BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)

Subject: US bigots attack British Company
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 May 10 - 04:24 PM

From Reuters "On the Deepwater Horizon, three of those systems -- the blowout preventer, the metal casing within the well and the cement that held it in place -- all likely failed, according to testimony from company officials and data gathered by investigators from the House Energy and Commerce Committee."

US politicians including Obama blame BP. BP made and operated NONE of those things.

George III was right.

Subject: RE: US bigots attack British Company
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 May 10 - 04:24 PM

OH shit, that should be BS please.

Subject: RE: US bigots attack British Company
From: Anglo
Date: 13 May 10 - 04:40 PM

BP isn't even "British Petroleum" any more, it's just BP. Is it still British?

Subject: RE: US bigots attack British Company
From: PoppaGator
Date: 13 May 10 - 04:48 PM

While it may be true that "BP made and operated NONE of those things," BP was ultimately responsible. because they hired the various suppliers and subcontractors in question.

They also, one might reasonably presume, instructed said subs about how much they were allowed to spend on safety precaustions. BP's record of recent operations worldwide seems to indicate a notable reluctance to take safety regulations seriously, and a general habit of cutting corners (financially) whenever possible.

And, really, they're not "British Company" any more than Exxon/Mobile is "American." They're all multinational corporations, able to elude most of the controls, taxes, etc.,. that any one national government might wish to impose upon them.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: michaelr
Date: 13 May 10 - 04:57 PM

Which US bigots are you talking about, Richard?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 May 10 - 05:26 PM

The ones in congress. I've seen the speeches. The problems are due to US companies and their defaults. If they could not do the job for the price they should not have taken it on.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 13 May 10 - 05:29 PM

who are the us in "us bigots"?

Subject: RE: US bigots attack British Company
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 May 10 - 05:32 PM

Well, now we have THREE threads on this subject:

• One is titled off shore oil rig spill and more, which is a pretty good title - that one was started 1 May 2010.
• Another, started 27 April, was titled Spill, Baby, Spill... A moderator retitled this Spill, Baby, Spill... (Palin & oil spills), so that readers would have some chance of knowing what the thread was about.
• So today we have a new thread on the same subject, titled with the very objective title, US bigots attack British Company. I'm going to change that to BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill), so people can choose whether they want read yet another oil spill thread.

I think there was another oil spill thread, one questioning Obama's statement that deep-water oil drilling is failsafe these days - but I couldn't find that thread because the title didn't mention oil.

Seems to me that all of these discussions could be contained in a thread titled Louisiana Oil Spill, April, 2010 - and there would be far less duplication of comments. Maybe not, maybe there IS justification for having a number of threads on this oil spill - but I would ask for a bit of Truth In Titling. If you'r starting a thread about the oil spill, say so - don't title your thread with some sort of propaganda statement.

We've had the same thing recently in threads about the Governor of Arizona, whom some Mudcatter seems to have a sexual fixation on because of her anti-Latino actions. Instead of actually stating what the thread was about, this Mudcatter titled the threads with statements about what a fine American she is, standing up for truth, justice, and the American Way.

And then there is the pair of threads on Gay/Lesbian/Transgender folkies in the UK, and I'm still left wondering why there have to be TWO threads active on such closely related subjects in the same week.


So, friends and neighbors, when you start a new thread, please try to think about two things:

1. Is this thread really necessary, or is it a duplicate discussion that could easily be conducted as a continuation of an earlier thread?
2. Does the title of the thread reflect what is the actual topic of discussion?

Thank you.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 May 10 - 05:39 PM

I had not read the others in that they seemed to be irrelevant to my perspective. I was an am infuriated by the clips I saw of partisan comment by US politicians.

I am content if this thread is combined with others - but my perspective at present remains the same.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: gnu
Date: 13 May 10 - 05:51 PM

Wrap em up, Joe. Good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: PoppaGator
Date: 13 May 10 - 06:07 PM

I agree with Richard that this is a "separate" topic, about the national identity (or lack thereof) of the corporation, and whether or not people's reaction indicates some sort of nationalism or bigotry.

(The fact that I do NOT completely agree with his position on the question is another matter entirely.)

This oil spill is a pretty BIG topic, and (unfortunately) will probably continue to be relevant for a very long time. I don't think that it's at all inappropriate to maintain a few "subtopics," if they're well defined.

I believe that the question of whether multinationals should ever be thought of as "belonging" to one nation or another is important, and that better understanding of the answer(s) can lead to deeper insight into a whole passel of contemporary socioeconomic and global-political issues.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 May 10 - 06:14 PM

After the fire and loss of life at the BP refinery in Texas, many Americans question the safety record of BP. More lives unfortunately lost in this Texas blowout.

But I also think most Americans throw BP in the same pot as Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Chevron, Total, Petronas, Petrochina, what have you, rather than regarding it as particularly British. Just another big oil company.
The blame game gets us nowhere. The well, in 5000 feet of water and drilling into a seismic prospect at great sedimentary depth, was at the limit of engineering knowledge. A blowout from the high pressure encountered in the formation may not have neen controllable. BP, as operator, is 'responsible', but the regulatory body, MMS, should bear blame for not questioning the objective and requiring more stringent controls.

BP is trying to spread the blame (statements in the Senate hearing) because the cost is going to be huge; I would guess that legal proceedings will be prolonged. But the cost to individuals and wildlife damaged by the blowout will never be fully compensated.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 May 10 - 06:18 PM

I really have no quarrel with this being a separate thread, but I wanted to point out that there is a question whether it should be a new thread or a continuation of an earlier one. What I DO disagree with completely, is the original thread title. I believe that a thread title should be a factual and unbiased statement of the topic of discussion, and not a political statement. AND, at the very least, the original thread title should have mentioned that the thread had to do with the old spill.

And now back to the topic of discussion. As has been said above, BP is a multinational conglomerate, not really a representative of the United Kingdom. Trying to make this into a US insult to the UK is a deception. And, as has also been stated above - the work may have been done by a BP subcontractor, but Obama and others are absolutely correct in looking through the smokescreen and pointing the finger at BP because it IS a BP project.

This whole thing illustrates twin evils that are very pervasive in today's corporate world:

the multinational nature of corporations that allows them to evade the legal control of any nation

outsourcing, which allows corporations to evade responsibility for their actions and liability for their mistakes

These two aspects of multinational corporate chicanery allow corporations to be completely above legal control. Corporations no longer have to honor labor laws, or pay for benefits and pensions and vacations for employees - they get their workers from "job shops" that never allow employees to work long enough to get benefits or pensions. Corporations no longer have liability for mistakes, since their risky work is performed by short-lived "limited liability corporations." If a nation enacts statutes to protect workers, multinationals just move the work to another country. And the list of evasions goes on and on and on.

Our multinational corporations are morally and ethically bankrupt. And this oil spill is a good illustration of how they have developed tactics that allow them to screw the entire world, cheating all of humanity and doing irreparable damage to nature - totally evading all responsibility and liability.

Governments do the same things nowadays. I worked 25 years of the 30 I needed to earn a full U.S. Government pension. But the Clinton administration privatized my job, so now I'm trying to live on half the pension I expected.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 May 10 - 07:11 PM

Joe - you are right about multinationals evading responsibility - but wrong about the thread title. Who do you think Big Oil predominantly owns?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 May 10 - 07:12 PM

Oh, and who do you think are the truly guilty companies and where are they based?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 May 10 - 07:25 PM

I really don't get the "bigot" part Richard.

There is a general hatred for ALL of the oil companies no matter where they are or who owns them. What the average Joe sees here is that they rake in windfall profits and don't give a damn about the consumer.

While there were probably hundreds of sub-contractors, the profits from that rig go to BP so we tend to believe they need to pay for the mess. Exxon didn't build the Valdez but the responsibility was theirs.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Bill D
Date: 13 May 10 - 07:35 PM

"BP made and operated NONE of those things."

As owner and organizer of the operation, BP is ultimately responsible for oversight of those they hire to design, build & operate the platform. (Just as NASA was responsible for being sure Morton-Thiacol provided safe O-ring seals for the space shuttle)

The supposed 'bigots' have noted the culpability of ALL relevant parties to this disaster. It really doesn't matter whether you 'believe' US congressmen are bigots or not, for even bigots can sometimes see the areas of responsibility in such cases.

There is plenty of blame to go around on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: kendall
Date: 13 May 10 - 07:36 PM

As I understand it, BP is now a Dutch company. Secondly, BP has a history of sloppy operations with numerous fines being laid on them.

So, who should we blame? it is OUR coastline they are destroying and now they want us to limit their liability to a measly 27 million!

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 May 10 - 07:40 PM

I've come to side with the folks who want to raise the price of fuel--either through taxes or some mechanism--to lower the demand. As long as there's a demand for this much petroleum, these things are going to happen more frequently, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 May 10 - 07:53 PM

OK, Richard, so where is the truth in your (original) thread title: US bigots attack British Company?? For one thing you neglected to say this was another oil spill thread. For another, you "spun" things by calling the American accusers "bigots" and BP "British." And thirdly, you bought BP's denial of responsibility - when what they did was evade responsibility by clouding the problem in subcontracts.

You ask:
Who do you think Big Oil predominantly owns?
and
Oh, and who do you think are the truly guilty companies and where are they based?

I gave my answer - the multinational oil companies are not located in any one nation, and consider themselves to be immune to the control of any nation. What's your answer?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Tootler
Date: 13 May 10 - 08:10 PM

Richard, I think you are wrong. It seems that all the companies concerned are in the blame shifting business. All furiously trying to pass the buck on to someone else. Surely, BP as the ultimate contractor are ultimately responsible as they hired the others.

