|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Jul 10 - 03:54 AM Cool info, Q. You just keep coming up with little gems. Instead of focusing in on one or the other, the hot ticket would be to find the 'point of corruption', of the two, by the two, and 'for' the two..which may, of course, never come out...readily...but THAT is where the 'reform regulations' need to come.....along with criminal indictments!~ Actually, we already have laws in place, that somehow, either got ignored, broken, or 'legislated out a loophole', for somebody....under the guise of 'a better idea', complete with host of 'regulatory fees, and fines'. Once again, as more truth comes out, you will see what I've been an ogre, for so long about...corruption, both sides, so much, that they're the same!....and not representing the well being, or will of WE...the nation! They've just about drained us dry! Don't give up your spirit...it's not theirs! Regards, GfS Hell, there's a song in there somewhere! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Ebbie Date: 01 Jul 10 - 01:19 AM guffaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: mousethief Date: 30 Jun 10 - 11:16 PM Is it because they're British, do you think, that they're such scofflaws? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 30 Jun 10 - 11:01 PM BP is trying to shut down an internal safety watchdog agency it set up under congressional pressure four years ago following the Texas refinery explosion and the Alaska spill. BP's program of secret dealings won't stand the light of day. CNN News, June 30, 2010. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 30 Jun 10 - 01:38 PM BP has just been fined $5.2 million for submitting "false, inaccurate and misleading reports on energy production on Southern Ute Tribal Lands in SW Colorado, the Department of Interior said. Tribal auditors and the Management Bureau found that BP reported "incorrect royalty rates and prices for royalty putposes" and incorrectly reported well production on leases, the Interior Department said, leading Ocean Energy Management bureau's director, Michael Bromwich, to conclude that "BP's continued submission of erroneous reports was knowing or willful." The errors were reported to BP, but they were not corrected. CNN News, June 30, 2010. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/30/us.bp.fined/index.html?iref=allsearch |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Jun 10 - 04:03 AM Shanghaiceltic, Wow! great post. Thank you!..and everyone else who added to it! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 29 Jun 10 - 09:59 PM The California Public Employees Retirement System, valued at $205.2 billion, owned and 60.1 million BP shares as of June 9. Clark McKinley, fund spokesman, would not say whether the Fund intended to file suit. money.cnn.com No comment has been made by the California State Teachers Retirement System, the second largest public pension fund after the California Public Employees Retirement System. Neither fund will be severely affected because they are so large. The Ontario Teachers Pension Fund ($96.4 billion in assets). Approximately 33% of assets are non-Canadian, but no BP stock as of Dec. 2009. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Greg F. Date: 29 Jun 10 - 09:33 PM Also the Reagan (Senile) Administration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 29 Jun 10 - 09:27 PM Members of BP's employee savings plan are bringing a class action suit against the company. Employees say the "Defendants knew or should have known that investment in PB Plc was- and continues to be- an imprudent investment of the ESP's (Employees Savings Plan) assets due to serious mismanagement and improper business practices that resulted in catastrophic incidents of international significance, including, among others, the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico." The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Chicago, seeks class-action status; the complaint states that regulatory filings show the plan held $2.45 billion worth of London-based BP's American depository shares, or 29% of its $8.27 billion of assets, at the end of 2009. Bloomberg Reports. New York State Common Retirement Fund, at $132.6 billion assets the nation's third-largest public pension fund, is seeking "lead plaintiff" status in a class action suit brought June 22. The fund's loss is some $575 million. A Fund spokesman said "BP mislead investors about its safety procedures and its ability to respond to events like the ongoing oil spill, and we're going to hold it accountable." CNNMoney.com |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jun 10 - 09:24 PM The Bhopal disaster occurred during the Reagan (Republican) administration. Make of that what you will. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Shanghaiceltic Date: 29 Jun 10 - 09:00 PM From the latest Private Eye issue. From Private Eye latest issue... 11 People killed in accident on oil rig leased by British company BP, resulting in four presidential visits, a $1.6bn clean-up and the establishment of $20bn compensation fund in two months. 15,000 People killed in accident at Bhopal plant owned by American company Union Carbide, resulting in 0 presidential visits, no clean-up and $470m compensation in 25 years |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 29 Jun 10 - 07:51 PM Okay...... Try this! (click) GfS OHHH, and if you can't distinguish between the Truth coming from a 'pop star', and/or common sense, the previously posted article was written by: Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University. Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics. Mr. Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the "new trade theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal, a prize given every two years to "that economist under forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic knowledge." Mr. Krugman's current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises. At the same time, Mr. Krugman has written extensively for a broader public audience. Some of his recent articles on economic issues, originally published in Foreign Affairs, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American and other journals, are reprinted in Pop Internationalism and The Accidental Theorist. On October 13, 2008, it was announced that Mr. Krugman would receive the Nobel Prize in Economics. OKAY??????