilling in the Gulf.

        Of course BP didn't want this to happen - but they knew it could happen and just "hoped" it wouldn't. The same is true of the EPA and the ineffective marine services agency that gave all of these wells "exemptions" from forms, inspections and rules.

        This is no way a conspiracy - it's a total failure of systems and agencies charged with protecting the people and the natural resources of this country.

        They all keep saying "we don't want this to happen again". It shouldn't be happening now. Some heads need to roll on this one - but I doubt that will happen.
        Signature

        Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133538].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Should be an interesting week - EPA ordered BP to stop using the highly toxic dispersant they are using - and BP has now refused to stop.
          Thought they could MAYBE be considered international waters, it is an INTERnational resource, and affecting the US. They REFUSED to stop!?!?!? Why doesn't the US just go out and say they are violating the international resource, US soil, and US sovereignty, and they STOP or else get a free stay IN PRISON!!!!!! That is ridiculous!

          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          All of our brown pelicans in Louisiana and MS are in their breeding grounds this month - they disappear to the marshes along the coast every year at this time.

          Hundreds of them are now threatened with oil and wildlife groups are trying to capture and clean them quickly to save as many as possible. Many have been found floating dead in the water inside the berms. 50 miles of coast in Louisiana is coated with heavy crude and oil mixed with toxic dispersant. The oil has gone 12 miles into the marshes so far.
          Ironically, it is the one time in the year they should probably be left alone. Talk about rotten luck.

          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Meanwhile Jindal in LA wanted to build berms by dredging sand to protect the wetlands - and the EPA tells him it will need to "study the impact of berms on the environment". To his credit, Jindal has now basically said "screw that" and is proceeding without their permission.
          Yeah, I just heard about that on fox. They're lauding it. 8-) What IDIOT would ask for an environment study on such a thing? If you have a firedoor, and there is a fire on the other side, that is NOT the time to decide to leave the door open because a screw is loose or something isn't 100% up to code. CLOSE THE DOOR! Maybe barracade it better. Take stuff you need, get out, and try to put the fire OUT! They have ASKED BP to put the fire out, and THEY DON'T CARE!, and some idiot is saying jindal shouldn't even close the door!!!!!!

          And is ANYONE really even trying to PLAN on the weekends?

          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          They all keep saying "we don't want this to happen again". It shouldn't be happening now. Some heads need to roll on this one - but I doubt that will happen.
          Yeah, they single handedly probably stopped the entire industry.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2134439].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
      Originally Posted by johnsongt View Post

      Ps dont flame me just my view.
      lol... John, no one would ever do that, here. I promise!

      Welcome to F Troop.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133682].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
    On the subject of exploding nukes to stop it. Some of you have made
    some very good points about it.

    There are two extreme dangers with this scenario. First, the unknown
    and the possibility of making it worse. Secondly, the similar concerns
    for atmospheric testing that led to it being banned way back when.

    All of that radiation will be carried who knows where around the world.
    Much of it will be ingested by things people will eat. Who knows the
    impact on generations of marine life.

    To me, it's about the dumbest thing that could be done. But what
    concerns me is it may be a choice of the lesser of two evils, both of
    which are terrible.

    If nothing is done to BP by our government, I don't know what it will
    take to make people wake up and get pissed off. I'm talking about the
    majority of people.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133702].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      To BP - yes - but should also be something done to the agencies that allowed this and bowed to lobby pressures (and money). If you have a govt agency that didn't do it's job - I think that agency should be closed down and replaced with new minds that don't owe the oil companies.
      Signature

      Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133731].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        To BP - yes - but should also be something done to the agencies that allowed this and bowed to lobby pressures (and money). If you have a govt agency that didn't do it's job - I think that agency should be closed down and replaced with new minds that don't owe the oil companies.
        Kay I'm in total agreement with you. But I hate to say or suggest that will probably
        never happen. I'm referring to your comment about US agencies, etc.

        (why are you stealthy?)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133743].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author NicheCowboy
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        To BP - yes - but should also be something done to the agencies that allowed this and bowed to lobby pressures (and money). If you have a govt agency that didn't do it's job - I think that agency should be closed down and replaced with new minds that don't owe the oil companies.
        oh absolutely...the criminal negligence doesn't just stop with BP. There are those in the interior department who deserve jail cells right next to their BP counterparts.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2134756].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    I could say a lot here, but I won't... 8-(
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2135150].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    I seriously think that we are not getting the full story - NOTHING adds up - I suspect sabotage and I think we will never hear of it no matter what. It doesn't add up for me that a company that was almost nailed for the Valdez spill would know how much larger this one is and completely ignore the safety hazards. They stood to lose to much and knew there was no cover (Exxon) to save their hides this time. It's just not making sense. I am having a very hard time with this - they KNEW if something went wrong it would probably be the end of their company. Sorry - I don't buy the "they were careless" crap - there was too much at stake this time. Also - we still have yet to hear how Mexico was feeling about us drilling into caverns that would have very likely tapped into THEIR oil supply. Several years back there were discussions about that - so what the hell happened? Everything between those discussions and the leak is blacked out.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2135814].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      I seriously think that we are not getting the full story - NOTHING adds up - I suspect sabotage and I think we will never hear of it no matter what. It doesn't add up for me that a company that was almost nailed for the Valdez spill would know how much larger this one is and completely ignore the safety hazards. They stood to lose to much and knew there was no cover (Exxon) to save their hides this time. It's just not making sense. I am having a very hard time with this - they KNEW if something went wrong it would probably be the end of their company. Sorry - I don't buy the "they were careless" crap - there was too much at stake this time. Also - we still have yet to hear how Mexico was feeling about us drilling into caverns that would have very likely tapped into THEIR oil supply. Several years back there were discussions about that - so what the hell happened? Everything between those discussions and the leak is blacked out.
      Who was IYHO responsible for the sabotage and what do they gain??


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2135826].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author myob
        Apparently the crew who were responsible to shut off the emergency valve, or "blow out preventer" were killed in the initial blast. A back up "dead man switch" that should have automatically shut down the well failed to activate. What they are probably trying to hide is the fact that they should have also had remote control systems such as the acoustic switch, which they fought against having installed.

        Leaking Oil Well Lacked Safeguard Device - WSJ.com
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2135916].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by myob View Post

          Apparently the crew who were responsible to shut off the emergency valve, or "blow out preventer" were killed in the initial blast. A back up "dead man switch" that should have automatically shut down the well failed to activate. What they are probably trying to hide is the fact that they should have also had remote control systems such as the acoustic switch, which they fought against having installed.

          Leaking Oil Well Lacked Safeguard Device - WSJ.com
          Well, the seal and an actuator were ALSO broken, so a remote may not have helped AT ALL! HECK, if a remote control would have helped, why can't they simply trigger the closure via robot? The idea, up to now, is that there is NOTHING left to trigger! So TWO actuators, that may have to act in tandem, and one is DAMAGED! And a seal, that MAY be necessary, is DAMAGED! But you are saying a simple switch, that must work THROUGH the actuators, might have been able to shut down the well!?!?

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2135925].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author myob
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            But you are saying a simple switch, that must work THROUGH the actuators, might have been able to shut down the well!?!?

            Steve
            A $500,000 remote acoustic backup mechanism is not a "simple switch", but an expense BP lobbied successfully against for years until 2003, when U.S. regulators decided remote-controlled safeguards needed more study. A report commissioned by the Minerals Management Service said "acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly." Hmmmm .....
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2135974].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by myob View Post

              A $500,000 remote acoustic backup mechanism is not a "simple switch", but an expense BP lobbied successfully against for years until 2003, when U.S. regulators decided remote-controlled safeguards needed more study. A report commissioned by the Minerals Management Service said "acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly." Hmmmm .....
              Sorry, EVERY mention of it EVERYWHERE! ****EVERYWHERE**** I have seen describes it as what its name describes! A remote control device operating on accoustic controls. A way to ACTIVATE the device when the electrical cables break, and the deadman switch fails somehow. In other words, a SWITCH! OTHERWISE, you are talking about a BOP for the BOP! As for the cost? Well, it DOES need to withstand pressure, and operate on unusual patterns that are unlikely to occur in nature but quick and easy to transmit. And there IS a limited market, risk, etc... WHO KNOWS? Sometimes things just cost a LOT, especially today.

              I could even throw your own article back at you: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...417936798.html LOOK at the illustration, the caption, how it describes the remote, how it describes what the unit ON the BOP does in response. It even says "TRIGGERS the device". OK, it is a COMPLICATED switch. I understand WHY it can be hard to fashion the signal, and why accoustic is probably best, but it is described as a TRIGGER!(aka SWITCH). HECK, they might want to make the switches expensive so others are less likely to fiddle with the signals, etc...

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136430].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author myob
                LOL! It's all an Illuminati conspiracy. "What better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig?" Sez Limbaugh. It all makes sense to me.