If BP had been prepared to accept their share of the responsibility for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, then I might have had some sympathy with them, but as they did not, then all power to Obama I say. Don't forget that it is the US that is suffering from the spill, so the US Senators are quite rightly concerned. If it had happened over here, I am sure our politicians would have responded in exactly the same way.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 May 10 - 08:56 PM

There's plenty of blame to spread around to the subcontractors, including Haliburton, but as people have pointed out BP bears the primary responsibility.

To their credit BP executives have assured the public that they are also not going to hide behind the shield of $27 million in this instance.

However, the detailed reports that surfaced yesterday in hearings spell out that in this instance there were warnings that were ignored in basic problems with the "blow-out preventer" system prior to well eruption and pipe rupture:

1. pipe integrity problems indicated from pressure tests

2. a significant hydraulic leak in the ram driver system

3. a dead battery that was supposed to activate the so-called "deadman" trigger

4. evidently the ram drive the operators spent a day trying to use after the blowout was the one especially re-configured to test the system and was no longer operational for any other purpose.

I suppose that it's disturbing to some BP supporters that politicians in the US are racking them over the coals for this environmental disaster. But, gee, what the f**k should they expect? And in what way should politicians raising such questions in the House and Commerce Committee hearings be characterized as "bigots"?

Joe, please delete this self-indulgent thread. Two threads are more than enough.

And Mr. Bridge should apologize for initiating it.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 May 10 - 09:25 PM

First to Kendall- Royal Dutch Shell is the one you are thinking of.

Joe, you are wrong about the hiring policies of the major oil companies. Their workers are highly paid. They get good pensions upon retirement- I am one of the pensioners. The man in charge of the BP well receives six figures, and the chief technician gets close to that or the same.
The professionals are the best that universities can produce with at least four years engineering or earth sciences degrees.
The procedures and exploration programs are usually led by Ph.D. level specialists.
I was with an Exxon company, but I worked on cooperative projects with employees of other major companies; their training was equivalent.
As a geological exploration specialist, I worked with other Ph. D graduates- in my own group one from London Univ. and one from Utrecht; my own from a Big Ten University. Our technicians were 2-4 year program graduates of approved technical schools.

I hesitate to sort out blame- but the decision-makers, often econonics-finance-business graduates as well as the Board- sometimes take short-cuts to reduce expenses or to maximize profits (which could be for me, my next-door neighbor, employees, my daughter's teacher's pension fund, etc.- and we all want more).

I also blame the regulatory agency of the government, MMS, which allowed short-cuts on this and several other BP wells which were breaking new ground, and hence should have been required to have the best and latest (but even that may have been not enough in this case).

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 13 May 10 - 09:59 PM

Has anything been learned?

"It has yet to announce plans to drill in the region but shortly before the U.S. disaster, BP and other oil companies urged Canadian regulators to drop a requirement stipulating that companies operating in the Arctic had to drill relief wells in the same season as the primary well.

Cullen argued the companies had made this request because drilling a relief well within the required time limit would be too expensive, given the difficult Arctic conditions".

Full story:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1326556220100513?type=marketsNews

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 May 10 - 12:54 AM

That was then, Q, but this is now. Do the oil companies still employ most of their workers, or have they followed the corporate ethics changes of the 1990s and contracted out most of the work.

You're right that once upon a time, oil companies were very good in their treatment of employees, and reasonably good employees could count on having a lifelong career and good benefits and a good pension. But corporate ethics began to chance in the 1980s. By the mid-1990s, corporations no longer seemed to have any loyalty toward employees - and I found out the hard way that my employer, the U.S. Government, no longer had loyalty to me as an employee. Nowadays, corporations and the government have loyalty only to their management personnel.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 May 10 - 03:37 AM

The speeches that I heard were attacks on BP ("British Petroleum"). They were by Americans. The faults were the faults of the subcontractors. The subcontractors were American, but not attacked in the speeches.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 May 10 - 03:58 AM

BP shows their ownership as 39% US, 44% UK. Since UK-US ownership is almost equal, it would seem not to be an insult to Britain for a US President to criticize the company.

This article says

Congress called BP and its drilling partners to account Tuesday for a "cascade of failures" behind the spreading Gulf oil spill, zeroing in on a crucial chain of events at the deep-sea wellhead just before an explosion consumed the rig and set off the catastrophic rupture.
In back-to-back Senate inquiries, lawmakers chastised executives of the three companies at the heart of the massive spill over attempts to shift the blame to each other. And they were asked to explain why better preparations had not been made to head off the accident.

"Let me be really clear," Lamar McKay, chairman of BP America, told the hearing. "Liability, blame, fault – put it over here." He said: "Our obligation is to deal with the spill, clean it up and make sure the impacts of that spill are compensated, and we're going to do that."

By "over here," McKay meant the witness table at which BP, Transocean and Halliburton executives sat shoulder to shoulder. And despite his acknowledgment of responsibility, each company defended its own operations and raised questions about its partners in the project gone awry.

Seems to me, Richard, that all three companies acknowledge their responsibility. Why can't you?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 May 10 - 04:20 AM

On my various visits to rural Illinois and Urban St Louis I have been led to believe that BP was not seein a British company anyway - This was mainly from my Cousin who is an ex-pat British national since 1962. He did back up his claim by asking some friends what they believed BP stood for and 100% of the half dozen said 'Better Petrolium'. Now, I know 6 or 7 is not representative of the US. Neither is the Mudcat but I ask here whether anyone else thought it was British.

If the general population and/or the politicians in question do not see BP as British I think it hardly fair to say that they are bigoted againts the British. Not saying thta your are wrong, Richard. Just it is possible that you may be misplacing your ire!

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: Stu
Date: 14 May 10 - 04:23 AM

I agree with Joe - I really don't see why anyone's a bigot or why BP shouldn't be blamed. Why would it be insult for Obama to criticise? As far as I'm concerned he's bang on the money.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: kendall
Date: 14 May 10 - 06:13 AM

We have a disaster of major proportions here and we have a right to be pissed off!

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 May 10 - 07:50 AM

i...t is OUR coastline they are destroying...

Actually, Kendall, its our coastline WE are destroying by permitting off-shore drilling without the technology to prevent this sort of thing.
Never should have been allowed in the firt place.

A classic case of "We have met the enemy, and he is us".

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 May 10 - 09:02 AM

Be pissed off with the people at fault.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: kendall
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:30 AM

We are. Big oil no matter who they are or where they are trying to hide.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 May 10 - 01:10 PM

Joe, Alberta requirements-
Alberta requirements for drilling rig technicians-
(applies whether hired by oil company doing the drilling or registered contractor)

Rig technician 1- must be registered apprentice,certified journeyman (journeyperson in AB Occupational profiles), or holds a recognized trades certificate. Base pay $27.50/hr. plus living allowance.
Rig technician 3- the driller- 3 years experience minimum, trade school diploma or equivalent. Base pay $38.50/hr. plus living allowance.

A professional engineer is in charge of the field, and makes daily visits to a drilling well- often staying on site during critical intervals.
A geologist (analyzes samples, etc.) may be on site for critical wells, but usually receives samples sent to him daily.

Back-up- With major companies, professionals in Exploration Division and research personnel at a central laboratory.

Lowest rung on the well- Leasehands, floorhands, motorhands; usually highschool level. Do the 'joe-work' around the rig. Pay $27.50/hr. plus living allowance (may be bunk and mess hall food, while the driller gets a house or trailer home, a car, etc.).

On an offshore rig, the crews are professional technicians, a professional engineer, and rig crew of the rig owner, that takes care of everything not directly related to the well itself.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Tootler
Date: 14 May 10 - 05:29 PM

By the mid-1990s, corporations no longer seemed to have any loyalty toward employees

Very true. I was a lecturer in a Chemical Engineering department at that time. In the late 1980s, the big chemical companies started putting graduates on six or twelve month rolling contracts rather than employing them on a permanent basis. A local senior manager of a major company complained bitterly that recent graduates showed no loyalty to the company and was most put out when a colleague of mine said he wasn't surprised when they, as employers, were showing no loyalty to their employees. Loyalty is a two way thing and if you are not loyal to your employees, why should they be loyal to you?

My daughter experienced the rolling contract business at first hand and eventually got fed up and left her employer, a major chemical company, and went to train as a teacher. She said that about a third of her intake were from industry and many had similar experiences to her.

While the examples I have first hand knowledge of are from the chemical industry, I have no reason to doubt that the oil industry behaved in a similar manner.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 14 May 10 - 05:47 PM

BP had a responsibility to make sure their subcontractors were doing the work right. If they can't do that, they have no business hiring subcontractors. Holding their feet to the fire has to do with their corporate responsibility and nothing to do with what nation they represent or used to be owned by or whatever. Are you saying that if they were a wholly-American-owned company, they would not be coming in for criticism? What is your evidence for this? We held Exxon responsible for the Valdez spill, and they were majority American. You're taking offense where none exists. Playing the pond card.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: kendall
Date: 14 May 10 - 09:43 PM

Seems to me that the word "Bigot" is out of place here.
No one is allowed to trash Brits in my house.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 May 10 - 10:18 PM

The word was unnecessary, RB got hot under the collar about some derogatory statements about BP in Congress, but the senators did nothing more than make a lot of noise. Par for the course.
But perhaps some legislation to strengthen the MMS and other regulators and place restrictions on drilling in sensitive areas will result, as least I hope so.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 15 May 10 - 12:40 AM

What do senators do besides accepting bribes from big business, and making a lot of noise?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 15 May 10 - 01:56 AM

So now it's bigotry to get mad at an oil company for a spill? Richard Bridge, you are beyond parody. My dog has more common sense than you.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 May 10 - 02:50 AM

Q, the Alberta wages sound similar to the pay for oil well workers in Bakersfield. But the work is extremely hard, and it's rare for an oil worker to work steadily. It's a tough life - and it results in lots of alcohol and spousal abuse, and lots of financial problems.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 May 10 - 04:31 AM

"No one is allowed to trash Brits in my house"

LOL! I should hope not!