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 29 Jun 10 - 03:09 PM ""Got it???"" YEAH! I got it. Don't bother taking on board the opinions of experts in world affairs, economics, politics, or anything of that sort. Just ask a working class Liverpool pop star, who wrote a song about it, and also professed to be more important than Jesus. Yeah RIGHT! You prove my point so much better than I could have done. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 28 Jun 10 - 05:34 PM Above reports from ADVFN Canada, www.advfn.com |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 28 Jun 10 - 05:31 PM News, June 28. BP stock up a bit (0.11%) since storm fears wane. A rig to increase recovery from the leak may be delayed because of the storm Alex, however, Adm. Allen said.. Adm. Allen says relief well will not be at its target before mid-August. The drill is within 900 feet, but the last drilling has to be done "very slowly." Eugene Turner, professor of Oceanography at Louisiana State univ. and NOAA scientists say the "dead zone" will be larger this year (about the size of New Jersey) but how much is the effect of the spill is unknown. In an understatement, Prof, Turner said the combination of the hypoxic zone and the oil spill will not be good for local fisheries. Costs to BP have risen to $100 million a day; currently at $2.65 billion. Refinery at Toledo, Ohio, back online after boiler failure June 15. TransCanada Pipelines, partnering with Exxon-Mobil, have proposed building a pipeline from Alaska to Canada to the lower 48 at a cost of some $30-40 billion, says it is not discussing a merger with Denali, a rival pipeline by BP and Conoco-Phillips (proposed with a cost of $35 billion). Talks on such a merger, in the multi-billions, was reported in the Houston Chronicle. Both plan to connect with lines in Alberta (Trans-Canada). Steve Rinehart, a BP Alaska spokesman, refused to comment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 28 Jun 10 - 04:56 PM Digression, but deep-water drilling off Tanzania is hitting it big. Anadarko (partner with BP in Macondo) has a "high quality" gas discovery. Dominion Petroleum's discovery has a billion barrel potential. Exxon-Mobil and UK-based BG have exploration blocks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,ibo Date: 28 Jun 10 - 02:25 PM we should release 30,000 seagulls to soak up the oil |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Jun 10 - 12:10 PM DonT: "If genuine freedom and free thinking were as troublesome to those in power, as you suggest, then this website would have been closed down years ago, and a lot of others too." Just give it time, the way things are going! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Jun 10 - 12:09 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Jun 10 - 12:06 PM DonT: "If your concept of individuality and free thinking gives rise to the wild flights of fancy, and ridiculous conspiracy theories, which you exhibit here, then perhaps you would be better of without them." Once again, Don, that nasty bug up your ass, is rearing its head. So here, take it from someone else, that you might not be so prone to spout your bias at. You might recognize it......then again, maybe not. What they want for you! Got it??? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 Jun 10 - 06:31 AM ""and for God's sakes, do NOT be a free individual with free thought. Those are troublemakers.....and a threat, for sure!"" If your concept of individuality and free thinking gives rise to the wild flights of fancy, and ridiculous conspiracy theories, which you exhibit here, then perhaps you would be better of without them. If genuine freedom and free thinking were as troublesome to those in power, as you suggest, then this website would have been closed down years ago, and a lot of others too. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Jun 10 - 02:02 AM Ed T: "But, the real question is, whose interests are governments serving at any particular time (up front, and behind the scenes), that of society, local small industry and the environment, or the folks who fund the election of their party?" Perhaps, the ones who bribe them the best...regardless of what agenda is hidden, for controlling those who are duped into electing them! Just shut up, do your work for low wages, pay your high taxes, pay for overpriced worthless crap, and don't question where its all going, or how they're getting there, or going to do! They control..you obey!.....and do so with programmed enthusiasm! .....and for God's sakes, do NOT be a free individual with free thought. Those are troublemakers.....and a threat, for sure! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Ed T Date: 27 Jun 10 - 03:22 PM I recall wise lyrics of Bob Dylan, who (IMO) got it right in his song: "But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed You're gonna have to serve somebody, It may be the devil, or it may be the Lord But, you're gonna have to serve somebody" I kind'a know whose interests the oil industry serves, the corporate folks and its shareholders. But, the real question is, whose interests are governments serving at any particular time (up front, and behind the scenes), that of society, local small industry and the environment, or the folks who fund the election of their party? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil From: Stringsinger Date: 27 Jun 10 - 01:59 PM It's amazing to me the arrogance and ignorance that is expounded in defense of BP not to be blamed for its "hole in the earth" and the idiocy of claiming that they know what will happen as a result of this disaster by those who sound like Tony Hayward, "Trust us, we have everything under control". Rampant corporatists and technological sociopathic behavior is being trotted out by the so-called "experts" on this thread. I don't care who worked for BP or AMOCO or any other irresponsible drilling operation, it is all denial of the most insidious sort. The claim that there was any vestige of responsibility for the safety of the drilling operations is completely without merit. Can you imagine this arrogance and ignorance being applied to the nuclear energy companies? We'll have Three Mile Islands and Chernobyls happening more frequently now since we can defend the lack of safety concerns by energy corporations. BP is the tip of the iceberg. In a sense, the corporate world has declared war on the U.S. Maybe Britain has as well, since they house BP. It is after all British Petroleum. BP apologists make a mockery of the logic that undoubtably caused this disaster. It is unregulated capitalism, a weakening of the U.S. government through the lax regulatory agencies, a limpid defense of off-shore drilling in spite of the risks it poses, an economy that relies on oil for wartime purposes to run expensive weaponry and aircraft, and a series of nutty "experts" who claim to know something about the assault on the American Gulf region. The results speak for themselves. The American Gulf Coast has been ruined, probably irrevocably and the lives of the inhabitants damaged for a long time. This has become the American way of life where the lives of innocent people in foreign countries are taken for the benefit of corporate capitalism but also the destruction of lives in our own country. The politicians in our Senate and House have been bought and sold. Also, the corporation have been the Frankenstein Monster created by none other than Supreme Court Justice John Roberts in his ruling re: Citizens United where he has declared this Monster a "person" with privileges equal (or some cases more equal) to an American citizen. It all fits into a neat picture of corruption, dysfunction, sociopathy and a broken system of government. It's a tacit acceptance of Gordon Greco's pronouncement, "Greed is good". What has to be done is resistance against the corporate world, the dysfunction of equivocating politicians, the refusal to accept the rhetoric of the BP's of the world and organizing on the grass roots level to create an alternate universe. I don't trust apologists for BP or any of the rhetoric on this thread by those who claim to be "experts". They are part of the problem. Instead we must face the destructive reality that this hubris, wonkishness and so-called expertise has caused the Gulf Disaster and can lead to other tragedies and organize to resist them. I think that the communities in the Gulf have already realized that this is their only way out of this quagmire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 27 Jun 10 - 01:50 PM Not particularly. However, the amount of misinformation, coming from all sides SHOULD be of concern to ALL of us!. Remember, that it is our FREEDOM that has allowed America the ability to become as great as we are. One advantage that we've had, when it is fully operational is the information and intelligence pool, that causes us to be able to draw, and find solutions, for problems that we have overcome, in the past. FREEDOM of speech, and integrity, to meet the challenges, is an integral part of doing just that!..When information is tainted, for whatever reason, especially political aspirations, or agendas, and solutions are withheld, to accommodate those two things, we fall backwards. Inventions, innovations, new ideas generally does not come from bureaucrats, attempting to secure their employment, or 'move up the ladder' pushing pencils. It is the THINKERS, from ALL sectors of this society, that the answers come....not those who wish to manipulate the outcome, by binding the masses, with lies, corruption and general bullshit! Sometimes, I've disagreed with some posts on here..but in my 'thinking time', perhaps during the rest of the day, I logically consider the differences, and incorporate those into my reasoning processes, which, in turn, widens and grows. I would hope that for all of us. In my case, where I am composing large pieces of music, which incorporates a wide spectrum of emotions, and images, I find it rather helpful....as I hope mine do for you. One frustration, I've experienced, while on here, is some of the blind, non-thinking political dogmatic rhetoric, which some, willingly subscribe to, causing them to be...umm..let's say, 'less than bright'...or compassionate. That being said, may this be a reminder, may our thoughts go upward, and beneficial to creativity in ways to bring an uplifting understanding, to us..and to all those who hear it in our music, and lives Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Ed T Date: 27 Jun 10 - 01:49 PM I have to agree with you in your last post Q. Add to that, the lack of funding for non-industry science and technology to deal with oil spills and their environmental impacts. Far too much trust is placed in industry to find solutions to problems they could and do cause. IMO, we are seeing the results of a nonsense philosophy that industry is best at writing all the rules and doing all the research to protect society, and enforce them through voluntary compliance....(that did not work too well for other sectors to enforce themselves, like the food industry) Since goverments are mostly broke....it would seem prudent for governbments to either tax industry or the end user to fund more research and technology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 27 Jun 10 - 01:38 PM The situation is bad enough without doomsday predictions. Much of the reason for the confusion is that no one really knows the consequences of the oil volcano (I find the word spill inadequate) or how to fight it. All methods being tried are palliative and/or experimental. Intersecting the well by drilling hopefully will work, but effects still will be evident for years even if the intersect drilling is successful. Weak regulation by MMS, unnecessary fears about oil shortage (fueled by bad politics), drilling in advance of development of safe engineering technology, failure to expand substitute means of generating energy (which will take years to become important contributors), and a company(s) and investors (us!) with a cowboy attitude of damn the cautions, the pot of gold awaits, all have contributed to the catastrophe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Ed T Date: 27 Jun 10 - 11:40 AM "What politician do YOU trust?" That seems like another issue, and another discussion. For the theory in the article to have weight, many others, from many professions, would need to be involved and likely complacent. Is this the scenario you put forward and want is to have trust in? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 27 Jun 10 - 11:30 AM Well, Ed....what politician do YOU trust? I find that NONE of them could have risen very far up, into the political world....BY TELLING THE TRUTH! Which ones serve the people...OVER their own interests? How many flip flop on issues, based on their re-electability? How often do their 'constituents' argue amongst themselves, to explain away elected, or aspiring to be elected politician's actions, just so they can still believe in them?...no matter how many times their hopes are dashed by them??....disappointed by them...or embarrassed by them? I think their constituents are FAR more loyal to them, than the politician to the constituents. Deceit, by its very nature is undetectable! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Ed T Date: 27 Jun 10 - 09:03 AM GFS, IMO, quite an alarming and speculative article. If such a dark and broad conspiracy were to exist...there would not seem any point in trusting anyone about anything? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 27 Jun 10 - 03:34 AM Hi guys! Ed T and Q were discussing this, so I just got this in, today. Ed T: "At issue is the reliance of government on the good will of industry to answer many of the questions and care for the environment...and reduce funding for government research." I got this E-mail, today..it addresses some stuff, that we've covered, verifies some others...and poses some questions. You may find it of interest. (This is a new source, and I haven't checked it all out, yet, but it sounded consistent, with other info I had received) Vol: 105 Issue: 24 - Thursday, June 24, 2010 Ensuring The Worst Case Scenario? One of the most enduring features surrounding the Gulf Oil Spill now entering its third month of belching oil from the seafloor is the fact that no matter how bad the most recent worst-case scenario speculation, the next one will be even more terrifying. The base-line measures of the crisis have steadily worsened. The estimated flow rate keeps rising. The spill is already worse than anybody could have anticipated and there remains no end in sight. According to point man Admiral Thad Allen of the US Coast Guard, the reason that BP stopped pumping mud into the well in last month's "top kill" effort was fear the effort would damage the casing and open new channels for oil to leak into the rock formations. "I think that one thing that nobody knows is the condition of the well bore from below the blowout preventer down to the actual oil field itself," Allen said last week. "We don't know if the well bore has been compromised or not." Making things worse, the admiral said, was the fact that the blowout preventer is 'leaning'. "The entire arrangement has kind of listed a little bit," he said. Bruce Bullock, director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University, says one of the characteristics of the Deepwater Horizon blowout is its unpredictability. He said the deep-sea 'plumes' of oil detected by research vessels are probably not from the blowout but possibly from additional leaks caused by either the drilling or the blowout. Nobody knows how much oil is actually seeping into the Gulf. "I actually have a document that shows that BP actually believes it could go upwards of 100,000 barrels per day," Rep Ed Markey [D-Mass] said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "So, again, right from the beginning, BP was either lying or grossly incompetent. First they said it was only 1,000. Then they said it was 5,000 barrels. Now we're up to 100,000 barrels." Senator Charles Grassley [R-Ia) released a BP document entitled "Maximum Discharge Calculation." The document was published internally was based on theoretical calculations made before drilling began. That document says given the most "optimistic assumptions" about the size of the reservoir and the intensity of the pressure at depth and assuming a total loss of well control and no inhibitions on the flow, "a maximum case discharge of 162,000 barrels per day was estimated." BP recalculated after the Deepwater Horizon blew up and came up with what it called a "more reasonable" worst-case scenario of between 40,000 and 60,000 barrels per day. A 'barrel' of oil is roughly 42 gallons. About the only thing that we ARE sure of (we being the public) is that everybody is lying about it. BP is looking to mitigate the damage to its corporate image and its bottom line. Members of the Congress are looking for ways to use the oil spill to mitigate the damage to their own re-election prospects. Admiral Thad Allen is looking for ways to make it appear that the government's intervention is helping, rather than hindering efforts at both plugging the hole and cleaning up the damage. The truth is that every one of them is lying. Nobody knows how bad the spill really is or how many other leaks it may have caused. At the same time, nobody wants to admit that they don't know. Except Matt Simmons, founder of Simmons and Co. Simmons and Co. is an oil investment firm. He claims that he does know and that the news is much worse than anybody else believes. Simmons says the leak that BP is focusing on at the "riser" is not the problem. The real problem is a gaping hole at the "well head," 8 miles away. "The riser leak is a deception," says Simmons. "The hole is in the well head — it's the well bore." "When they [the research vessel Thomas Jefferson] finally got the permission to circle the three-mile radius," of the well, "once they got up wind [of the blast], within 20 minutes all the crew [of the boat] were nauseous, and several people are still in the hospital. There is benzene coming out of that stuff. If a hurricane finally blows up the Gulf, we could have millions of people die." According to Simmons, the ultimate worst-case scenario has not yet even been contemplated. "We're going to have to evacuate the Gulf States. Can you imagine evacuating 20 million people? . . . This story is 80 times worse than I thought." Only eighty times worse? Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asking the Defense Department for six thousand active duty military personnel to be dispatched to the Gulf to aid the Louisiana National Guard. Jindal says that the reason he needs federal troops is because the National Guard is busy preparing for just such a possible evacuation. "Currently, our Soldiers and Airmen are staging for and are engaged in the planning of the effort to evacuate and provide security and clean up for the coastal communities expected to be impacted by the oil spill." If the well isn't capped soon, the toxic gases from the well, together with the highly toxic Corexit 9500 chemical dispersant being used will eventually force the evacuation of the Gulf States. It may already be too late. Assessment: Those living in Florida are presently at the highest risk, but the danger also appears likely to spread to all Gulf Coast states east of Louisiana -- and possibly even to the entire Eastern half of the United States once hurricane season begins. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has already declared the airspace over the oil spill site to be a no-fly zone until further notice. As we're already seen, various sources have indicated that local police, highway patrol, National Guard, US military and foreign troops may be involved in an operation to evacuate the Gulf Coast. Since the Deepwater Horizon first exploded, the role of the federal government has largely been confined to blaming BP for the spill, demanding reparations for the spill, but nothing to stop the spill. Had the White House mobilized every oil skimming rig in the country and accepted foreign assistance offers, much of the oil now threatening the American coastline could have been skimmed off. Seemingly inexplicably, the White House has largely taken a "hands off" approach -- apart from talking about it, that is. In short, it seems as if the White House is simply allowing the spill to proceed. The federal government shut down the dredging that was being done to create protective sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico. The berms are meant to protect the Louisiana coastline from oil. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department has concerns about where the dredging is being done. The department says one area where sand is being dredged is an ecologically sensitive section of the Chandeleur Islands! So efforts to protect the entire coast from ecological destruction was ordered halted to protect one endangered section of beach. Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser, who was one of the most vocal advocates of the dredging plan, sent a letter to President Barack Obama, pleading for the work to continue. "Once again, our government resource agencies, which are intended to protect us, are now leaving us vulnerable to the destruction of our coastline and marshes by the impending oil," he wrote. "Furthermore, with the threat of hurricanes or tropical storms, we are being put at an increased risk for devastation to our area from the intrusion of oil." Despite his plea, work on the sand berms halted at midnight Wednesday. Why? Since September 11, 2001 the United States has been in a state of national emergency, which means that martial law can be declared by the President at any time and for any reason. A declaration of martial law authorizes temporary rule by military authorities. Under martial law, civil rights are suspended and civilian courts are restricted or supplanted by military tribunals. Although a declaration of martial law is theoretically temporary, there are no time limits. A state of martial law, once declared, can be extended indefinitely. The forced evacuation of as many as 80 million Americans from the Gulf Coast region would indeed necessitate such a declaration. In an evacuation, the federal government would determine when and where evacuees would be moved to and for how long. Martial law would not be confined to the Gulf States -- since the evacuees would have to be relocated inland across the United States, so too would military rule. Under the provisions of martial law, the president could also order the suspension of national elections until the national emergency is over. Her's the real kicker. The only one that can declare the national emergency "over" and rescind a declaration of martial law is President Barack Hussein Obama. And suddenly, it all starts to makes sense!!!
Thanks. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Ed T Date: 26 Jun 10 - 11:11 PM At issue is the relyance of government on the good will of industry to answer many of the questions and care for the environment...and reduce funding for government recearch. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0-vrkse69xsLJHx1KBZUj7rDJyAD9GJ5A6O2 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 26 Jun 10 - 08:36 PM Crozier (see above) and colleague Monty Graham at the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, Alabama, have identified a zone of low oxygen emerging off the Alabama shore that is kilely due to oil. Sampling.... showed reduced numbers and types of animals in the ares, suggesting mobile animals are leaving tha area. Plankton in the low oxygen zone appeared dead, Graham said. This is the first time the dispersants have been used underwater in a spill response. "I think that was terribly ill-advised," Crozier said. "It's keeping the oil unseen and very difficult to find and impossible, ultimately, to clean up." Mitchelmore (see above) said, "Dispersant use has always been full of uncertainties. A lot ot these were identified in (a report) in 1989," she continued. "What is the point of doing these reports and finding these data gaps if no one ever looks at them?" The above is more from Discovery News. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 26 Jun 10 - 08:21 PM Effect on foundation of the food chain in the Gulf? The short answer is thay we don't know. Ed Overton, Louisiana State Univ.- "We don't know whether it's affecting wildlife or not. We're right in the middle of this. We really won't know for a while yet." Samantha Joye, University of Georgia, researcher and cruise leader tracking underwater oil plumes- "Dispersants are a complicated topic. No one that I have spoken to about this has a full understanding of what the full range of dispersant effects might be. How do dispersants influence microorganisms and microbially-mediated processes? I don't know. How do they impact fish, larvae, phytoplankton, shrimp? I don't know the answer to that either." She saysi dispersants break oil into smaller particles that keeps oil off the beaches but "I am not convinced this is a good thing because there are so many potential unknown effects of dispersants." .........by keeping the oil in the water instead of at the surface, other organisms suffer." Mitchelmore, Univ. Maryland- When you add dispersant, organisms are exposed to oil that wouldn't have been. Dissolved oil can go directly across organisms' membranes...... it can stick to gills." George Crozier, Dauphin Island Sea Lab, Alabama- "A lot of organisms that can swim are probably saying this doesn't smell good or taste good and leaving, but the plankton that forms the base of the food chain doesn't have that option." Andy Nyman, Louisiana State Univ.- "We found that working with South Louisiana crude and COREXIT 9500, the dispersed oil was more toxic than the undispersed oil initially and even six months later," he said. The plankton and a tiny worm- the major food source for shrimp- were the most sensitive. In the Gulf, Nyman said, "I would expect the dispersed oil to be more toxic and for the effects to last longer unless I saw data otherwise." Another concern with dispersants is that by keeping oil in the water column where microbes can degrade it, oxygen levels in the water can drop to potentially dangerous levels as the microbes feed on the oil and consume oxygen. In other words, scientists working on the Gulf don't know, but are worried. More later. Above extracted from Discovery News http://news.discovery.com/earth/oil-dispersants-wildlife.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Donuel Date: 26 Jun 10 - 06:13 PM Does the dispersant kill the microscopic foundation of the food chain in the gulf, such as diatoms and phytoplankton? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 26 Jun 10 - 01:19 PM My point is that the Corexit dispersants may cause more long term damage than not using it at all. Nalco's Corexit forms an oil-dispersant-water mixture, which is too heavy to float upward, and not heavy enough to sink to the bottom (EPA papers). This mixture is the oil plume, which remains in the water column and can be moved long distances by underwater currents. Any organisms in the water will ingest the mixture, and if they are food of other organisms, the oil-dispersant mixture will be passed up the food chain. Moreover, it has been shown that oxygen levels are reduced when the mixture is present. EPA data, summarized by Donald Reinhardt, medical microbiology consultant, Emeritus Prof. Georgia State Univ., writing for suite101.com. From Physorg.com- "U.S. scientists have charted vast oil plumes from the gushing BP well........, and warn that the impact of the "invisible" undersea oil may be felt for years. One fish scientist has warned that the dispersant-oil mix could wipe out dozens of species of fish (Chakrabarty). Paul Montagna, marine ecologist at Harte Research Inst. for Gulf Mexico Studies, says oil is getting dispersed through the water column. "What that means is that basically life in the entire water column is now being exposed." Chris D'Elia, dean of School of Coast & Environment at Louisiana State University, says that the microbes (being touted as a solution) consume oxygen. The problem is that these microbes end up consuming oxygen in the process and there is a tremendous amount of oil that needs to be consumed. "The toxicity alone or the bod (biological oxygen demand) problem alone are substantial issues." "When you start adding the two together, God only knows what's going on." http://www.physorg.com/news193379649.html Dr. Shirley, Texas A&M marine biologist, quoted in Nature, said the plume could cause a barrier that blocks the up-and-down daily migration of numerous organisms, and could block the flow of particles of organic debris from the surface to the deep where they are a critical food source. www.nature.com/news/2010/100518/full/4652741.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Ed T Date: 26 Jun 10 - 09:56 AM "People are arguing that we do know the long term toxic oil effects" I am refering to on Mudcat and on this thread. I do not see anyone arguing that, as Q seemed to indicate. I certainly am not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Donuel Date: 26 Jun 10 - 09:49 AM Ed T People are arguing that we do know the long term toxic oil effects at least in terms of human respiratory damage. A woman who worked to clean some of the Exxon Valdez spill has suffered the toxic effects of oil for the last 22 years. She appeared on the Rachel Maddow show friday and said that she will march the length of the spoiled Gulf shores wearing appropriate respirators and clothing which BP forbids any of its cleaning crews to wear under threat of being fired. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? We had a powerful but brief downpour here on Wed. Never before had I seen all the roads build up with piles of sudswhereaver tires stirred the pooling water. Every road we took be it new roads or old raods all had the same detergent like foam. WHAT IS THIS CAUSED BY ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Ed T Date: 26 Jun 10 - 09:11 AM "We have no way of knowing the long-term effects of this toxicity" Is someone arguing against that? I did not see it anywhere here? Considering the volumes involved, I suspect the impact of boh the oil and dispersants will be seen in organisms for some time. The point is that the dispersants used at source in this case worked to do what was intended (outside of long term biological uncertainities). On the sea surface they did not, and it was mostly discontinured. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 25 Jun 10 - 11:02 PM The latest NOAA Gulf spill map shows a large oil plume is moving closer to St. Petersburg, Florida (227 miles). Depths plotted to 3000 feet. Multiple plumes have been spotted. University of South Florida scientists have confirmed that the oil mixed with oil spill chemical dispersants create dead zones where oxygen is depleted in the water. Marine life cannot survive under the influence of the plumes. "Newly released photos and videos have led the scientific community to conclude that there has been such a massive amount of oil and chemical disbursants dumped into the Gulf of Mexico there is no way to avoid catastrophic consequences....." Tampa Florida Examiner June 23. http://www.examiner.com/x-55371-Tampa-Gulf-Oil-Spill-Examiner~y2010m6d23-NOAA-Gulf-oil-spill-map-shows-deadly-oil-plume-moving-closer-to-St-Petersburg-Florida Statement from governor's office, Florida- "According to the NOAA oil plume model, the oil plume is 4 miles from Pensacola, 73 miles from Mexico Beach and 285 miles from St. Petersburg. 24 June 2010. www.thegovmonitor.com |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 25 Jun 10 - 10:09 PM Dispersants were also used in the Exxon Valdez spill; there was insufficient wave action to mix the dispersant with the oil and water. The Coast Guard concluded the dispersant was not working and its use was discontinued. www.epa.gov/oem/content/learning/exxon.htm Studies performed on organisms exposed to these dispersants after the cleanup found that the dispersants accumulate in living organisms at very high concentrations and harmed the developing hearts of both pacific herring and pink salmon embryos. The Acad Sci. 2005 report showed that toxicity increases significantly after sun exposure (most lab work done under fluorescents). www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/oil_public_health_html We have no way of knowing the long-term effects of this toxicity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Ed T Date: 25 Jun 10 - 08:34 PM "In other words, the dispersant use is experimental; it smacks of doing something that may be no better (or may be worse?) than doing nothing". Maybe yes, maybe no. Before EPA let BP use dispersants at source (as opposed to the ineffective air spraying of weathered oil), they had to be proven it disperses the oil....as no one knew if it would be effective. That was proven to be so....check out the science reports on the effectiveness, near and far field. A significant amount of the oil was kept from the surface (aka the plumes)...allowing the workers to work in a safer environment, and reducing the amount of oil reaching the surface (where it could do more immediate harm to surface species) and on the shores and sensitive wetlands. I suspect a trade off for the lesser of two bad situations. Q, none of those statements or links you provide show much that is new, nor unknown. The environmental impact of dispersant use (any of them) in such a large spill (like a major oil spill every day), and in such deep waters is not modeled, studied mor known. But, that alone does not rule out the other reasons for using them that I noted. If, at a minimum, they are no worse environmentally than the oil without dispersants....the other reasons for their use (protecting shorelands, wetlands, limiting the surface spread and specied damage....along with protecting workers safety) makes sense to me. For the vast amount of oil released, a surprisingly low amount (IMO) has reached shorelines.....and there were long periods where no dispersants were applied at source. During Exxon Valdez they steamed cleaned shorelines, when it was known that it did more harm than good (killed the beneficial bacteria), possibly to show the public they were doing something. At least, in this case, scientists were consulted and a measured decision was made based on the greatest good in a tough situation, where spill technology and science has never been before. Was it the right decision? Time will tell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 25 Jun 10 - 05:39 PM This is the first use of dispersants at depth. EPA- "effects of underwater dispersant use on the environment are still widely unknown, which is why we are testing to determine its effectiveness first and foremost." US National Wildlife Federation head, Larry Schweiger, said the method of using underwater dispersant at the source of the leak was untested and could have devastating effects. National Academy of Sciences, 2005- These dispersants "do not actually reduce the total amount of oil entering the environment." Studies of dispersant after the Exxon Valdez spill suggest that the toxicity of chemically dispersed oil is similar to that of physically dispersed oil. Small droplets of oil and dispersant are toxic to microorganisms as well as spawning fisheries, and could affect shrimp larvae as well. http://priceofoil/2010/05/07/epa-says-effect-of-dispersants-at-depth-unknown/ The Deepwater Horizon Response Center- "Coast Guard and EPA approve use of dispersant subsea in further effort to prevent oil from reaching U.S. shoreline. Agencies reserve authority to stop use of the dispersant at any time." "The use of the dispersant at the source of the leak represents a novel approach to addressing the significant environmental threat posed by the spill. Preliminary testing results indicate that subsea use of the dispersant is effective in reducing the amount of oil from reaching the surface- and