                The spill was an inside job and shown in the predictive programming with lluminati symbolism in the movie "Knowing". There is something about the number eleven too. 11.. Remember the entire World Trade Center event on 9/11 was underlined with the occultic number 11. 11 people were killed also in the Gulf oil rig explosion.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136815].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author The 13th Warrior
                  Originally Posted by myob View Post


                  LOL! It's all an Illuminati conspiracy. "What better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig?" Sez Limbaugh. It all makes sense to me.

                  The spill was an inside job and shown in the predictive programming with lluminati symbolism in the movie "Knowing". There is something about the number eleven too. 11.. Remember the entire World Trade Center event on 9/11 was underlined with the occultic number 11. 11 people were killed also in the Gulf oil rig explosion.
                  YouTube - 'Knowing' Movie Knew About Oil Rig Explosion



                  Ok..., yeah..., I think its time to upwrap the aluminum foil hat , turn off the Fox-fixed channel shortwave radio and come out of the 1941 built bomb shelter.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136873].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                    Sal -

                    It does add up. Like many man made problems that could have been prevented this catastrophe was not one thing but a series of errors in judgement, cronyism, and failure to STOP when a problem was identified.

                    The stop switch is required to drill in several other countries and BP uses them there. It was proposed in 2003 by the marine resource management and then abandoned due to guarantees of safety and claims of "costs too much" by the oil companies. It's not as simple as saying Transocean built it - because the building is done to the oil company's specs.

                    Several weeks before the explosion BP KNEW that a PERSON had thrown a switch at the wrong time and that the sleeve (which is very heavy rubbery type material) in the value had been damaged.

                    They knew this because pieces of that sleeve came up the pipe. That should have been a "shut down" right then to repair the damaged part - but they didn't do it.

                    They KNEW they had a low battery - and ignored it. They KNEW it was risky to remove the drilling fluid until the three cement collars had been fully installed and set - but they removed the fluid allowing the oil to rise in the pipe after only two collars had been set.

                    Half of the spills in the gulf have been caused by poor cement in the pipes. It's a difficult process that requires a heavy mix and then chemicals to cure it quickly. It's not an exact science and there are three companies that do this work - and all three have had failures. When you have a known risk - you don't minimize it in order to move faster for more profit....and those decisions should be tightly regulated and require approvals from those in charge who will take responsibility for making the decision.

                    The only conspiracy is one of stupidity and greed. BP should not have had the authority to decide not to shut down and fix a damaged part - should not have had the authority to decide to ignore Transocean warnings about removing the drilling mud early.

                    The relationship of big oil with politicians is one huge problem. The failure of legislators to oversee requirements and add to them without approval from big oil is a huge problem. Agencies should not have the authority to give blanket exemptions from the requirements - but that's been done consistently. Even now, while the govt is not granting exemptions for new wells (at the moment) - they are not requiring re-inspections of deep wells now in the gulf or adding any safety standards. All of these wells were granted exemptions - but we didn't know that, did we?

                    Every decision on something that can affect the country in such a big way or potentially devastate our wildlife areas should be made with the "worst that can happen" scenario clearly outlined by the company doing the work...and a list of TESTED remedies should that worst happen.

                    Truth is - more booms and skimmers are needed on the Louisiana coast right now - and they can't get them. Landrieu is making promises of massive payouts by BP - but no one knows where she got that info as so far they are running behind paying the local boat owners working for them.

                    kay
                    Signature

                    Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136934].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by The 13th Warrior View Post

                    Ok..., yeah..., I think its time to upwrap the aluminum foil hat , turn off the Fox-fixed channel shortwave radio and come out of the 1941 built bomb shelter.
                    I don't think fox is on shortwave. And they don't talk about THIS kind of conspiracy. STILL. the idea of "no good disaster goes to waste" certainly makes sense. During the OK bombing, people used it to advocate against gun ownership. He didn't use a gun!!!!!!

                    How's THAT for crazy "reasoning"!?!?

                    I'm surprised they aren't really flaunting THIS again oil drilling. Maybe they finally realize that those that might listen ALREADY know. Frankly, I have ALWAYS been against oil. If they never found a use for gas, maybe they would have moved to steam or electric. The world wouldn't have moved as fast, there would probably be fewer people, the arabs would still be nomads, 9/11 wouldn't have happened, etc.... HECK, that jerk that started SO probably would have gone BANKRUPT, because the use for kerosene dropped so fast, etc....

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136936].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                  Originally Posted by myob View Post

                  LOL! It's all an Illuminati conspiracy. "What better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig?" Sez Limbaugh. It all makes sense to me.
                  If Limbaugh had even half a brain he'd realize he just came up with another reason not to drill or use nuke power: Sabotage.

                  It's one thing to try to make things "mistake proof", but we also need to make them "on purpose proof". Good luck with that Rush!
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136948].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author myob
                    Any conspiracy theory put out by Rush Limbaugh and others has been put to rest by BP's Prez Lamar McKay. The probable cause is less sinister and more mundane; "I believe we’ve got a failed piece of equipment." :rolleyes:


                    Gulf Oil Platform Explosion Conpiracy?
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136970].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                      Originally Posted by myob View Post

                      Any conspiracy theory put out by Rush Limbaugh and others has been put to rest by BP's Prez Lamar McKay. The probable cause is less sinister and more mundane, "I believe we've got a failed piece of equipment."


                      Gulf Oil Platform Explosion Conpiracy?
                      Well, with that reasoning, EVERYTHING bad is due to a failed piece of equipment. look at grenades, if they didn't lose that pin, they would be paperwieghts that might serve a purpose. heck, you don't damage the little cap in the back, and bullets are harmless.

                      NOBODY disputes that equipment failed. The question is WHY, and WHY did they ignore everything. Kays last message was very complete, and true!

                      Steve
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2137023].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                    If Limbaugh had even half a brain he'd realize he just came up with another reason not to drill or use nuke power: Sabotage.

                    It's one thing to try to make things "mistake proof", but we also need to make them "on purpose proof". Good luck with that Rush!
                    One thing I always hated about rush, and I said it here earlier, is that rush believes that corporations never go too far and the planet can recover from anything people do.

                    The problem is that a little 1 year old could EASILY blow up the planet! Just put them in a room in russia or the US where they could push buttons to release nukes. retaliation could complete the deal.

                    OK, THAT is far fetched because WHO would risk that. Yet people die all the time because kids or even babies did something. SO, if THEY could do that, imagine how much one person WANTING to create damage can be. How about an ARMY? The idea that people are so harmless is just ludicrous.

                    So here some people on ONE rig bore a hole that is HOW? big in diameter? And they end up doing damage that could be beyond imagination. I only hope they get it fixed SOON! Tomorrow is their next planned attempt. Within the next 19 hours we should know what happens.

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2137077].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                      The only question I've ever had about Limbaugh is why on earth anyone would take that drivel seriously.
                      Signature

                      Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2137134].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author dsimms
              Originally Posted by myob View Post

              A $500,000 remote acoustic backup mechanism is not a "simple switch", but an expense BP lobbied successfully against for years until 2003, when U.S. regulators decided remote-controlled safeguards needed more study. A report commissioned by the Minerals Management Service said "acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly." Hmmmm .....
              Costly huh...I bet they are kicking their boots now...


              BP's latest plan is not working

              http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx/mon...Spill?pageid=1


              I wonder how that "Boot to the throat" plan is working out for the gov't.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2157127].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Who was IYHO responsible for the sabotage and what do they gain??


        TL
        Gee, that's kind of a tough question not knowing ALL that goes on behind the scenes. The middle east makes billions a year on US oil dependency, so that's a possibility. It doesn't seem it would be Mexico as if that cavern taps into their oil supply that's like spilling their own financial blood, but then they could also figure that by the time their own oil got tapped the spill would be fixed and very possibly the "fix" would shut down the drilling in that area, so possible. Actually - I wish I knew the complete behind the scenes story so I could actually figure out who the most likely source of such an action would be. But as it stands, nothing - official story, the chain of events, how the hell we got there in the first place after the issues a few years ago, why BP was hired after almost being punched for Valdez -- just nothing makes sense from this side of the boardrooms.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136054].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Unfortunately it all makes sense to me.

          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          But as it stands, nothing - official story, the chain of events, how the hell we got there in the first place after the issues a few years ago, why BP was hired after almost being punched for Valdez -- just nothing makes sense from this side of the boardrooms.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136303].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Vwarf
    The US govt should really step up on this issue....flex some more muscle to let BP to clean up the mess and pay all the damages it inflict to the people and the environment! hope this would not just be another case of bailing out another giant disaster maker.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136967].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    I got an idea...Let's use Rush to plug the leak.

    On a serious note...Again, those rigs aren't "buildings" and are considered vessels. It seems this rig was flying under the flag of the Marshall Islands. The reason to do this is because a ship follows the <safety> laws and regulations of the country where the ship (rig) is registered.

    Anyone willing to bet me a year's salary that the Marshall Islands has very few safety regulations?

    Now here's what I don't understand...The US has the strictest maritime standards in the World.

    Why do we have these tough laws if we're going to let US people and US companies work on vessels from other countries circumvent our safety lawst o collect our resources?