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 May 10 - 05:11 AM

The relevant point about subcontractors is that you subcontract to them. Therefore in classic tort theory a hirer is not ipso facto liable for the negligence of his subcontractor, although he is liable in negligence if the choice of subcontractor was negligent. Vicarious liability only arises if the negligent worker is an employee acting in the course of his employment.

Example 1. You engage a chimney sweep to sweep your chimney in your semi-detached house. He ses the chimney is badly sooted and decides to do a draught test with lighted paper. The lighted paper goes up the chimney (showing good draught) but sets light to a deposit of soot which burns both your house and your neighbour's house down. Assuming that doing the draught test before sweeping was itself negligent, the sweep is liable to you and to your neighbour for his negligence, but you are not liable to your neighbour in negligence unless engaging that subcontractor was negligent.

Example 2. You employ an employee to deliver a lorryload of stuff. It is your lorry. He takes the lorryload of stuff home with him overnight to make the delivery the next day. At 11pm he decides he wants a kebab and drives the lorry to the kebab shop but runs over a nun on a zebra crossing. You are not liable to the nun for his negligent driving for he was not acting in the course of his employment.

Exapmple 3. You employ an employee as before. He collects your lorry and load at 11 am and while driving by the correct route tomake the delivery he runs over another nun on a zebra crossing. You are liable for his negligence in the course of his employment.

Both Transocean and Halliburton were subcontractors. BP (widely and correctly referred to in reports as "London-based BP") is quite correct to seek to place blame for their failures on them. Barack Obama as a lawyer should appreciate that, and his criticisms of "a "ridiculous spectacle" of publicly trading blame over the accident" are out of place and must I think be an attempt to play to the gallery of prejudice against "foreign corporations".

Try to keep up at the back (that means you Goosey - you seem pretty ignorant).

My original thread title still seems pretty accurate to me.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 15 May 10 - 06:39 AM

I know it doesn't happen often but Richard Bridge on this is totally correct.

Another couple of things from the way Barack Obama has "grandstanded" this one he has been reported as saying he will keep his foot on the neck of BP; he has been extremely vocal in insisting and making sure that BP will pay.

Now from what I have seen, heard and read:

BP has always accepted responsibility as the Operator Company, it has never said anything else.

Now whether through contractual means or through insurances BP can in turn recoup some of those costs from Transocean and halliburton that is a completely separate matter. But Obama does not have to keep his foot on anybodys neck, as he first must remove it from his mouth.

BP has always stated very clearly that it will pay any legitimate claim for compensation and for the clean up, it has never said anything to the contrary

Oh Kendall as one of the oldest international oil companies in the world and the independent that produces more oil than any of the others, BP's safety record is pretty good considering the scale of its operations. Its other claim to fame is that no other oil company is better at finding oil than BP, in its history it has found more "Elephants" than any other oil company.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: kendall
Date: 15 May 10 - 07:04 AM

They are still motivated by profit first and safety second.
So, in this case I am with the President.

Was it Shakespere who said in a perfect world the first thing to do is kill the lawyers? He never mentioned oil company CEOs.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: steve in ottawa
Date: 15 May 10 - 07:06 AM

I think Richard Bridge has touched on a bit of truth.

I say this because when Continental Connection Flight 3407 went down near Buffalo, NY in Feb 2009 the U.S. media quickly jumped on the bandwagon of solely blaming the sub-contractor, Colgan Air, even though all the passengers had bought their tickets through Continental and most probably would not have known, even after boarding, that they were not flying on a Continental plane, or that the air crew was not Continental trained, certified, or even monitored, and that Continental would claim not to accept any liability for the crash of the plane. I remember hearing "commuter airline" over and over. Even here in Canada. Which is disturbing.

I think calling the disaster the BRITISH Petroleum Oil Spill rather than the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill, or the Offshore Deep-Sea Drilling Disaster is re-assuring to most Americans. Mainstream news media seem to like to alarm and then reassure people to the point where they probably won't take any action.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: stallion
Date: 15 May 10 - 07:15 AM

All this piss and wind! I have read most of this thread (got tedious) but I do think the spill is an envioronmental disaster and the book is getting passed around like a red hot potato. Of course BP is a multinational tax dodging money grabbing company and, apart from who is going to pick up the tab, ultimately people will want to know how it was allowed to happen. It has happened on the US politicians patch/watch and people will want to know if they were regulating the operation. To claim it was a foriegn company and out of their regulatory authority would be a good way of externalising blame and stop the shit sticking to their coat and also keep Joe public devided vertically. A sort of fascism, blaming a group or another country for ones own ills to focus the attention away from the real problem that large multi national institutions are above natural law of any country, see money as the godhead and, apart from the chosen few, the rest of us are flotsam and jetsom with a vote that means bugger all in the real world. How else could a handful of banks bring the whole world economy to it's knees? A world problem requires a world government, in your dreams.........divide and rule is the mantra......drifting thread here, but it isn't bigotry it's self preservation! And forget about nation states and consider the state of it's peoples

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 May 10 - 07:43 AM

FFS! It happened because the two subcontractors screwed up. Many in the US are trying to outsource the blame presumably to make themselves more comfortable with being the world's number 1 polluter - and of course the inventor of "big oil" - and for permitting drilling and plenty of other energy extraction exploits in sensitive places - primarily to feed the world's number 1 energy (particularly petroleum product) user.   

US - this happened because of you. Don't even think of sending a gunboat.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 15 May 10 - 09:21 AM

BP now means 'Beyond Petroleum', as they are no longer British, and are as much US as any global multi-company. They likely absorbed as more US firms as their original British base....a very long time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 May 10 - 09:36 AM

I think the word 'bigot' is thrown around way too loosely..and very ignorantly. The U.S. is not bigoted towards the British, therefore the title of this thread is too stupid to even comment on.

Richard, wake up, and get a life!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 15 May 10 - 11:38 AM

Both Transocean and Halliburton were subcontractors. BP (widely and correctly referred to in reports as "London-based BP") is quite correct to seek to place blame for their failures on them. Barack Obama as a lawyer should appreciate that, and his criticisms of "a "ridiculous spectacle" of publicly trading blame over the accident" are out of place and must I think be an attempt to play to the gallery of prejudice against "foreign corporations".

I was with you right up till the point you brought in "foreign coprorations" because it's a total and complete non sequitur. It could be he's playing to the gallery of people mad about the spill, and BP being the most prominent name (and one most people know). I think that's far more likely. At any rate nothing in your explanation has anything to do with foreignness until your conclusion. Which therefore does not follow.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 May 10 - 01:31 PM

Haliburton and Cameron were contracted for this well by BP (the former often used by them for over half a century.
The subcontractors follow specifications laid down by the operating company. It seems BP did not require the most advanced methods offered by Cameron.

I don't know about Cameron, but Haliburton has offered careful service by excellent technicians to many companies over their long history. The BP executive may live to regret his comments to the Congressional Committee; he cannot be sued, however, because comments to a legislative body by are not actionable. I am sure that he will not repeat the remark outside of a protected 'venue'.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 15 May 10 - 02:27 PM

My academic background is in history. When doing original research, I prefer to go to primary sources. Reading over President Obama's comments regarding the spill, I am at loss to find anything remotely close to bigotry, at least as I understand the word. Perhaps Mr. Bridge can cite an example from the speech in question.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 15 May 10 - 03:32 PM

I am against greed and sloppiness no matter who is to blame. There are plenty of "Brown sandwiches" to go around.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 May 10 - 05:01 PM

Evidently your academia, goosey, does not include reading or understanding. The idea that British Petroleum (based in London) are to blame for their subcontractors' failures cannot (as I have demonstrated above) rationally be supported. Therefore it is irrationally derived.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 15 May 10 - 05:12 PM

Please, Richard, could you provide us with the remarks from Obama that constitute bigotry?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 May 10 - 05:29 PM

The substratum that is bigoted. Not the substratum of the drilling area, but of the commentary. Doh!

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 May 10 - 05:35 PM

"not appreciate what I considered to be the ridiculous spectacle" of executives from BP, Transocean, the rig owner, and Halliburton, supplier of a cement pipeline plug, "falling over each other to point the fingers of blame at somebody else" in testimony before Congress earlier this week. "I will not tolerate more fingerpointing or irresponsibility," he said sternly. "There is enough responsibility to go around, and all parties should be willing to accept it."

For a lawyer that is bollocks. Whose systems failed? Those of the US companies. Liability is a legal concept. The editor of the Harvard Law review cannot understand that?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 May 10 - 05:42 PM

Is it BP rig? Does BP own the oil coming from the well? Did BP, through whatever means, build the platform? They did not have to accept the work done if it did not meet the criteria set forth.