can do so with the use of less dispersant than is needed when the oil does reach the surface. This is an important step to reduce the potential for damage from oil reaching fragile wetlands and coastal areas." "While BP pursues the use of subsea dispersants, the federal government will require regular analysis of its effectiveness and impact on the environment, water and air quality, and human health...... "The federal government will work with caution and strong oversight and reserves the right to discontinue the use of the dispersant method if any negative impacts on the environment outweigh the benefits." In other words, the dispersant use is experimental; it smacks of doing something that may be no better (or may be worse?) than doing nothing. http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/551271/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Ed T Date: 25 Jun 10 - 04:46 PM "If Corexit is so safe, why did Exxon Biomedical Services describe its "Acute Toxicity" in a peer-reviewed journal"? Considering all dispersants have toxic effects, at specific concentrations, and have a range of effectiveness in specific situations, better questions could be: 1)What vulnerable assets is a priority for protection? 2)Is leaving the oil undispersed less environmentally safe than using dispersants (I believe a large group of scientific experts considered and ruled that using dispersants was the best choice). Once a decision is made that the benefits (environmental and ecosystem, wildlife workers health, social, economic, and coastal assets and danger of it spreading farther if untreated) of using dispersants outweighs not using them: dispersants: 3)Among all the available dispersant options, which ones are more effective, and causes fewer environmental concerns,from labratory testing and expert scientific advice,.....short and long term. (Let's not forget that few dispersants, if any, were tested under these extreme circumstances. Some, while less toxic, were developed and tested to be suitable for use in warmer, near shore,and shallow waters). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Ebbie Date: 25 Jun 10 - 02:38 PM I know there are a great many people who tout nuclear energy and wonder why in the world the US doesn't embrace it. I think this article explains it quite well. Nuclear the Answer to Fossil Fuels? Snippet: "Not in decades has the nuclear option looked more attractive. Earlier this year, the government extended funding to build two new reactors at the Vogtle plant in Georgia, likely the first reactors to go online since 1996, and a lot more may be in the works. Oil and coal disasters like Massey and Deepwater Horizon may be some of the best arguments for nuclear power. "They may also be some of the best arguments against it. Disasters like Deepwater Horizon highlight troubling truths about natural resources. But they also point to some equally troubling truths about accidents and worst-case scenarios." Snippet: "But for all the attractions of nuclear, there remains the looming question of what happens if things go wrong. Nuclear power suffers from what you can think of as a paradox of catastrophe: The worst-case scenario is so terrible that we are actually less able to quantify it and consider its ramifications than we are with other potential disasters. We implicitly recognize this in the laws governing the nuclear industry, which cap the industry's liability for an accident at $10 billion. "Everybody understands that in the event of a real nuclear catastrophe, that would be a drop in the bucket. The truth is that the costs of that would be so great that we simply put it in the category of those near-inconceivables we don't want to consider. Which is all the more reason to consider it." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 25 Jun 10 - 01:20 PM The above from NY Times, June 25, 2010 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 25 Jun 10 - 01:18 PM "A lawyer's dream" Dan Pickering, co-president of Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co., an energy-focused investment bank in Houston, said, "Everybody's going to be pointing fingers at each other," he said. Anadarko is going to be arguing with BP over the well design, BP is going to be pointing fingers at the service companies for the well drilling and evaluation process and the service companies are going to be pointing fingers back at BP, claiming it's BP's oversight and indemnification. it's a lawyer's dream." A Transocean spokesman (owner of the rig) noted that its contract with BP requires BP to indemnify it. Its president said BP has agreed to assume full responsibility for the costs and the liability of pollution and contamination." A spokeswoman for Haliburton noted that its contract "requires the well owner to defend and indemnify Haliburton for all potential liability claims and expenses arising from the blowout," aside from claims of Haliburton employees. An expert in tort law at Wake Forest suggested BP might try to argue in court that other companies involved in the drilling process were negligent- e. g., manufactured of the blowout preventer. Lloyd's of London asked a federal judge in Texas to declare that it would not have to cover BP's "excess liability" in cleanup, etc., arguing that Transocean's contract limits insurance protection to pollution "originating above the surface of the land or water." Anadarko (25%) has said it will fight any claims. Investors have fled, lopping off $19 billion in market value. Mitsui (10%) said the company had given up its interest in oil from the well, hoping relinquishing its interest will shield it from liability. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Ebbie Date: 25 Jun 10 - 12:48 PM Oh, we knew we'd lose a few gulls, you know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: Greg F. Date: 25 Jun 10 - 08:30 AM Turtles? Fuck 'em! I need to drive my HumVee and 40-foot "Recreational Vee-Hickle" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill) From: robomatic Date: 24 Jun 10 - 11:03 PM BP Is Burning Turtles Alive Gulf Captain Says |