    Either do away with our laws so we can use US flag ships, or require foreign flag vessels to follow the same laws US vessels have to protect US workers.

    Also, 30+ new permits for off-shore rigs have been approved since this disaster. I don't think people realize how many of them there are...There's places in the Gulf that literally look like good-sized cities at night, with all the rigs lit up.

    And these rigs always don't fill tankers directly, they often have a pipeline that runs to shore (or a tanker or another pipeline), and each and every pipeline can fail (or be sabotaged). As a sea-going tug, most of our work was working with the ocean barges that laid these pipe-lines. The tugs run the anchors, then the barges slowly use the anchors and winches to slowly inch themselves along as they the pipe. As the barge moves, the tug picks up the anchors and moves them to a new location, and the barge continues moving as it lays pipe.

    At least the tugs are US flagged.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2137197].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author The 13th Warrior
      Why is Man Slaughter , criminal negligence and hard-time imprisonment is ONLY disproportionately applied to Joe "Six-pack"/ 9 to 5" Citizen vs people and companies with financial and other means?

      Like that company that got away with numerous safety violations and killed all those coal miners.

      The supposed enforcer of the safety codes AND the corporate person(s) responsible for green lighting the safety cuts and postponements should be in prison..., a life sentence, each, for every life lost.

      Whats the difference between them and a serial killer?

      Answer: a serial killer has not learned to to make friends and business associates in high places and direct legal endowments financially beneficial to those that count.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2137282].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author The 13th Warrior
        Hey, Rush is a pioneer and the MicroSoft of his niche in talk radio.

        If you took politics, WWE wrestling, Barnum Baily Circus and a public relations agent and mixed them all together, you got CASH=RUSH.

        Its a goldmine.

        Dude taps into the darkest, ugliest recesses of a particular audience and gives out innumerable multitudes of arguments , counter-arguments , rationalizations, justifications and other wealth of ammunition for a type of thinking/rationalization that has his audience give their last penny to him and his sponsors.

        Their nuclear attack or weapon of last resort is a barrage of name calling, hollering ,shouting and stirring up mob frenzy if they don't have a rational argument or non-hypocritical, linear logic to their premise.

        He's like the first to find oil in his niche.

        And anyone close to duplicating him finds even MORE oil than he originally did.

        "Sure-Money" in the bank.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2137332].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    You know, Rush has some bad aspects, WHO DOESN'T! And some of the other aspects don't come off in the best way. I don't think even HE would say he is eloquent, even if he at least USED to say he had "talent on loan from god". I don't know if he still says that, and he probably always kind of meant thatt as a joke. But he isn't all bad, etc... Oh well, I guess saying more would seem too political.

    Does anyone know what their plans are if the junk shot doesn't work? And WHY did it take like 2+ weeks to do the junk shot?

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2137401].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      There's a 12 hr testing BP will do tomorrow to find out if the remaining pipe structure at the ocean floor is strong enough to withstand the try for Wednesday.

      If they think it will hold up - on Wed morning they will try to send the drilling mud under high pressure to fill the pipe. Then comes the junk shop - maybe.

      Now that the oil has reached shore it's spreading rapidly and the pictures today of the brown pelicans breaks my heart. They were just taken off the endangered species list and now thousands will die. They are such cool birds. A research team lowered a camera to a reef in the Gulf - that reef is always teeming with fish....and today there were only 3 fish seen. The oil isn't just on the surface but far below the surface, too.

      I think the person to put in charge overall is Lt Gen Honore. He was in charge after Katrina and the man kicks some serious butt. He's in position now but frustrated at the lack of coordination of the efforts. They need ONE person who can order BP, agencies, CG and anyone else involved to get their act together. The man knows the coast and the gulf, knows the people and isn't afraid of bruising some egos.

      I remember thinking to myself a few months ago that it was amazing we could drill so deep in the water and so deeply into the earth in a safe way - I was basing that on the announcement of more drilling rigs to be added and the comments about the great safety of these rigs. I believed what I was told - it's safe, it's great, it works. It wasn't, it isn't, and it doesn't always work as intended.

      kay
      Signature

      Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2137473].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        There's a 12 hr testing BP will do tomorrow to find out if the remaining pipe structure at the ocean floor is strong enough to withstand the try for Wednesday.

        If they think it will hold up - on Wed morning they will try to send the drilling mud under high pressure to fill the pipe. Then comes the junk shop - maybe.
        MORE LIES THEN!? TERRIFIC!(sarc)

        Now that the oil has reached shore it's spreading rapidly and the pictures today of the brown pelicans breaks my heart. They were just taken off the endangered species list and now thousands will die. They are such cool birds. A research team lowered a camera to a reef in the Gulf - that reef is always teeming with fish....and today there were only 3 fish seen. The oil isn't just on the surface but far below the surface, too.
        THAT was actually PLANNED! That is one of the reasons for the dispersants, and one of the reasons I HATED the idea. Some of that oil is going to be more likely to mix with the water. Of course, that was a problem earlier too, and the reason for the floor garbage and decreased oxygen. Of course, some plants and microscopic organisms use light to create oxygen, and THEY are affected. LUCKILY, SOME fish might have been afraid, iritated, or just smart, so you would EXPECT to see fewer fish. There is STILL a chance that that is not QUITE as bad as it appears. Of course, some creatures can't move fast enough, plants can't, and eggs can't, so they are probably GONE! And those creatures that were there for mating season and pulled away might not ever mate again.

        Sometimes it is a GOOD thing that oil and water generally don't mix.

        I think the person to put in charge overall is Lt Gen Honore. He was in charge after Katrina and the man kicks some serious butt. He's in position now but frustrated at the lack of coordination of the efforts. They need ONE person who can order BP, agencies, CG and anyone else involved to get their act together. The man knows the coast and the gulf, knows the people and isn't afraid of bruising some egos.
        HECK, I have been on projects where people worked ROUND THE CLOCK to solve problems. Sometimes I get almost NO sleep. BP should be doing the same. Someonee asked if yesterday was a normal monday in the US. Is THAT why they did NOTHING yesterday!?!?!?

        In MY case, it is usually ARBITRARY or to satisfy some EGO! In one case, a jerk told his boss we would have a report on his desk when he got in like 6am monday. We were not due to get to that point for MONTHS and just made major changes that would make any such attempt take DAYS! We were told late friday about his promise. We all worked the ENTIRE WEEKEND, LONG DAYS, pulled out NEEDED code(Which delayed and complicated the actual project) to generate enough data to be cut and pasted. OK, cut and taped! YEP, literally CUT with scissors, and taped with scotch tape! One guy never saved his report program so when windows crashed I had to do HIS job also!

        It was on his desk AS PROMISED! For our trouble!?!?!? We got DOUGHNUTS! WOW!(sarc)

        Well, this BP problem is one where every day makes its impact FAR worse! It isn't some arbitrary deadline.

        I remember thinking to myself a few months ago that it was amazing we could drill so deep in the water and so deeply into the earth in a safe way - I was basing that on the announcement of more drilling rigs to be added and the comments about the great safety of these rigs. I believed what I was told - it's safe, it's great, it works. It wasn't, it isn't, and it doesn't always work as intended.

        kay
        I mused HERE, I believe in this very thread, about the RELATIVE safety. You think OIL is bad? On a scale from 1-10, 10 being worse, it might not even rank an 8! Don't get mee wrong, a 6 would be BAD! Possibly catastrophic. But a 10 would be FAR worse!

        Yeah, I might have been OK with drilling for oil like this ALSO....IF we didn't start so deep and DRILL so deep. That is UNREAL!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2138416].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    It doesn't look like they have run ANY tests, but they ARE talking about getting ready for tomorrow.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2140507].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Somebody wants to eliminate all caps on the amount of damages oil cos have to pay...



    Sen. Robert Menendez is set to introduce on Tuesday afternoon a bill that would fully eliminate any cap on the amount of economic damages that oil companies would have to pay for spills they've caused.

    He's revising an earlier version of legislation he introduced which would have raised the cap from $75 million dollars in liability to $10 billion.

    Now, the cap will be effectively unlimited, an aide said.

    Somebody is trying hard to block the new legislation...

    Here's their reason...

    They oppose unlimited caps because it would limit the ability of oil companies to drill for oil.


    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2140533].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Apparently BP is liable for up to $4300 per barrel:

      SPECIAL REPORT-Civil fine in Gulf spill could be $4,300 barrel | Reuters

      No wonder they kept the live videos of the leak from being shown. Jerks. My guess is BP is a big fan of the laissez faire philosophy: "Let It Be".
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2141900].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Apparently BP is liable for up to $4300 per barrel:

        SPECIAL REPORT-Civil fine in Gulf spill could be $4,300 barrel | Reuters

        No wonder they kept the live videos of the leak from being shown. Jerks. My guess is BP is a big fan of the laissez faire philosophy: "Let It Be".

        This I did not know.

        It warms my heart.


        Thanks!!