While there are many involved, the ultimate responsibility is with BP......or as Greg points out, all of us for allowing this type of thing to take place.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Donuel
Date: 15 May 10 - 06:05 PM

BP address for North America is
28100 Torch Pkwy
Ste 300
Warrenville, IL 60555

[phone]

yep it really is Torch Parkway.

For UK it is James St. London and there is a new THK BP headquaters in Moscow.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 15 May 10 - 06:23 PM

Really, Richard, is that the best you can do? The degree to which BP may or may not share responsibility with other parties is something for the courts to work out, but "the substratum that is bigoted."?! Maybe you could define what you mean when you use the term 'bigot'.

And what does the physical location of BP's corporate offices have to do with responsibility for the spill?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 May 10 - 06:32 PM

Plainly the attack by US politicians on British Petroleum (of London) is because it is not a US company. BP is for the reasons I have set out above not liable for the spill. The attempt to cause it to pay for the faults of US companies is based on nationhood. It is bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 May 10 - 06:37 PM

Oh horseshit.............As I recall the government went after Exxon and if this were a rig owned by Shell or someone else then they would go after them. No one here gives two runny shits where BP is based.

Christ Richard, give it a break1   Your xenophobia is showing..........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 15 May 10 - 06:48 PM

Richard, please read your own posts. Obama did not merely blame BP, he made it a point that he felt there was plenty of blame to go around, including but limited to BP. Anyway, BP is a multinational corporation. They're about as 'British' as Exxon is 'American'. You get the Humpty-Dumpty award for debasement of language with your whining about "bigotry".

I would still like to know what the physical location of BP's offices has to do with responsibility for the spill.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 15 May 10 - 09:26 PM

Plainly the attack by US politicians on British Petroleum (of London) is because it is not a US company.

It's only plain to you. There's nothing in what Obama said that has anything to do with nationalism. As everybody else but you has said, if it has been Shell or Exxon or Texaco, the stink would still smell the same and Obama would have said the exact same thing. You've got a bee in your bonnet and it's making your brain misfire.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 May 10 - 09:33 PM

Methinks the bigotry also roosts on the European side of the pond.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: steve in ottawa
Date: 15 May 10 - 09:39 PM

Richard said: Evidently your academia, goosey, does not include reading or understanding. The idea that British Petroleum (based in London) are to blame for their subcontractors' failures cannot (as I have demonstrated above) rationally be supported. Therefore it is irrationally derived.

Wow.

Time to shut this thread down?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 15 May 10 - 10:11 PM

They are not to blame, maybe, but they are ultimately both responsible and accountable.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 10 - 10:31 PM

Words like blame and responsibility strike me as being moral terms whereas liability sounds like a legal term to me. I would think that a contractor is liable for the work of his sub-contractors but then I am not a lawyer.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 May 10 - 10:41 PM

Assumption by Bobad- the work of the subcontractors was faulty.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 10 - 11:06 PM

Q, I made no such assumption, the only assumption I did make was that a contractor is liable for the work of his sub-contractors.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 May 10 - 11:23 PM

Hey, Shit happens!.....Only idiots get their knickers in a twist with such stupid crap, like playing the 'blame game'!

Richard. you think that Americans are bigoted?..Then hang out with your own crowd of geeks! If you're saying Obumbler is pissed at the Brits, or Bp,..so what? Most Americans think he's full of shit anyway! Just a few loudmouths, on here, lick his boots!

Give it a rest!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 10 - 05:02 AM

They (BP presumably) are still motivated by profit first and safety second.

Ever worked for them Kendall?

I did back in the 1990's. Before awarding major contracts the Bid evaluation teams were always briefed as follows:

Technical Evaluation - Assess each bid; evaluate technical compliance with the ITT and competence to perform the work; evaluate that proposed equipment and method statements are "fir for purpose".

Financial Evaluation - Keep it foremost in your minds when evaluating prces quoted The Contractor Must Make a Profit if he has trimmed his price too tight it may tempt him to cut corners and that acts against our best interests in significant ways:

Safety;
We have to increase our minitoring role;
Mistakes may be made which will cost us time, money and resources to rectify;
Any such delays may affect First Production.

BP is an Operating Company and as such THEY ARE responsible for whatever happens in their Licence Areas. Having said that, they issue to the Licencing Authorities (In the UK that would be the Department of Energy and the HSE) for review, comment and approval details of exactly what they intend doing. In this case US Authorities would have known and would have looked at the designs of the Temporary Guide Base; the casing depths and cementation; the drilling programme; the BOP and the Well the Production Manifold that would eventually be installed.

For many, many years now HAZID's; HAZOP's and Risk Assessments have been undertaken before any Operation is allowed to proceed. It will be a simple matter to establish it that was the case with this well.

They are still motivated by profit first and safety second.

Have you ever worked for Haliburton Kendall? I have experience of working for them directly and as a sub-contractor, I have also in turn had them working for me, and guess what Kendall as far as the driving force behind Haliburton goes you are spot on. Of the two BP were a "Flagship" Company that set standards; Haliburton (Or at least the parts of it I had to deal with) in comparison were "cowboys" who would cut every corner they could to maximise their profit.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: kendall
Date: 16 May 10 - 06:11 AM

No. I have never worked for Halliburton or BP. So what? I didn't sail with Columbus either but I know the world is round!
BP has a shitty record.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,woodsie
Date: 16 May 10 - 06:23 AM

I don't see why I should have a reduced pension to clean up fucking Amarican's problem! Incompetent big mouthed American's caused this shit the same as they are fucking up the whole planet! Let them rot in their own polution.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 10 - 06:50 AM

Compared to many others in the oil industry world wide Kendall its damn near spotless, but then knowing nothing of how they operate you couldn't have a fuckin' clue what you are talking about. Mind you you could be one of the many gullible fools how believe everything they read so long as it matches their own prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: kendall
Date: 16 May 10 - 12:20 PM

...most Americans think he's full of shit ...
The latest poll disagrees. 69% like him, 51% think he is doing a good job.

Look, I don't give a rats ass who is to blame! What is being done about it, that's what's important to me.

woodsie, how is an oil spill going to cause you a reduction in your pension? And how is that Our fault? Are we paying your pension?

You are entitled to your opinion even if it makes no sense.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 May 10 - 12:36 PM

The policy briefly noted by Teribus is general among established oil companies; bad practice and bad publicity hurt profits and cause stockholders to sell their stock.

Regulatory bodies (MMS in U. S. waters, regardless of registered company offices elsewhere) set the limits.
It seems that the requirements in this case were inadequate, but drilling to a deep target in deep water, especially a large target with high formation pressure (unpredictable, but always possible) is not a stroll through the park.

The operating company selects subcontractors who do work not performed by the operator; those selected must have a good record but the cost also is a consideration. As noted, Haliburton is one of the two foremost for the services offered.

I really can't comment on Haliburton's current status; when I was working with petroleum exploration, they were highly thought of. Since their link with KBR, now broken and Haliburton's return to its original role, their ability may have suffered- I don't know- but they are accepted as competent by BP and other petroleum exploration companies world-wide. They are considered one of the best for the procedures they are hired to do, especially in deep water.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 16 May 10 - 01:24 PM

I agree with Kendall.

It doesn't matter who's fault it is, it needs to get sorted first, then look at how the cost is disipated.

It is a disaster and everybody that has the skill from wherever, should be employed to sort the problem out.

If there is a disaster, like an earthquake, people from all around the globe, donate funds to get things sorted.

Why can't that be the same with this. It might be the Americans problem, but in reality it is a world problem. We all need to pull together. Who knows where the next disaster occurs.

IMHO we should pull together instead of taking a stance.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: kendall
Date: 16 May 10 - 02:00 PM

To imply that because I have never worked for an oil company and don't know how they operate makes my opinion that of a gullible fool is silly.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 May 10 - 02:18 PM

kendall: "The latest poll disagrees. 69% like him, 51% think he is doing a good job."

...according to the 'Amos and liberal left' poll! You need to check your facts better!..I mean, if facts are relevant to the ideologues, any more!

Arthur itus: "I agree with Kendall.
It doesn't matter who's fault it is, it needs to get sorted first, then look at how the cost is dissipated."

..and I agree with you and kendall, on that one!

Personally, I think there must a way to utilize the oil coming up..but, I can't speak to that, as much, because that's up to the more knowledgeable, in that area.

By the way, Arthur itus, great name there!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 16 May 10 - 03:38 PM

Guest GFS said
By the way, Arthur itus, great name there!


Thanks but my knees don't like it :-)

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 16 May 10 - 03:47 PM

To me, this was a responsible part of Obama's statement, and it is one that he is responsible for, as USA President:

"For too long, for a decade or more, there has been a cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agency that permits them to drill. It seems as if permits were too often issued based on little more than assurances of safety from the oil companies. That cannot and will not happen anymore. To borrow an old phrase, we will trust, but we will verify. Now, from the day he took office as Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar has recognized these problems and he's worked to solve them. Oftentimes he has been slammed by the industry, suggesting that somehow these necessary reforms would impede economic growth. Well, as I just told Ken, we are going to keep on, going to do what needs to be done. And so I've asked Secretary Salazar to conduct a top-to-bottom reform of the Minerals Management Service. This week, he announced that the part of the agency which permits oil and gas drilling and collects royalties will be separated from the part of the agency in charge of inspecting the safety of oil rigs and platforms and enforcing the law. That way, there's no conflict of interest, real or perceived. We've also ordered immediate inspections of all deepwater operations in the Gulf of Mexico. And we've announced that no permits for drilling new wells will go forward until the 30-day safety and environmental review that I requested is completed. We're also closing the loophole that has allowed some oil companies to bypass some critical environmental reviews, and today we're announcing a new examination of the environmental procedures for oil and gas exploration and development.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 16 May 10 - 04:02 PM

An update

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8685368.stm

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 May 10 - 04:06 PM

I received a complaint about an oil spill thread, but the person didn't say which oil spill thread - two of the three have been quite nasty, and I see that woodsie's post here is a bit ripe.
So, let me just say:

If you kids don't stop it right now, I'll......