        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2141918].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Apparently BP is liable for up to $4300 per barrel:

        SPECIAL REPORT-Civil fine in Gulf spill could be $4,300 barrel | Reuters

        No wonder they kept the live videos of the leak from being shown. Jerks. My guess is BP is a big fan of the laissez faire philosophy: "Let It Be".
        There comes a point where people no longer have any concept of difference. You could understand BP not showing the video because some, especially with people calling it a leak, might have thought it was FAR smaller, and would be less likely to indict BP. After all, a fender bender is bad, and people may get VERY upset, but TOTALLING a car is FAR worse, totalling a rolls royce is worse, and death is WORSE. The videos certainly make it clear that this is BAD!

        But thanks for letting us know what people CLAIM they will have to pay. That comes to about, last I knew, $860million a day. I lost track of time, but I think that puts the current total around 34.4billion so far. Apparently the Current market value is about 133billion.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2142782].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    BP actions STILL aren't certain! Also, transocean owned, and built the well as well as the BOP. So they SHOULD chip in!

    BP yet to make call on latest bid to stop Gulf oil - Yahoo! News



    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2143138].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Kay - yes I realize there was a string of "errors". That doesn't make it sit right with me. Too many errors, in fact, make it look a little suspicious.

    I have no clue what Rush has to say about this one. I really don't follow him.

    What my questions arise from is the fact that:
    Prudhoe Bay More than 200000 gallons of oil spilled from a BP pipeline in Alaska in 2006 Also - those Alaska pipes were supposed to supply oil for the US and BP failed to honor that and started outsourcing all over the place........not just careless but backstabbing?

    They almost got hung in the Valdez spill, which they were involved in.

    Yet this is the company that is involved with the Largest oil deposit we've drilled yet.....the most dangerous -- and it's offshore so who will they be piping the oil to this time?

    Okay - now, I still want to know what happened to the quarrel between US and Mexico over US drilling into an area that will more than likely tap into Mexico's oil. I can't even find reference to it anywhere now. Mexico is the 3rd largest worldwide in oil - and they are just going to let us drill a cavern that could deplete their own supply without a flinch?

    That is what is "fishy" to me Kay. No doubt there were "a series of mistakes" - when BP takes the wheel there usually are, and backstabbing such as the outsourcing of US oil in Alaska doesn't seem to be a "series of mistakes" at all.

    So why was this company put in charge? That sits in everyone else's craws okay? Sorry, I can buy that they F***ed up - again. Maybe. I can't figure out how we got there in the first place without a loud international incidence (maybe they were promised we'd absorb all the illegals) or why anyone would hire a major 2 time spiller and a company that stabbed us on oil exports for this job.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2143717].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      BP just started the Top Kill attempt. See it here live:

      The Rundown News Blog | PBS NewsHour | PBS
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2144714].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author The 13th Warrior
        How bout that Office of Mineral something or other?

        Supposed to be a watchdog and enforcer of public trust, getting our tax money but run by oil men, conflict of interest right there, strike one.

        Politicians openly know and state the ridiculous saturation of legal and illegal gifts, bribes, free drugs, amphetimines, trips,sex and other things these public officials of THAT office have gotten for years, pretty much in PLAIN sight, strike two.

        DAMN THE LAW, you don't need an Oxford or Yale Ph.D degree to understand the intent and spirit of the law whether violated or not, written verbatim or not.

        Especially if you willfully violated public safety and it is directly linked to deaths, a law needs not be written , specifically, verbatim, explicitly or otherwise.

        Coercion(legal and illegal) of ANY kind which even "hints" of such should be harshly dealt with, and at the very least, these guys in charge of enforcement and rights of natural resources should be :

        1) severely financially penalized,

        2) forfeit any unemployment, pension, and other future benefits and rights for their present and past pathetic public service

        3) lifetime ban on any employment or association with any local , state, federal level and any association with

        4) any private sector company hiring them forfeit ALL federal subsidies and ANY tax payer paid stipends that corporations usually get.

        Their negligence caused death that can never be repaired.

        The most severe involuntary Manslaughter charges and hard prison time should be the minimum.

        Since they all play the game at one level or another, this is fantasy land of the most ridiculous kind that anything close to justice would come to pass.

        They may throw us, the stupid public, a Lee Harvey Oswald type fall guy, and we will quiet down, shut up, and feel some justice was done, outrage will die down, like giving a baby who hasn't eaten in 2 days a lifeless, inanimate plastic pacifier to at least temporarily shut him up for the time being, till even a dumb baby knows when HE'S being fooled, eventually.

        Betcha if one of those that died NEEDLESSLY was your husband or brother or baby girl, the technical interest, buzz , engineering challenge, reality t.v. aspect and guesstimates of how its going to be fixed would not outweigh the concern of lost life and future destruction of lives currently.

        Can we at least get a refund of our tax money that went to that stupid, financial brothel of an office while those whores ran it?

        I'll accept a Government Money Gram.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2145101].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author The 13th Warrior
          This office even let them create safety forms and write their own safety regulations.

          Folks like this should be lined up, and one by one, be publicly gutted with 1946 farm tools.

          The 13th Warrior
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2145129].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by The 13th Warrior View Post

          How bout that Office of Mineral something or other?

          Supposed to be a watchdog and enforcer of public trust, getting our tax money but run by oil men, conflict of interest right there, strike one.

          Politicians openly know and state the ridiculous saturation of legal and illegal gifts, bribes, free drugs, amphetimines, trips,sex and other things these public officials of THAT office have gotten for years, pretty much in PLAIN sight, strike two.

          DAMN THE LAW, you don't need an Oxford or Yale Ph.D degree to understand the intent and spirit of the law whether violated or not, written verbatim or not.

          Especially if you willfully violated public safety and it is directly linked to deaths, a law needs not be written , specifically, verbatim, explicitly or otherwise.

          Coercion(legal and illegal) of ANY kind which even "hints" of such should be harshly dealt with, and at the very least, these guys in charge of enforcement and rights of natural resources should be :

          1) severely financially penalized,

          2) forfeit any unemployment, pension, and other future benefits and rights for their present and past pathetic public service

          3) lifetime ban on any employment or association with any local , state, federal level and any association with

          4) any private sector company hiring them forfeit ALL federal subsidies and ANY tax payer paid stipends that corporations usually get.

          Their negligence caused death that can never be repaired.

          The most severe involuntary Manslaughter charges and hard prison time should be the minimum.

          Since they all play the game at one level or another, this is fantasy land of the most ridiculous kind that anything close to justice would come to pass.

          They may throw us, the stupid public, a Lee Harvey Oswald type fall guy, and we will quiet down, shut up, and feel some justice was done, outrage will die down, like giving a baby who hasn't eaten in 2 days a lifeless, inanimate plastic pacifier to at least temporarily shut him up for the time being, till even a dumb baby knows when HE'S being fooled, eventually.

          Betcha if one of those that died NEEDLESSLY was your husband or brother or baby girl, the technical interest, buzz , engineering challenge, reality t.v. aspect and guesstimates of how its going to be fixed would not outweigh the concern of lost life and future destruction of lives currently.

          Can we at least get a refund of our tax money that went to that stupid, financial brothel of an office while those whores ran it?

          I'll accept a Government Money Gram.
          OH NO! The world IS coming to an end! You reminded me of some things, BUT....

          Amendment 29: No pension, Insurance, expense account, or other benefit, outside of those that are available to all other US citizens shall be given to or retained by any person in the US government.

          Amendment 31: Any fraud, misrepresentation, or felony shall require impeachment, and they shall be subject to any civil or criminal penalties thereof.

          Amendment 42: NO lobbyist, or person with any government agency, shall in any way bribe or otherwise unjustly encourage any person in or with any government in the united states to do anything, or vote in any way.

          Amendment 47: For any Prisoner guilty of any crime, no treatment of mental, or exotic disease shall be provided. For any felon, treatment outside of basic healthcare shall not be provided. TV shall be of no caliber exceeding the basic TV available to people at the poverty line. No games, gaming, or athletic equipment or weights shall be provided. Only a basic library shall be provided. Open free time shall be limited to 2 hours per day. There shall be no store to buy more than the basic of health and personal care supplies. Any money earned shall be put into the treasury. Felons shall not be allowed to vote or collect any subsidies.

          In other words, pretty much all the 13th warrior said! OH, if only it were law!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2147754].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    I agree - major jail time and murder charges apply for many involved in this fiasco.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2145627].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Senator Nelson is calling for the Military to take over if the Top Kill doesn't work. The military is great for a lot of things, especially blowing up stuff, but how would they be better able to stop a huge leak 5,000 feet down in the ocean?
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2145648].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Senator Nelson is calling for the Military to take over if the Top Kill doesn't work. The military is great for a lot of things, especially blowing up stuff, but how would they be better able to stop a huge leak 5,000 feet down in the ocean?
        They can't possibly be worse than the bozos in charge now.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2145923].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author The 13th Warrior
          Hmmm.., let's see..., I'm the law enforcer, the sight overseer , the politician with the power to serve or start prosecution, whatever, and the public wants me to headhunt any BP and others affiliated with this catastrophe.

          The public wants to know why politicians are doing the two-step , the Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire dance steps all around this, doing the porky pig impression of saying or doing anything definitive...,

          Let's see.., I have circumstantial evidence because various departments allowed them to do whatever they pleased WITHOUT any credible or objective reports or record keeping by responsible agencies in charge of the oversight.

          And any evidence that is available mostly points to 78% of me and various political officers and agencies in lock and step with BP and associates in every ethic , legal, and law logistic compromised with agencies approval.

          Essentially, I, the politician, opened the door, pointed the direction, offered lunch , and even offered to towel them off after they finish their political pedophila with an underaged little child, the tax payers and environment.

          And the public wonders why I'm doing the tap dance?

          If BP was an Organized Crime Syndicate ( don't see much difference) , would they be able to say what they will and won't do or disclose?

          Why don't they treat them with the same brand of good ole local american justice they give to Joe "Nobody-Special" Citizen and presume them guilty and MAKE them prove their innocence?

          Forget about it, just like the crazy and unusual weather, one after the other, before this is even warm, MORE corporations are probably going to show the ugliest side, like for years, sweeping dust under a rug unnoticably until you got a mountain in your living room that bust thru the upper level and breaks thru your roof, impossible to ignore and harder, if not impossible to deal with, especially when there is more to come.

          You only got so many resources before you are bone dry.

          Then comes the fun.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2146133].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          BP are the people who should be working on the leak - and they are. Problem is, they seem to be the only people doing anything in an organized way. There is no one in govt with the expertise to do this work - the ongoing failure is the lack of organized protection of the shoreline.

          Too many lines of command - and all the final approvals seem to come from D.C. - after a while to think it over. No tankers to vacuum oil before it reaches shore - and no coast guard or skimmers seen between the slick and the shoreline for miles.

          Fact: EPA is the one that approved the dispersant being used 3 weeks ago - and it is on the EPA approved list of chemicals to use. Turns out - that's why BP wasn't willing to just stop and wait for another study...which is what the EPA wanted them to do. That's why the EPA backed down, too.

          Every request to govt agencies for supplies, more berm, or any decision requested is met with a "let us think it over" or "need to do a study on it first" and no one seems to have the authority to just say "yes" or "no". Total lack of decisive action or quick answers.

          I don't like BP - but I have to say they are the only group here that seems to be acting efficiently on many levels. They have 30+ staging areas set up along the coast, they give regular updates and at least the head of BP walked the affected shoreline. That's more than most politicians have done. According to D.C. there are many top agency people here - but we don't hear from them or see them. Oh wait - they're in Texas, aren't they?

          My impressions may be wrong but they are shared by most here. You believe what you see happening. There may be planning and strategizing going on at the highest levels - but if there is, we aren't told about it here.

          Even though I dislike BP, the company, I've been impressed that their top people are staying on this. At least they're not preaching about new regs in the future, giving speeches or wanting study commissions to see what's going on. They have boots on the ground. The two head guys of BP are here on the coast - haven't left - and give the updates themselves several times a day and often late into the night. They don't make excuses - just give facts and answer questions.

          What is needed is ONE person in charge on the ground - with full authority to make decisions without days or weeks of delay in D.C. - who can get people into the marshes to start cleanup and can get some skimmers between the spill and the shoreline to try to get the worst of the crude. That is not being done.

          There are enough volunteers to do the work here - if there were one real leader. I've said for some time - put Honore in charge and turn him loose. He knows the coast and the people here trust and respect him.

          Anyone see the msnbc coverage tonight of the 1979 Gulf spill near Mexico?
          Same exact procedures tried - same exact problem - at 200 foot depth. It went on for months. Apparently we are slow learners.

          The only guaranteed way to stop the oil is the relief well though we're hoping this top kill will work. Makes me wonder if the answer in the future is to require a relief well be at least partially drilled and capped before a platform begins producing. Don't know if that's possible - but it seems logical.

          Keeping my fingers crossed that the leak will at least be reduced by the top kill - we'll know in a couple days.

          kay
          Signature

          Saving one dog may not change the world - but forever changes the world of one dog.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2146180].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Well, you are in a very small minority there Kay.
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            I don't like BP - but I have to say they are the only group here that seems to be acting efficiently on many levels.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2146351].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Lawrh
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Senator Nelson is calling for the Military to take over if the Top Kill doesn't work. The military is great for a lot of things, especially blowing up stuff, but how would they be better able to stop a huge leak 5,000 feet down in the ocean?
        You're forgetting the Army Corp of Engineers. I have no idea what they would do in this scenario, but they have a well deserved reputation for problem solving and quickly completing very large scale projects.
        Signature

        “Strategy without action is a day-dream; action without strategy is a nightmare.” – Old Japanese proverb -

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2146038].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Senator Nelson is calling for the Military to take over if the Top Kill doesn't work. The military is great for a lot of things, especially blowing up stuff, but how would they be better able to stop a huge leak 5,000 feet down in the ocean?
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          They can't possibly be worse than the bozos in charge now.
          Originally Posted by Lawrh View Post

          You're forgetting the Army Corp of Engineers. I have no idea what they would do in this scenario, but they have a well deserved reputation for problem solving and quickly completing very large scale projects.
          The biggest difference between our military and BP is: Our military isn't afraid to spend money and BP is.

          In this case, this is probably a good thing.

          I agree with Lawrh...The Corp of Engineers is probably the most qualified at this point...Or possibly the Navy. And our military would only be interested in getting the job done, not politics or profits.

          What's the pressure (psi) of the leak, anyone know?

          And I have a prediction: Watch for BP to file for bankruptcy and totally screw everyone they are liable to.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2146098].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            What's the pressure (psi) of the leak, anyone know?
            They don't know EXACTLY how big the hole is, or what is on the other side, so the BEST they could do is GUESS based on the depth, maximum observed speed, the size of the hole on top, and a guess at average viscosity. The fact is that, with all the debris, etc... THAT estimate would probably be LOW! HEY, they don't even claim to know the actual average volume of oil!

            And I have a prediction: Watch for BP to file for bankruptcy and totally screw everyone they are liable to.
            You may be right. I think state farm just got the contracts rescinded when THEY ran into a similar problem. Some industries start a fund for a class. They are ways to avoid bankruptcy, but the end result is often the SAME!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2147794].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          They probably are involved already to some extent. If it's ideas and expertise, I think that is being covered from what I have heard. It's not just BP coming up with possible solutions really at this point.

          Originally Posted by Lawrh View Post

          You're forgetting the Army Corp of Engineers. I have no idea what they would do in this scenario, but they have a well deserved reputation for problem solving and quickly completing very large scale projects.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2146155].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jaya_allways
    Hahahahahaha.. Wow.. $27m is a LOTT.. It has been mixed with some political importance.. Dunno about that large company, but A company which is very large surely affect some country's political, and have the politic interest..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2146402].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by jaya_allways View Post

      Hahahahahaha.. Wow.. $27m is a LOTT.. It has been mixed with some political importance.. Dunno about that large company, but A company which is very large surely affect some country's political, and have the politic interest..
      Well, Apparently, the REAL limit at least WAS $75million for basic suits, and $1Billion for cleanup. The republicans, apparently, wanted to make that $10Billion. The democrats want to remove any limit. Of course, $10billion represents almost 10% of the company's value.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2147709].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Well, Apparently, the REAL limit at least WAS $75million for basic suits, and $1Billion for cleanup. The republicans, apparently, wanted to make that $10Billion. The democrats want to remove any limit. Of course, $10billion represents almost 10% of the company's value.

        Steve

        Is your characterization of the situation correct???


        I hear most/all repub legislators are saying that 10bill will prevent smaller companies from drilling and don't want anything near 10bill - if anything at all...


        ... and many dem senators want at least 10bill or don't want any cap at all. ( Harry Reid )


        Someone has blocked the legislation from even being considered on the floor - twice.


        Here's a short article on Reuters (a pretty middle of the road news org. ) reporting on the situation.


        UPDATE 1-$10 bln oil liability cap not enough-US Sen. Reid | Reuters


        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2147837].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          Is your characterization of the situation correct???


          I hear most/all repub legislators are saying that 10bill will prevent smaller companies from drilling and don't want anything near 10bill - if anything at all...


          ... and many dem senators want at least 10bill or don't want any cap at all. ( Harry Reid )


          Someone has blocked the legislation from even being considered on the floor - twice.


          Here's a short article on Reuters (a pretty middle of the road news org. ) reporting on the situation.


          UPDATE 1-$10 bln oil liability cap not enough-US Sen. Reid | Reuters


          TL
          Well, that was my understanding. 10billion is obviously a LOT! MANY think companies can spend all they make, or all their assets, and NEITHER is true! And YEAH, a 10billion dollar cap would even cause BP to blink! And how big are THEY!?!?!? Judging by the range of places that invested, and the size, I would say they are substantial. Yet $10billion is a LOT!

          THAT would be like Bill Gates spending over $4billion USD! And a lot of bill gates net worth is PAPER, like STOCK! Trying to sell almost 10% could devalue the stock, etc...