'Nuff said. And now, back to our program.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: kendall
Date: 16 May 10 - 04:51 PM

There was an interesting article in yesterday's paper saying that this spill could make its way out of the gulf and into the Gulf Stream!
Ok, when the tar balls start washing up on the shores of "Old Blighty" we will see if you folks over the5rte sing a different song!

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: kendall
Date: 16 May 10 - 04:54 PM

Guest from Sanity, what facts are you talking about? Sarah Palin's? Rush Limbaugh's? Your own?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 16 May 10 - 05:09 PM

An interesting pair of news stories:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/16/gulf-oil-spill-bp



http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/may/13/bp-boss-admits-mistakes-gulf-oil-spill

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 May 10 - 06:02 PM

Yes, Kendall, the oil could enter the Gulf Loop Current and from there into the Gulf Stream, discussed with links in the Oil spill thread which has disappeared from the current 'below the belt' list.
That is always a problem when someone goes off at a tangent and starts their own peeve thread. Joe has linked the other two threads at the top of this one.

So far, winds and currents have kept the spill (really a gusher, spewing out the oil under high pressure) in an area suoth of the Louisiana Mississippi Delta.

Some progress has been made and part of the oil is being collected and piped to a tanker, but only part- and entry into the Gulf Stream is still a possibility. The damage, if that happens, will be to East Coast U. S. and maritime Canada, but of course some 'tar balls' would continue up the Gulf Stream to Europe.

The main hope for stopping the flow is the relief well, which will not intercept the old well for some two months- and we must hope that will work. There are no guarantees that it will.

Interesting sidelight- US law limits the damages to $75 million, but I am sure law suits will continue for some time.
Somewhere along the line, suit will be brought against the US for the failure of their regulator, MMS to require full compliance by the operator.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 16 May 10 - 06:44 PM

Q

It is very unlikely that the Gulf of Mexico oil spill would impact Maritime Canada and the north eastern USA because the Gulf Stream moves east away from the coast as it moves northward (and, eastward towards Iceland and Europe. By the time the Gulf Stream is off Canada's east coast it is abour 400 nautical miles west of the coastline. Also, the prevailing currents along the Canadian Continental Shelf, off eastern Canada, flow south (part of the Labrador current). The southward flow, I suspect, would be prevailing throughout the Gulf of Maine to Cape Cod.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 May 10 - 08:30 PM

Ed T, the mention of Maritime Canada came from a news item, so often incorrect.
It does impact the Grand Banks, but at that distance, only some tar balls would be expected.

Map of the flows predicted off the east coast of N. Am.:
Oil spill and gulf stream currents

The NOAA maps seem offline at the moment; they would be more accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Bobert
Date: 16 May 10 - 08:36 PM

Joe,

If people want to complain about threads that deal with the largest ecological disaster in our times then tell them stay above the line... This is one heck of a messed up situation and to pull the plug on any of it because someone thinks it ain'ty worth talkin' about is irresponsible... Tell 'um from me to "Bite me"... I mean, we let the threads go during the run-up to the Iraq War and on a different level this is, fir these times, perhaps as important...

B~

---

I wasn't considering shutting anything down. I thought a little semi-comical scolding was all that was needed to settle things down...and they did.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 16 May 10 - 08:51 PM

Maybe the information in the attached report is isolated or not related to this case.
But, could it be part of reasons for the changes that Obama indicated were needed?



http://www.doioig.gov/upload/Smith%20REDACTED%20FINAL_080708%20Final%20with%20transmittal%209_10%20date.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 May 10 - 09:35 PM

Thanks, Ed T. The gist has been reported in NY Times, etc., but it is good to see the entire document. It answers some of the questions that came to my mind when I read the news items.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 May 10 - 11:09 PM

The 60 Minutes report (see Spill Baby Spill thread) seems to substantiate charges of almost criminal level against BP. The report appalled me.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 17 May 10 - 07:49 AM

Mike Williams, the Electronics chief had quite a story to tell. He's lucky to be alive.

BP was also responsible for the fire at the Texas refinery a few years ago. They were fined a huge amount of money. Don't tell me they have a great safety record!

Bobert, this thread is certainly worth having but the name calling and other insults are not.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 May 10 - 08:11 AM

"Bobert, this thread is certainly worth having but the name calling and other insults are not."

Correct.
Bobert - we in the UK have had many tragedies of this kind. The North Sea (the stretch of water between the UK and Belgium/Holland/Denmark/Scandianavia) is one of the most dangerous seas in the world and is full of oil- and gas-rigs. A number have been lost in deadful accidents. Google 'Piper Alpha' - just one of them, where 170 or so men perished.
We've had a number of huge spills too, from tankers wrecked on the British coastline in some of the most beautiful and wild-life-rich areas. Google 'Sea Empress' or 'The Braer Disaster'.
We know what a 'tragedy' is.
The US has our sympathy.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Bobert
Date: 17 May 10 - 08:56 AM

Well, I ain't called anyone any names... Might of fact, I was kinda late to this thread and maybe missed some of the name callin' but, hey...

...seein' as I've had a lot of names hurled in my direction over the years I might be so desensitized that I don't realize it when folks are doin' it??? I donno???

What I do know is that if the "60 Minutes" report turns out to be true then BP is in some deep poo...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Songbob
Date: 17 May 10 - 12:38 PM

The speeches that I heard were attacks on BP ("British Petroleum"). They were by Americans. The faults were the faults of the subcontractors. The subcontractors were American, but not attacked in the speeches."

Jesus Christ! You're basing all this too-sensitive BS on Congressional speeches? Would you react to the catcalls heard during "Question Time" the same way? As the kids say, "Get a life."

And your examples of non-responsibility (or non-liability, whichever) were not germane. If that sweep had used the draft test because you told him to make sure the sweep was necessary, in order to save costs, then the metaphor would be closer. BP is not a disinterested, non-technical homeowner requiring work on his house, but a full-blown part of the team, and by telling the US subcontractors what to do, and largely how to do it, BP is responsible.

And honestly, I wish they were British -- it'd be easier to extract compensation than from a multinational corporation. We could just trim the "fat" from any "aid" we send you.

Bob

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 May 10 - 02:06 PM

The U. S. would never do it to a British-registered corporation, but in another thread I suggested that BP assets in the US be frozen.
Might help some in getting compensation.

I was hoping CNN would pick up the Mike Williams story, but not a peep on their TV reports.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 17 May 10 - 03:05 PM

Remember when FDR froze Japans assets? They declared war on us.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 May 10 - 03:25 PM

Gee, Kendall, would the British get to burn the White House again?
The U. S. froze Japans assets July 25, 1941. Pearl Harbor attacked December 7.
(Digression, but I had to refresh my memory)

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 10 - 04:12 PM

It was pretty obvious at the time that Japan was hell-bent on conquering the world, starting with China. They were allied with Germany and Italy and were regarded as (and consider themselves to be) one of the Axis Powers.

New York Times, July 26, 1941.

In view of the unlimited national emergency declared by the President, he has today issued an Executive Order freezing Japanese assets in the United States in the same manner in which assets of various European countries were frozen on June 14, 1941. This measure, in effect, brings all financial and import and export trade transactions in which Japanese interests are involved under the control of the government, and imposes criminal penalties for violation of the order.

This Executive Order, just as the order of June 14, 1941, is designed among other things to prevent the use of the financial facilities of the United States and trade between Japan and the United States in ways harmful to national defense and American interests, to prevent the liquidation in the United States of assets obtained by duress or conquest and to curb subversive activities in the United States.

At the specific request of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, and for the purpose of helping the Chinese Government, the President has, at the same time, extended the freezing control to Chinese assets in the United States. The administration of the licensing system with respect to Chinese assets will be conducted with a view to strengthening the foreign trade and exchange position of the Chinese Government. The inclusion of China in the Executive Order, in accordance with the wishes of the Chinese Government, is a continuation of this government's policy of assisting China.

FYI.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Kendall
Date: 17 May 10 - 08:03 PM

AND WHO DRAGGED THEM KICKING AND SCREAMING INTO THE 20TH CENTURY? Sorry about the caps.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 May 10 - 09:07 PM

Hmmmmm?

How does one do CAPS on CAPS?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Donuel
Date: 17 May 10 - 09:40 PM

BP is run by very greedy and extemely stupid short sighted men.

This Sunday on CBS 60 minutes you will learn exactly why and how the oil diaster occured.

BP argued to eliminate putting in the 3rd plug of drilling mud to seal the well with the weight of filling the pipe with mud.

Halliburton argued that the well haed had broken due to an explosive gush of gas 2 months earlier so they did not know how much pressure was in the pipe since the valve had shattered and had come out the top of the pipe in pieces. With no way to know the pressure Halliburton argued that a total sealing of the pipe was necessary.

BP said that filling the whole mile long pipe wioth mud would take too much time when they were ready to pump oil.