          BUT, frankly, I hate the idea of creating a well where you can't get to it. I don't think that should be allowed. And this is compared to katrina. SUPPOSE a storm like katrina had come along! IT could have caused this. That iss an EXPECTED scenario and, CLEARLY, they weren't prepared!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2147972].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author The 13th Warrior
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post



          Someone has blocked the legislation from even being considered on the floor - twice.


          THAT persons name and face should be BLASTED all over media exposing that financial pervert, that benedict arnold, that corporate protectionist, that cheap Whore, and why aren't people of that politicians district gathering names for an IMMEDIATE recall, if that means anything at all?

          Recall's means nothing, anyway, that person is PAID for life, MADE their cash.

          Since they NEVER have to give back the:

          bribes,

          consistent legal allotments,

          commissions,

          grants,

          annuities,

          subsidies,

          allowances,

          endowments,

          donations,

          gifts,

          dividends,

          proceeds,

          procurements,

          provisions,

          interests,

          contributions,

          honorariums,

          stipends,

          appropriations,

          and gratuities IN ADDITION to, and thanks , by the way, our hard earn TAX DOLLARS/salary, PENSION and LIFETIME BENEFITS that almost EQUAL if not surpass their current wage, recalls are not much of anything in the way of pain/punishment that fits the crime and seriously discourages and brings any fear to practice such behavior.

          The game is simple: how MUCH can you amass and how many/much lifetime paid allowances can you get before you're out of office?

          Everyone recalled or voted out is living the Good Life, probably receiving 100 different checks from the private sector and dividend quarterly payments, along with their Govt. benefits.

          Yeah, voters showed THEM....., what a hollow victory for Joe Public, we are STILL paying them.

          The appearance of a victory, no victory at all.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2148000].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by The 13th Warrior View Post

            THAT persons name and face should be BLASTED all over media exposing that financial pervert, that benedict arnold, that corporate protectionist, that cheap Whore, and why aren't people of that politicians district gathering names for an IMMEDIATE recall, if that means anything at all?

            Recall's means nothing, anyway, that person is PAID for life, MADE their cash..
            Well, I SEARCHED! Apparently I FOUND the person. She apparently is NOT as bad and greedy as some think. She EVEN has an agreement with REID on a similar issue! BUT, if you are out for blood, read HER side!

            Press Releases - Press Office - United States Senator Lisa Murkowski

            BASICALLY Robert Menendez asked for passage of a bill that Lisa felt was unreasonable, and she had already presented her own, that he never read. The goal is the same in the end but Lisa wants to try to limit corporate risk over the short term, save some contracts for alaska, etc...

            OH, and to prove this IS the person, and show reid's and robert's side:

            http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/05/...-cap-increase/


            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2148227].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by The 13th Warrior View Post

            THAT persons name and face should be BLASTED all over media exposing that financial pervert, that benedict arnold, that corporate protectionist, that cheap Whore, and why aren't people of that politicians district gathering names for an IMMEDIATE recall, if that means anything at all?

            Recall's means nothing, anyway, that person is PAID for life, MADE their cash.

            Since they NEVER have to give back the:

            bribes,

            consistent legal allotments,

            commissions,

            grants,

            annuities,

            subsidies,

            allowances,

            endowments,

            donations,

            gifts,

            dividends,

            proceeds,

            procurements,

            provisions,

            interests,

            contributions,

            honorariums,

            stipends,

            appropriations,

            and gratuities IN ADDITION to, and thanks , by the way, our hard earn TAX DOLLARS/salary, PENSION and LIFETIME BENEFITS that almost EQUAL if not surpass their current wage, recalls are not much of anything in the way of pain/punishment that fits the crime and seriously discourages and brings any fear to practice such behavior.

            The game is simple: how MUCH can you amass and how many/much lifetime paid allowances can you get before you're out of office?

            Everyone recalled or voted out is living the Good Life, probably receiving 100 different checks from the private sector and dividend quarterly payments, along with their Govt. benefits.

            Yeah, voters showed THEM....., what a hollow victory for Joe Public, we are STILL paying them.

            The appearance of a victory, no victory at all.

            Heads are starting to roll...


            The Obama administration has fired the head of the U.S. Minerals Management Service Elizabeth "Liz" Birnbaum, in response to blistering criticism over the federal government's lax oversight of BP and the rest of the offshore oil industry.


            House cleaning of that entire agency is underway.

            and...

            Look out for Mr. Salazar to resign about 3-6 months after this leak is stopped.

            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2148643].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    HECK, there is one guy that is pretty much GUARANTEED to say the opposite of what I want! His WIFE, interestingly, is officially AGAINST him politically. There is *****NO***** way he would say ANYTHING against this government! NO WAY! PERIOD! NEVER! Oh well, he is from LOUSIANA! He and I agree! He is VERY vocal! YIKES!

    Even conservatives that don't generally like him say, happily and admiringly in a way, that now we know he puts his state above politics!

    And YEAH, I don't know WHAT can be done here, but the army corps of engineers is supposed to work on SOMEWHAT similar things. If this were a lot closer to the coast, or in shallower water, they would probably just build a dam, pump the water out, and pump the oil into a tank while trying to get a device on to cap it. Fairly simple! Move that out miles, or put it a mile down, and it becomes FAR harder. If they had a sub with a simple goal, and accurate sonar or some such, MAYBE they could do it. Oh well, I never claimed to be an expert, hopefully they can do it easily enough.

    Orin Hatch claimed he knows a guy that has equipment for doing this, but nobody would listen! HIS plan is a modificatioon on the original BP idea. Maybe THAT would work.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2147910].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Well, BP is saying it appears to be working. They should confirm it later tonight.

    I love how they say "We can stop drilling, but how much are you willing to pay?"? HUH? The cost isn't due to supply! It is due to greed and inflation(which itself is partially due to oil). If it were due to supply, it wouldn't have been so eratic, OPEC wouldn't exist, etc... And OPEC "limits supply"(read HOLDS BACK) to increase price. But, frankly, we should work on getting rid of OIL, etc...

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2149247].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Well, BP is saying it appears to be working. They should confirm it later tonight.

      I love how they say "We can stop drilling, but how much are you willing to pay?"? HUH? The cost isn't due to supply! It is due to greed and inflation(which itself is partially due to oil). If it were due to supply, it wouldn't have been so eratic, OPEC wouldn't exist, etc... And OPEC "limits supply"(read HOLDS BACK) to increase price. But, frankly, we should work on getting rid of OIL, etc...

      Steve
      Natural gas until we can convert to wind/solar, etc. We have a 200 year supply of natural gas right here in this country, on land and is cheaper, safer and cleaner than oil.

      Converting cars to natural gas is fairly easy and cheap.

      In 3 years, the US will be the World's leading exporter of natural gas because we don't use it.

      Does it make sense to export natural gas then import oil?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2149325].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Natural gas until we can convert to wind/solar, etc. We have a 200 year supply of natural gas right here in this country, on land and is cheaper, safer and cleaner than oil.

        Converting cars to natural gas is fairly easy and cheap.

        In 3 years, the US will be the World's leading exporter of natural gas because we don't use it.

        Does it make sense to export natural gas then import oil?
        You're right, but I am not sure about some related things. Still, there is a heavily used CNG plant by logan airport. so tthere IS commercial use of CNG in transportation. AND, here at least, they are ADVERTISING it as a gasoline replacement.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2149345].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Lawrh
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Does it make sense to export natural gas then import oil?
        This is already the next target of the energy market manipulators. Russia holds 38% of the worlds proven natural gas supplies and is the largest exporter, with the Middle East holding 35%. Natural gas is plentiful and should be dirt cheap.

        Does anyone really think the energy industry will allow prices to come down? If people switched to Natural gas, we would no doubt have shortages, pipeline bursts, any excuse to keep the price up. Cynicism has set in. Sorry.
        Signature

        “Strategy without action is a day-dream; action without strategy is a nightmare.” – Old Japanese proverb -

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2149408].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by Lawrh View Post

          This is already the next target of the energy market manipulators. Russia holds 38% of the worlds proven natural gas supplies and is the largest exporter, with the Middle East holding 35%. Natural gas is plentiful and should be dirt cheap.

          Does anyone really think the energy industry will allow prices to come down? If people switched to Natural gas, we would no doubt have shortages, pipeline bursts, any excuse to keep the price up. Cynicism has set in. Sorry.
          Which is exactly why we should start building wind and solar like crazy. Both oil and gas need to be cheaper than green, or no one will use them.

          Building wind and solar will force oil and gas prices to fall, and this is never factored into the price of green energy, which is the effect it will have on the prices of gas and oil.

          Plus, even if natural gas becomes the same price as oil, the money will stay in the US, and it's safer and cleaner than oil and we wouldn't need to be worried about oil spills in the Gulf.

          The US just needs to be better educated that there are alternatives with tax credits for early adaptors.

          Not to mention, T Boone Pickens has plenty of investors for NLG that aren't worried about how the rest of the energy industry feels. They're willing to make a buck from gas if no one else wants to. All he needs is the go-ahead.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2149509].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            Which is exactly why we should start building wind and solar like crazy. Both oil and gas need to be cheaper than green, or no one will use them.