BP won the arguement.

This entire argument actually took place aboard the oil rig that blew up 3 hours later killing eleven people and set into motion a oil diaster that could spread across two oceans.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 18 May 10 - 12:18 AM

BP was named by Mother Jones Magazine as one of the "ten worst corporations" in both 2001 and 2005 based on its environmental and human rights records.[61][62] In 1991 BP was cited as the most polluting company in the US based on EPA toxic release data. BP has been charged with burning polluted gases at its Ohio refinery (for which it was fined $1.7 million), and in July 2000 BP paid a $10 million fine to the EPA for its management of its US refineries.[63] According to PIRG research, between January 1997 and March 1998, BP was responsible for 104 oil spills.[64] BP patented the Dracone Barge to aid in oil spill clean-ups across the world. [65]

One of BP's largest refineries in the US exploded in March 2005 causing 15 deaths, injuring 180 people and forcing thousands of nearby residents to remain sheltered in their homes.[41] A large column filled with hydrocarbon overflowed to form a vapour cloud, which ignited. The explosion caused all the casualties and substantial damage to the rest of the plant. The incident came as the culmination of a series of less serious accidents at the refinery, and the engineering problems were not addressed by the management. Maintenance and safety at the plant had been cut as a cost-saving measure, the responsibility ultimately resting with executives in London.[42]

The fall-out from the accident continues to cloud BP's corporate image because of the mismanagement at the plant. There have been several investigations of the disaster, the most recent being that from the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board[43] which "offered a scathing assessment of the company." OSHA found "organizational and safety deficiencies at all levels of the BP Corporation" and said management failures could be traced from Texas to London.[41]

The company pleaded guilty to a felony violation of the Clean Air Act, was fined $50 million, and sentenced to three years probation.

On October 30, 2009, the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fined BP an additional $87 million — the largest fine in OSHA history — for failing to correct safety hazards revealed in the 2005 explosion. Inspectors found 270 safety violations that had been previously cited but not fixed and 439 new violations. BP is appealing that fine.[41] [44]

Seems to me that the US is being the one attacked.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 18 May 10 - 11:38 AM

Texas City Refinery Incident:

Some of the things that Dick did not mention. The Texas City refinery was built and operated by AMOCO, BP acquiring it as a running concern in 1998. Now the proposed modifications that could have prevented the explosion all pre-date 1998 (i.e. The modifications were turned down not by BP but by AMOCO)

In 1998 how many AMOCO employees were changed out, or did the work-force remain in place?

If the work-force remained in place then so would the work practices and safety culture. What did the OSHA reports on the Texas City refinery state about the place when AMOCO ran it?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: ollaimh
Date: 18 May 10 - 12:21 PM

i really begin to wonder if richard bridges has any education or even has read a book?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 May 10 - 12:36 PM

Terribus- After 1998 BP had seven years in which to carry out upgrading on the refinery. They paid in lives and a felony fine.
Other short-comings after 2005 were not corrected by 2009 when another fine was levied.
Personnel hired originally by Amoco probably continued working after the BP takeover, but they were now supervised by BP and procedures were BP revised and approved.

Although job loss would have been significant, perhaps the government regulatory body should have required closure of the plant until corrections were made.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 May 10 - 11:44 PM

Operations to try to stop the flow are being directed from Houston, where engineers from BP, Halburton, Transocean and Exxon-Mobil are working together (NY Times, May 18).

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 10 - 12:18 AM

Q I fully agree with what you say, and the points you make, none of which alters the validity of the points I made regarding AMOCO's management and maintenance regime, unless of course you are trying to say that everything was perfect with that refinery up until the second BP took it over in 1998, I hope not as, as a contention, it is ridiculous.

AMOCO engineers have advised modifications and had specified new types of safety valves on the section of the plant that failed, when maintenace was done AMOCO fitted a direct change out of the equipment modifying and changing nothing. Now BP cannot be held responsible for that, OSHA must have been aware of and must have reviewed plant maintenance and raised no objection.

At the time BP took over had OSHA given the plant a clean bill of health? I would rather think that it did have an operating licence. During turn-over BP would have worked closely with AMOCO but as personnel changes were few, if any, then what was done before would continue to be done, existing "company culture" would prevail irrespective. Completely different thing if everyone had been sacked and new people brought in.

I worked for BP for four years as a contractor, I have worked for a number of other Operator Companies and can state by experience that without any shadow of a doubt that BP was best of the lot, but that was in the days BP had its own Engineering Department and shadowed absolutely everything that any supplier of services or equipment did from start to finish.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 19 May 10 - 12:20 AM

I hold no brief for AMOCO. I should point out, though, that the outfit (British, American, Swiss or Tonkinese)that makes the profit should be held responsible for the damage.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 10 - 11:06 AM

Absolutely agree with you Dick and BP have never said anything else

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 May 10 - 02:13 PM

What AMOCO did makes no never-mind. It was up to BP to bring the operation up to snuff after their purchase of the refinery back in 19 and 98.

Some confusion about the tar balls on the Florida Keys. First announced that they came from the BP blowout but analysis showed otherwise.
It is only a matter or time, however, until some of the oil gets into the Loop Current and into the passage between Florida and Cuba.

Stray tar balls have been a frequent visitor to the Florida coast. I remember them from years ago (1950s). At the time they were blamed on ships releasing bilge, but I never saw this confirmed.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 10 - 02:29 PM

So Q are you saying thet the Texas City Refinery was not up to snuff when it was sold?

If it wasn't whose fault was that? Those selling or those buying?

Could hardly be the latter could it?

Now who was to tell them it wasn't up to snuff as you put it? What would tell the purchaser? Things like last OSHA audit/inspection? Review of maintenance records? Purchasers own audit/inspection? All would play a part. Now obviously the last OSHA inspection had thrown up nothing so no problem there. AMOCO's maintenance record would show that maintenance work was up to speed it would not necessarily tell BP that safety modifications suggested years before had not been implemented, the safety valve change out would detail just that it would not detail the modification or that the new type of valve recommended had not been fitted. Finally we come to BP's own inspection, now if OSHA had found nothing wrong why should BP have found something?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 May 10 - 04:59 PM

Supposedly BP had the engineering know how to determine if they were buying a pig in a poke. Caveat emptor and all that.
Moreover, a top to bottom inspection is supposedly ongoing in a facility of the complexity of a refinery. If BP had kept the plant in good condition, felony fines would not have been imposed on them.

As noted by Dick Greenhouse, BP has a terrible operating record.

And no report more damning than the one on the Gulf blowout aired on "60 Minutes" and linked in another thread:
-
60 Minutes

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 May 10 - 05:06 PM

Link changed, but still found by googling 60 minutes oil spill.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 19 May 10 - 05:07 PM

How long after a purchase can we stop blaming the previous owner and blame the new one for any problems? Two years? Five? Ten?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 May 10 - 06:02 PM

Buy a used car, and on the way home get stopped and inspected. The fuel lines are corroded, the flexible brake pipe connectors at the wheels are frayed, and the car is judged dangerously unroadworthy.

Now, you may be able to sue the seller later, but sure as hell you will pay the fines for the current condition.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 19 May 10 - 06:31 PM

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." —Anon


"If you follow reason far enough it always leads to conclusions that are contrary to reason." —Samuel Butler

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 10 - 12:52 AM

Q, sorry to drag you back to what you said and the point I picked you up on:

What AMOCO did makes no never-mind. It was up to BP to bring the operation up to snuff after their purchase of the refinery back in 19 and 98.

I asked if in stating that you considered that in 1998 the refinery needed bring up to snuff - you have not answered that, no matter I will do it for you. Off course it was up to snuff in 1998 at least officially, whether it was in fact is an a completely different question. The OSHA inspection and its outcome depend on many things one of them is the relationship between those doing the inspecting and those being inspected. Look at the Ohio Refinery Inspection for an example picked up on x number of points the visit to check that the work had been done BP was initially was found to be in full compliance, the inspectors turned their follow-up visit to check that work had been done into a second inspection and made other findings.

The same people ran the Texas City refinery for BP that ran it for AMOCO therefore their management style, approach and culture remained very much in place. Points I made earlier were that the corner cutting and the ignoring of advice by engineers on site that led to accident all pre-dated BP coming on the scene by up to seven years in some cases. Now unless somebody informed BP of those things there is no way that BP could have discovered those things. The same people having had their advice and suggestions ignored and discarded to the same management are not going to offer that up again irrespective of what sign is hanging over the door.

BP's safety record in the US where it has taken over the existing assets of US Oil companies acquired you say is bad, globally where it works in over 160 countries it is very good.

It is quite right that they should be fined and brought to book, it is quite right that BP should pay the costs of the spill, and as I have stated before BP have never said anything else. President barack Obama is not forcing them or making them pay for anything that they have not already agreed to and stated clearly that they will pay for.

The largest and deepest discovery of oil in the Gulf of Mexico is BP's. BP produces more oil and gas than any other Operator. Watch the price of your oil produced products go up on the cost of this spill, because BP, or any other Company in the same situation will do its best to recover what it loses.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 May 10 - 08:29 AM

History repeats itself: BP had key role in Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska

By NOAKI SCHWARTZ, Associated Press

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Since a busted oil well began spewing crude into the Gulf of Mexico a month ago, the catastrophe has constantly been measured against the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster. The Alaska spill leaked nearly 11 million gallons of crude, killed countless wildlife and tarnished the owner of the damaged tanker, Exxon.

Yet the leader of botched containment efforts in the critical hours after the tanker ran aground wasn't Exxon Mobil Corp. It was BP PLC, the same firm now fighting to plug the Gulf leak.

BP owned a controlling interest in the Alaska oil industry consortium that was required to write a cleanup plan and respond to the spill two decades ago. It also supplied the top executive of the consortium, Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Lawsuits and investigations that followed the Valdez disaster blamed both Exxon and Alyeska for a response that was bungled on many levels.

People who had a front row seat to the Alaska spill tell The Associated Press that BP's actions in the Gulf suggest it hasn't changed much at all.

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=934410#ixzz0owmiTByQ

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: olddude
Date: 25 May 10 - 08:57 AM

it is a tactic all the big corporations try to use and I will say try for it doesn't wash for them. A few years ago the dog food companies poisoned a bunch of peoples dogs with sub standard foreign ingredients. their excuse was gee we just believed what the supplier told us .. we are not responsible, the Chinese supplier is. That didn't fly, they all got sued for millions. If you have your company name on it, if you make the profit, you are responsible. Like a Wal-mart. They don't make what they sell but they are sued if a product they sell harms someone. BP makes the money, they do the sales, It is their name on the rig. They are responsible, that is how it works. Now I believe this clean up will ultimately run into the billions , It always does, making the American taxpayer pay all but 27 million is absurd and isn't going to fly in congress or with the American people. A company any company is responsible for their product no matter who the sub contractor(s) are. Stay tuned it will get interesting. An a multi national company with assets in the US is not beyond the reach of fines or lawsuits.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 May 10 - 03:16 PM

hellelo Ollimah? Can you read a name, or are you too busy resenting the English?

Now, what was the quote in the papers just yesterday? Something like "we will push BP aside if we have to"?

No prejudice there of course.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 May 10 - 04:22 PM

Hayward, BP CEO- "We made a few little mistakes early on." "Very, very modest environmental impact". Statements quoted in the Guardian, My 13, 2010.

Yes, we all would like to push BP aside. Anti-BP predjudice, but not anti-UK.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 May 10 - 06:31 PM

Ah. Prejudice admitted. Thank you.

I would also point out that if "60 minutes" is right, and if it was the groundbreaking disclosure that some say, then until those disclosures (if right) there was in fact no evidence against British Petroleum (as distinct from its American subcontractors) so any adverse conclusions or inferences against BP were based on prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 25 May 10 - 08:57 PM

Richard-
For some years now, BP hasn't stood for British Petroleum (they prefer "beyond petroleum"). I'm not really sure that they qualify as a British Company. And it doesn't really matter.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 May 10 - 09:02 PM

From Mike Williams statement-

When first drilling down, a BP manager ordered a faster pace Due to the faster pace, the bottom of the well split open and the well had to be abandoned, costing BP millions.
Pressure to get the job done was increased.
A rig accident damaged the annular at the top of the blowout preventer. The crew sealed the pipe, but too much force was applied, and chunks of the rubber annular came up in the drilling fluid.
The supervisor said it was no big deal.

"There was apparently no way to know how much damage was done. When there was a meeting to discuss how they were going to seal the well. Williams said a manager from BP changed the process at the last minute and 'communication broke down'."

So, in typical rash English fashion, "into the valley of death rode the 600."

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 May 10 - 12:23 AM

I don't give a rat's ass if BP is based on the fuckin' moon.....How can they not be at fault here and the company of primary responsibility?

Gawdamn Mr. Bridge.......explain the bigot part. You're so stuffed shirt on this that your xenophobia is like a flare on a dark night. Come join the 21st Century.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 26 May 10 - 01:05 PM

I don't understand how someone I've always thought was pretty liberal can be so quick to jump to the defense of the world's fourth largest corporation. A corporation that looks more and more culpable every day.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 May 10 - 01:21 PM

A NY Times report today supports some of Mike Williams charges. It will be some time before the investigative committee reports, but it looks like a sloppy, careless crew were on the drill floor and mud control procedures were overridden by BP supervisor.

Day 37 and no progress....

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: PoppaGator
Date: 26 May 10 - 03:38 PM

What's with Richard? He obviously harbors tremendous irrational anger, but I can't tell if it's based upon hatred of the US, blind loyalty to a multinational corporation, or extreme insecurity about being British.

"...A corporation that looks more and more culpable every day." No foolin' ~ seems like every day's news reveals yet another coverup or outright lie.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 May 10 - 05:10 PM

My anger is based on the fact that without any then evidence US pundits were queuing up to condemn the only company in the principal frame that was not wholly American - London based British Petroleum.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 May 10 - 05:13 PM

What did they actually say, Richard? My guess is that if it was derogatory it had to do with BP's past record. And that, it seems to me, should be valid criticism.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 26 May 10 - 05:31 PM

I'd say that WITH evidence they were queuing up to condemn the company that is in charge of the operation. If they were from the moon I think they'd still do so.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 May 10 - 05:54 PM

Commentators on CNN and in the press are talking of a developing boycott of BP. This would hurt the little franchise owner more than BP.
I have posted this in the other thread as well; think before you show your disapproval of BP operations in this particular way.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 May 10 - 07:31 PM

Q - and everyone else - are you going to read Alice's link in the other thread where two oil men discuss what they believe is going on?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Songbob
Date: 27 May 10 - 02:06 PM

Richard, I will admit to being biased.

Biased against incompetent, greedy motherfucking multi-national corporations who kill off the Goddamned Gulf of Mexico. Hell, you could say that BP is biased against Mexico, so they shat in their (Mexico's) Gulf. That statement is as factual and logical as any of the horse-shit you've been dropping here.

Get a life! Congress blamed the guys at the top (you know, the ones making all the fucking money till their own incompetence and interference with their hired sub-contractors screwed up the well and stopped the flow of money into their pockets) and you bitched. Get over it.

Bob

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 May 10 - 02:48 PM

Ebbie, I discussed that in the other thread and added a link to John Hofmeister-Pozzi comments.

Simmons is a banker.

Pozzi has had engineering experience with Saudi Aramco and his company is active in service to several oil companies, hence is worth listening to. John Hofmeister is ex-president of Shell.

Songbob, BP cut corners and expenses- it now looks like they used thinner pipe then called for. These decisions were made in the Houston office (all, or nearly all, Americans) and by the onboard supervisors (Again, salaried employees).
Should the CEO and others in the head office have known about this? They probably did, but deferred to the managers on the spot.

Tony Hayward, the BP CEO, is a 'boy wonder', who shot up the ladder like a rocket. His skills are in management, not in science or engineering. He is a delegator as far as local operations of BP are concerned. Perhaps he should have a better knowledge of exploration procedures, and exercise more control; I don't know. He is not coming across as a thinker in his comments on TV and to the press; he trys the minimize the effects of the disaster.

Salary- $1 million pounds, bonus each year about $1 million pounds- I noted this in the thread with a less controversial title.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 27 May 10 - 05:12 PM

My wife read that somebody is offering a t-shirt that says, "BP: Bringing Oil to America's Shores" (or something close to that). I think I may buy one.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 May 10 - 06:00 PM

Well, I'm going to blame Transocean, Ltd.. It's the company that owned the drilling rig. It's incorporated in Switzerland and previously in the Cayman Islands.
I never did trust a cayman. They have those big, wicked-looking teeth.
Then again, this article puts the blame on BP-America (formerly AMOCO, formerly Standard Oil of Indiana), and for good reason.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: Charley Noble
Date: 27 May 10 - 09:06 PM

Richard-

Here's more evidence of US bias toward BP, which I posted in a related thread:

What I'm struck with is BP's track record for producing and refining oil (from ABC News this evening). They seem to have done quite well in terms of maximizing profit but by running risks in production, at least until the current ongoing disaster. Here's a sample of how they've operated compared with other major oil producers:

"OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations"

This compares with less than 10 such incidents from any of the other major oil producers.

This was an accident waiting to happen and unfortunately it did.

"All the king's horses and all the king's men won't put the Gulf of Mexico together again."

You may quote me.

Feel free to crawl out from whatever rock you're hiding under to respond.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 May 10 - 09:33 PM

MMS was controlled by the oil companies. It is a corrupt agency corrupted by those companies who wrote their regulatory rules.

This has nothing to do with Britain. It has to do with a corrupt oil company as most of them are. Corporations own most countries, these days and control their governments.

I don't care how much oil company technicians or executives are paid, they are still corrupt.

The problem is that corporations have become the new fascism in most parts of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 27 May 10 - 11:59 PM

Um, Charley, if BP is egregiously out of regulation with hazardous conditions compared to other oil companies, in what way is it anti-British to point this out? Should we kid-glove the British because they're too delicate to play with the big boys? I think that's more anti-British than letting the chips fall where they may. Pull up your big-boy pants and admit with the rest of the world that BP fucked up royal.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 May 10 - 01:15 PM

Mousethief-

I was being sarcastic but forgot to color the font the appropriate color.

Sorry for the confusion.

BP fucked up big-time. But it was no accident. It was the consequence of their on-going corporate strategy of maximizing profits at the expense of safety concerns.

I hope that's a clearer statement.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 May 10 - 01:37 PM

The BP executives I have mentioned in this and the other thread mostly had experience in the Russian oil fields, with TNK-BP. I wonder if the Russian tendency toward corruption and shortcuts infect them?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: PoppaGator
Date: 28 May 10 - 03:52 PM

On the morning before the explosion, the Transamerica guys were reportedly arguing for observation of various safety measures but were overruled by their employers from BP. This report has been slow in emerging largely because the leaders among the Transamerica group didn't survive the explosion.