            Building wind and solar will force oil and gas prices to fall, and this is never factored into the price of green energy, which is the effect it will have on the prices of gas and oil.

            Plus, even if natural gas becomes the same price as oil, the money will stay in the US, and it's safer and cleaner than oil and we wouldn't need to be worried about oil spills in the Gulf.

            The US just needs to be better educated that there are alternatives with tax credits for early adaptors.

            Not to mention, T Boone Pickens has plenty of investors for NLG that aren't worried about how the rest of the energy industry feels. They're willing to make a buck from gas if no one else wants to. All he needs is the go-ahead.

            The dems are going to work very hard to not give that big contract to Mr. Pickens or any group he's associated with.

            They don't like his part in what they see as the swift boating of John Kerry during the 2004 prez election.

            Let's hope their dislike of Mr. Pickens won't be a major impediment in the nation moving forward on a new energy direction.


            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2149958].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author madison_avenue
          Originally Posted by Lawrh View Post

          This is already the next target of the energy market manipulators. Russia holds 38% of the worlds proven natural gas supplies and is the largest exporter, with the Middle East holding 35%. Natural gas is plentiful and should be dirt cheap.

          Does anyone really think the energy industry will allow prices to come down? If people switched to Natural gas, we would no doubt have shortages, pipeline bursts, any excuse to keep the price up. Cynicism has set in. Sorry.

          That's a good point:

          Russia supplies up to half the EU's gas supply through a pipeline.

          Last year Russia turned off the pipe supplying Ukraine's gas, leaving that country in turmoil. If you are dependent on imported energy the supplier can turn off your supply at a whim. It's why Russia is treated with great respect by the EU.

          At the time an official at Gazprom's headquarters in Moscow said the ominous words: "We have fully cut off supplies to Ukraine as of 10am (0700 GMT) today."

          Gas is also(especially if using tankers) much more expensive to transport than oil, transportation costs are over half the cost of the gas market value.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2155463].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Natural gas until we can convert to wind/solar, etc. We have a 200 year supply of natural gas right here in this country, on land and is cheaper, safer and cleaner than oil.

        Converting cars to natural gas is fairly easy and cheap.


        In 3 years, the US will be the World's leading exporter of natural gas because we don't use it.

        Does it make sense to export natural gas then import oil?
        The key isn't with cars, that's small time stuff.
        What needs to be converted first and what will have the biggest impact is the semi's, buses, and other larger vehicles that burn diesel.
        If that was done we would be able to produce enough oil domestically and on land to supply our cars and motorcycles for a very long time.
        Of course I'm not saying building cars that run on natural gas and hybrids shouldn't be done. Just that the big users and the ones that have the larger impact are the big rigs.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2150086].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          The key isn't with cars, that's small time stuff.
          What needs to be converted first and what will have the biggest impact is the semi's, buses, and other larger vehicles that burn diesel.
          If that was done we would be able to produce enough oil domestically and on land to supply our cars and motorcycles for a very long time.
          Of course I'm not saying building cars that run on natural gas and hybrids shouldn't be done. Just that the big users and the ones that have the larger impact are the big rigs.
          Maybe I should have said "vehicle". However there is much more gas consumed than diesle. Granted the chart is 6 years old, but I doubt the percentages have changed that much since then...From doe.gov: (diesel is a distillate)
          U.S. Oil Demand by Product

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2150113].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author myob
            And besides, a burst in a natural gas pipe 5,000 ft deep in the Gulf would only make bubbles.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2150283].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          The key isn't with cars, that's small time stuff.
          What needs to be converted first and what will have the biggest impact is the semi's, buses, and other larger vehicles that burn diesel.
          If that was done we would be able to produce enough oil domestically and on land to supply our cars and motorcycles for a very long time.
          Of course I'm not saying building cars that run on natural gas and hybrids shouldn't be done. Just that the big users and the ones that have the larger impact are the big rigs.
          BUSES are ALREADY being converted! As I said, look at logan! Perhaps ALL their buses are CNG!!!! Semis CAN'T be easily converted because they have to go all over, and there has to be an infrastructure in place. CARS come FIRST! If THEY are comverted, the infrastructure will be in place for most other things.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2150438].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Lawrh,

    You may be right. I will NEVER forget, and wish I knew WHY ****ONE**** little resin plant in japan SUPPOSEDLY blew up, and RAM prices SKYROCKETED!

    I KNEW, even when I was like 6, that CERAMIC was BETTER than plastic! They stopped using it because RESIN reduced costs by about $1 RETAIL per chip. Well, OK, I just proved that the resin plant was NOT the real cause of the increase. OK, now that I think about it, if it were, then TVs would have increased in price by WELL over $1000!

    You really have to wonder sometimes!

    Too Lean A Machine?

    One explosion at a chemical plant in Japan in 1993 cut off half the world's capacity for a resin used to make computer chips. The next month, the price of memory chips doubled, driving laptop prices up by $100.
    Although that DID happen, SUPPOSEDLY for that reason, anyone that ever looked at the IC industry knows it is a LIE! And why just MEMORY!?!?!?!? Almost every circuit in a PC uses the same stuff! The CASE might ALSO!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2149467].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rondo
    Check out this video about the clean-up.

    BP Fails Booming School 101

    Warning: Very Coarse language

    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2150397].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Rondo,

    The highest esitimate I heard was 400,000gallons! SCRATCH THAT, NOW the highest is 504,000gallons. and I WISH they would make it clear WHICH gallons they are speaking of.

    A gallon is a measure of volume of approximately four litres in the United States, and approximately five litres in the United Kingdom. Historically it has had many different definitions, but there are three definitions in current use. These are the U.S. liquid gallon (≈ 3.78 L) and the lesser used U.S. dry gallon (≈ 4.4 L) which are in use in the United States, and the Imperial (UK) gallon (≈ 4.5 L) which is in unofficial use within the United Kingdom and Ireland and is in semi-official use within Canada (See Canadian units).[1] The gallon, be it the Imperial or U.S. gallon, is sometimes found in other English-speaking countries.
    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2150467].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Rondo,

      The highest esitimate I heard was 400,000gallons! SCRATCH THAT, NOW the highest is 504,000gallons. and I WISH they would make it clear WHICH gallons they are speaking of.



      Steve
      It doesn't really matter on that scale of magnitude. It is a disaster. The differential percentage is negligible, and considering the accuracy of measurement it may actually even be well within any margin of error no matter what unit of measurement is used.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2154361].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by myob View Post

        It doesn't really matter on that scale of magnitude. It is a disaster. The differential percentage is negligible, and considering the accuracy of measurement it may actually even be well within any margin of error no matter what unit of measurement is used.
        Well, it could be close to 25%! STILL, many want to know. If it took 5 years for one measure to invade the world, another might take LESS than 4! And when I say years, I realize it may take longer, or far less time. It is just for illustration. At the rate it is going, it could surround the US in a year, and would probably hit CUBA in that time. Hopefully, this capping attempt will work, etc... And they say 2 days. Is that 2 chronological days, meaning sometime sunday, or political garbage deceptive speak, meaning perhaps wednesday, since they may stop saturday, sunday, and monday(which is memorial day and a holiday)?

        BTW I spoke earlier basically saying that to tell travelers that it was OK to go to florida because it is pristine was basically a LIE, as it would be meaningless unless the trip was already planned and they would arrive before yesterday. After all, a MINOR change could EASILY make the place a MESS, and you can't really forcast that! Well, reports are that the oil has found a SHORTCUT! It is apparently on its way to florida and may soon be there.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2154447].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          So it seems BP is still playing stupid games. Friday, it appears BP hired about 300 temp workers to be on the beach when Obama was there. According to locals who have been at the beach every day the last few weeks, these workers were only there while Obama was there and immediately left after the Prez left. Are these people for real!? Who do they think they are fooling?
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2154890].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    YIKES!

    It is ONE thing to be bad, etc... but to bus in workers just for appearances!?!?!? FRANKLY, you would figure that the volunteers, city, etc... would demand they do real work, and stay there for some appreciable time. And you would think that the government would treat it as a purchase(With the purchaser, or here the company, paying ALL taxes, and the workers, not actually paid for labor, wouldn't be able to claim it.). Frankly, BP should be forced to pay EVERY penny they would have to pay if it were legal full time employment, and the workers shouldn't get any benefit outside of the basic payment, because they are complicit.

    And it is FRAUD, so why isn't it treated accordingly?

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2155181].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AlanGNW
    I love conspiracy theories...

    Sabotage... BP behind the Valdez...! And as for using a nuke to solve the spill! Hilarious reading.

    Lets not forget that the company is regulated and the IRS has a major interest. You want conspiracy theories - look closer to home.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2155221].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by AlanSLV View Post

      I love conspiracy theories...

      Sabotage... BP behind the Valdez...! And as for using a nuke to solve the spill! Hilarious reading.

      Lets not forget that the company is regulated and the IRS has a major interest. You want conspiracy theories - look closer to home.
      Well, I think most here do NOT want to discuss nukes! If there were a big enough blast in the right spot, or an imperfection in that well, a nuke could fracture the crust and increase the size of the gusher AND create a VOLCANO! Frankly, I don't think that would be good for the gulf coast. There is a national park in Hawaii that is constantly changing, etc.. because of a volcano there, and THEY are "used" to such phenomena.

      There are SO MANY conspiracies that are FACT! HECK, the US has one that was exposed MONTHS ago and is only now PROVEN FACT(Admitted YESTERDAY)! I could say more, but.... HECK, people in 1945 said they saw some odd bodies. APPARENTLY, the US government created a conspiracy so that in 1954(notice the transposition!?!?!?) they dropped dummies fitting the description of those 9 years earlier. The government LATER said people made a mistake on the dates, and they simply saw the dropped dummies! Sounds reasonable, right?!?!? Well, let me ask you questions that apparently nobody asked before....

      ******WHY******? They CLAMED something like they were testing parachutes or some such. ******WHY******? I mean the dummies were too small, and the proportions were off, so any tests would be near WORTHLESS for humans! And WHY were they so oddly colored?

      Still, it is odd to believe that someone would remember something so far off, etc...

      and what of project bluebook? They stopped it so soon, etc... HECK, it took them a LONG time to reveal groom lake! So YEP, conspiracies exist. The argument that a secret can't be kept is STUPID on its face! NONE of the above secrets were kept, which is OBVIOUS because of the "conspiracy theory". Still, the FACTS were either not listened to, not believed, or "discredited". EVEN the stealth bomber was NO secret! It was rumored for MONTHS, perhaps years, and one company introduced a model that was close BEFORE the stealth bomber was revealed to the world!

      As for these wells being regulated, they really aren't. SOME consider the waters international waters. BESIDES, nobody really KNOWS what they are doing! GRANTED they KNEW this would affect the US, and HAD to fess up, etc... They COULD have left, and it may have taken WEEKS to find out about it and track it down to them. One person in government even lauded BP saying they could have just left, but they are doing the right thing and trying to take care of it.

      Of course, if I were president, and they left, I would have gone straight to the queen of england(Who basically retained rights to control of BP, and similar companies) and would have told her about what BP had done, and the proof, and made it clear that we would sever all relations with the UK if they didn't come out ASAP and give it 100% effort. She would probably have just made a call to them and demanded that they be on the next flight out. Could you imagine how they would react, and the pressure of having the US and the UK breathing down their necks, and the embarrassment? One would hope Obama would have done the same thing. But they stayed and fessed up, so none of that was necessary.

      BTW LUCKILY the news is reporting that 2 days is 2 days! They should know by tomorrow. HOPEFULLY they will work on monday. It would be an INSULT to all veterans and the US if they were unfinished on monday and still took the day off. They FOUGHT and the holiday is to honor, those that fought to PROTECT the US.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2155447].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    GREAT! Spain is really in trouble, and BP seems to have NO plan! They say the next step will take 4-7 days. Does 4 mean 4,5,6, or 7? Is 7 7,8, or 9?

    Frankly, I am surprised there haven't been death threats yet. I mean WOW! I can just imagine the thoughts that must be going through some people's heads in Louisiana.

    For those that don't know, LA is one of those places that has some wierd customs, laws, lifestyle, etc.... Some even have their own language Louisiana Creole French - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (though they do generally speak english). They have special holidays, like mardigras Mardi Gras - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . In short, the people brought up there that like that place are like their counterparts in texas! They couldn't see themselves living ANY other place. It isn't like they could even move the next state over! Destruction of the environment in LA, EVEN if it affected NO other place, would be like losing a beloved friend or relative. Of course, I wouldn't want it to destroy ANY environment. Right now, I am living near boston, and it will be heavily affected if this mess goes up the east coast.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2157501].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dsimms
    BP's Action Plan: None

    but our benefit's package is awesome....
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2157619].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author NicheCowboy
      from todays article on yahoo...

      "
      In the past three years, BP ran up 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation, ABC News reports, citing OSHA statistic.
      Bishop, who's British, says BP's fumbles and Hayward's incompetence have been wince-inducing.
      "He's up there with Lloyd Blankfein at Goldman Sachs," says Bishop, who says "insensitivity" by CEOs is now a business risk for the firms they lead. "



      sickening.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174000].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by NicheCowboy View Post

        from todays article on yahoo...

        "
        In the past three years, BP ran up 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation, ABC News reports, citing OSHA statistic.
        Bishop, who's British, says BP's fumbles and Hayward's incompetence have been wince-inducing.
        "He's up there with Lloyd Blankfein at Goldman Sachs," says Bishop, who says "insensitivity" by CEOs is now a business risk for the firms they lead. "



        sickening.

        YEAH! Conoco is one of the companies I have invested in, and sunoco is the one I do the most business with right now, when I buy gas for my OWN car, which isn't very often.

        I wouldn't touch citgo with a 50 foot pole.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174044].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Yep, incompetence is the word that comes to mind quickly regarding the BP CEO. The guy is tone death and a walking foot in the mouth idiot. The recent comment about wanting "my life back" has to go down in history as one of the most insensitive, ridiculous and offensive statements by a ceo in history.

        Originally Posted by NicheCowboy View Post

        ...Hayward's incompetence have been wince-inducing.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174160].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Yep, incompetence is the word that comes to mind quickly regarding the BP CEO. The guy is tone death and a walking foot in the mouth idiot. The recent comment about wanting "my life back" has to go down in history as one of the most insensitive, ridiculous and offensive statements by a ceo in history.
          Yeah, if I were there, I would say, "Well, WE want our LAND, and wildlife, back as well as our lives!"!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174194].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author NicheCowboy
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            Yeah, if I were there, I would say, "Well, WE want our LAND, and wildlife, back as well as our lives!"!
            \

            11 people killed from BP's negligence will never get theirs back.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2175315].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Danny_C
    Whatever it ends up being, I can only hope it puts them out of business for good. I know that's doubtful, but I can dream.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174124].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Is the Federal Government going to get tough on these folks at BP?

    There are signs but there's another twist,

    It's a British Company.

    Will the British gov plead for leniency - behind the scenes???

    We shall see what happens.


    TL


    Ps. Anyone have any numbers that they would like to see BP pay?




    ( should there be punitive damages paid?? )




    I think we're talking...




    ( at least... )








    ... 100 Billion Dollars.










    ( like the bad guy on Austin Powers ).





    Any guesstimates???


    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174211].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Wright
      On a positive note,

      all that oil spreading out around the Gulf, should help to
      calm the troubled waters in the new hurricane season.

      Then at the end of the season a suitably mega hurricane
      could hoover up all the oil and dump it over some wasteland
      with no sentient lifeforms (Texas possibly?)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174626].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      From a story I just read:

      "Obama's administration on Thursday handed BP a $69 million bill for recovery costs to date -- a figure sure to grow in the weeks and months ahead."

      That's not punitive. Just a cleanup bill to date. Seems like $100 billion is likely.

      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Ps. Anyone have any numbers that they would like to see BP pay?
      ( should there be punitive damages paid?? )
      I think we're talking...
      ( at least... )
      ... 100 Billion Dollars.
      TL
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2181405].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        From a story I just read:

        "Obama's administration on Thursday handed BP a $69 million bill for recovery costs to date -- a figure sure to grow in the weeks and months ahead."

        That's not punitive. Just a cleanup bill to date. Seems like $100 billion is likely.
        This is like a wrongful death claim. TECHNICALLY, it IS a wrongful death claim. The ONLY difference is that most of the deaths aren't human, and we care about the mess also. But HOW can such a claim EVER really be paid back? 100billion may well be a comparitive drop in the bucket.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2181658].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    100 Billion, by all accounts, would basically BANKRUPT the company! If they sold EVERYTHING at 100% of its HIGH, they would have about $167Billion. So you are talking about around 60% of the company, at its HIGH! TODAY, it is like 118Billion. As for earnings? $19,713,166,666.67 SO, if they paid 100percent of their stated earnings at 0%, it would take over 5 years to pay it, assuming the Euro didn't drop any more.

    To pay it off in five years, at 6.5%, they would have to pay approximately 1,956,615,000.00 every month(about 20% more than they make in a year). Ironically, that would be over 117,396,900,000, which is almost enough to effectively buy the company now!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174646].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      100 Billion, by all accounts, would basically BANKRUPT the company! If they sold EVERYTHING at 100% of its HIGH, they would have about $167Billion. So you are talking about around 60% of the company, at its HIGH! TODAY, it is like 118Billion. As for earnings? $19,713,166,666.67 SO, if they paid 100percent of their stated earnings at 0%, it would take over 5 years to pay it, assuming the Euro didn't drop any more.

      To pay it off in five years, at 6.5%, they would have to pay approximately 1,956,615,000.00 every month(about 20% more than they make in a year). Ironically, that would be over 117,396,900,000, which is almost enough to effectively buy the company now!

      Steve
      How much in damage dollars do you think they could cause???

      How about a 15-20 year payback plan???


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2174785].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author NicheCowboy