So, Joe, don't be so quick to shift blame from the owner to the subcontractor.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 May 10 - 04:48 PM

Transocean provides the rig and crew to operate it. They can do nothing in regard to the drilling except give advice.

"The rig's regulations state that in the event of such an emergency, the two top managers- on April 20 they were BP's senior person on the rig, Donald Vidrine, and Transocean's installation manager, Mr. Harrell- were to go to the drilling floor and evaluate the situation jointly. But once the gas hit, neither was able to get to the area."

These rigs have no fire pumps, so the fire couldn't be fought (impossible anyhow, with the rush of gas up the pipe).

All of those killed were American, including the well-known driller, Dewey Revette.
See other thread for more comments from the WSJ article, which includes pictures of the 11 killed.

The BP executives on board, and senior transocean crew, escaped.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 May 10 - 05:13 PM

Mike Williams, who was working on the drilling rig, was interviewed very recently on "60 Minutes" on CBS (CLICKY). He stated that an official from BP complained that the drilling procedure was taking too long and costing too much money. He ordered changes in the normal drilling practices and insisted that they "speed it up!"

When experienced oil drillers protested, he—a paper-pushing, bean-counting desk jockey—ignored their cautionary advice and insisted that they do as he said.

Pretty harrowing! He and a co-worker, a young woman, had their choice between staying on the drilling platform and blowing up with it, or jumping into the water some 90 feet below.

It makes no difference whether it's BP, Exxon, Shell, or Charlie Farquarson and his backyard drilling rig, the kind of greed and carelessness that leads to disasters of this sort is to be condemned.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 May 10 - 09:55 PM

"US bigots".   Oh, so all the critics of BP are disciples of Pat Robertson.   That's interesting.

WSJ:   26 May 2010:   "BP made choices over the course of the project that rendered this well more vulnerable to the blowout...."    There's a huge article on just what those choices were.

As they say, facts are stubborn things.

Though proud leftist lawyers cannot be expected to be interested--it might question their comfortable Manichean AKA Marxist view of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 May 10 - 10:05 PM

Though actually why a Marxist should want to defend one of the biggest multinationals in the world is, shall we say, a puzzlement. (I'm sure this point has already been raised but the thread is a bit long to check.)

So since his ire is directed against the US, perhaps he's a bit bitter about the outcome of the 1775-1783 unpleasantness.

Or perhaps he just wanted to guarantee the thread would be a long one. As we know, an incendiary thread title is a crucial element for that outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 May 10 - 10:05 PM

See other thread for quotes from Wall Street Journal articles.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest Teribus
Date: 29 May 10 - 01:11 AM

1. Transocean provides the rig and crew to operate it. They (Transocean?) can do nothing in regard to the drilling except give advice.

Absolute rubbish, BP are the Operator of the Field or concession (i.e. the licence holder), Transocean are the specialist contractor brought in to drill the well, as specialist contractor they are responsible to see that they operate safely, they are responsible for ensuring that their equipment is well maintained and "fit for purpose", they are responsible for checking and verifying that CPI (Company Provided Items) issued to them by BP are in good order and "fit for purpose" in relation to their (Transocean's) equipment, methods and operating procedures. As Operator BP is ultimately responsible irrespective, whether or not they are to blame or at fault is another matter entirely.

2. When first drilling down, a BP manager ordered a faster pace Due to the faster pace, the bottom of the well split open and the well had to be abandoned, costing BP millions.

I take it then that on that particular occasion Transocean could not have felt in the mood for giving advice.

<3.>A rig accident damaged the annular at the top of the blowout preventer. The crew sealed the pipe, but too much force was applied, and chunks of the rubber annular came up in the drilling fluid.
The supervisor said it was no big deal.

A rig accident? Did something hit the top of the blow-out preventer as it stood on deck? If so Transocean at fault for not having protective cap in place; not employing safe crane operating procedures; poor crane operation. I say Transocean as BP would not be involved in any of the above. Was the top of the BOP struck by something under water? Again it is Transocean at fault they are physically carrying out the work, it is their hands that are on the levers, and it is their judgement that is used with regard to when those levers are pulled and things landed on.

The crew sealed the pipe, but too much force was applied? Again the men making up that "crew" would be Transocean's responsibility, working under direct Transocean supervision in accordance with Transocean's standard operating procedures.

<4.> It will be some time before the investigative committee reports, but it looks like a sloppy, careless crew were on the drill floor and mud control procedures were overridden by BP supervisor.

Ah! so now the "Nurnberg Defence" holds good does it? "I was only following orders". Again complete and utter rubbish. Transocean were there as the specialists, the experts, that is why they were given the contract, if they were asked to do anything that they thought compromised the safety of the job they should have refused to do it. It is called maintaining your professional integrity.

PS: He (Mike Williams)stated that an official from BP complained that the drilling procedure was taking too long and costing too much money. He ordered changes in the normal drilling practices and insisted that they "speed it up!"

Normal operating condition, from personal experience Operators the world over always complain that the drilling is taking too long and costing too much. He can order all he wants, he can demand and stamp and shout, He is incapable of actually implementing his orders or demands so if it is not safe then it does not get done if the senior members of the Transocean Team are doing their jobs correctly.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 May 10 - 02:20 PM

"...another matter..."


OK, Teribus, is BP blameless?   Yes or no.   No tome necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 May 10 - 02:26 PM

Transocean has nothing to do with the BP drilling crew, which was under the direction of BP supervisors.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 May 10 - 02:35 PM

Could BP not have fired Transocean and hire someone else had they not obeyed orders? If not, why not?

A BP official expressed surprise at what happened, saying, "I didn't think an oil well would do that!"

He considers himself an oil man, and had never seen a gusher before!?

. . . paper-pushing, bean-counting desk jockey. . . .

Mike Williams said that they didn't think that the job couldn't be speeded up, but they didn't believe it would be safe and prudent to do so. The BP official was very insistent and demanding. What Williams and the others on the drilling rig were afraid might possibly happen is what did happen, but it was far worse than they anticipated.

No, the ultimate responsibility belongs to BP, and as I say above, it does not matter if it's BP, Exxon, Shell, or anyone else, they are ultimately responsible and "bigotry" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 May 10 - 03:06 PM

Fire Transocean?
Transocean is an owner and builder of large semisubmersible vessels which are towed to drill sites. "Rig" is hardly the word for them.

Maersk and Keppelfels are other builders and leasors.
These vessels cost about half a billion dollars, and are usually contracted by oil majors before they are built, and there are anxious companies waiting for one of them to become available.

This Keppelfels description is good and gives an idea of their size.

DSS38

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 May 10 - 04:14 PM

BP cut corners. That's not bigotry. That's fact.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 29 May 10 - 04:49 PM

And had a long and verifiable history of cutting corners, two factors of 10 that than their competitors. Are all Brits this unscrupulous (or incompetent) in their business practices? Can't possibly be. This must be about BP in particular, not their nation of origin.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 30 May 10 - 06:47 AM

There was NO BP Drilling Crew

Transocean own and operate the rigs they provide the crew

Were they running casing at the time then a specialist casing sub-contractor would put a crew out to do that job, once the casing is set they then turn the drill floor back to the Transocean Crew who would then drill the well.

Was BP to blame, I have no idea, based on what I have read so far, it would not surprise me if they are somewhat in part to blame. Are they responsible? undoubtedly. You are talking about operations right at the leading edge of the technology currently available in this depth of water and at this depth of well they are pioneering.

Something like being a passenger in a taxi and you are in a hurry. You instruct the taxi driver to run a red light, or urge him to go faster or overtake. If there is an accident, a collision, you as the passenger would not be charged, the taxi driver would as he should have exercised better judgement as he was in charge of the car.

Could BP fire Transocean, yes of course they could but it would be highly unlikely as it would have cost them too much in terms of time and money. As stated above there are not that many rigs that can drill in this depth of water.

Nobody complained about BP when they discovered the latest "Elephant" in deep water in Gulf Of Mexico a few months ago, no talk of incompetence then. The discovery of that field will radically alter oil imports for the US

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 May 10 - 10:13 AM

"...somewhat in part to blame..."

That's big of you.

What about the Wall St. Journal article to which I referred?   How many details do you need before it penetrates your brain that BP by its decisions must bear the lion's share of responsibility for this disaster?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 May 10 - 12:56 PM

More of trying to do it on the cheap-

Internal memos at BP- On June 22, BP engineers expressed concern that the metal casing the company wanted to use might collapse under high pressure.
"This would certainly be a worst-case scenario," Mark E. Hafle, a senior drilling engineer at BP, warned in an internal report. "However, I have seen it happen so know it can occur."
BP went ahead with the casing, but only after getting special permission from BP colleagues because it violated the company's safety policies and design standards.
BP documents released last week to The Times revealed that company officials knew the casing was the riskier of two options.

"Documents show early worries about safety of rig," NY Times May 29, 2010. Ian Urbina, reporter.
The use of the light weight casing was noted elsewhere, as I noted in one of these threads.

Terribus is wrong- the drilling crew was entirely BP crew and supervised by BP employees.
Transocean owned and cared for the rig, but the drilling program was entirely BP's.

BP was lucky (?) that the blowout did not occur at the previous well, also risky in that wells drilled to that depth (c. 35000 feet) and in a mile of water are entering a realm at the limit of possibility, and in case of blowout there are no tested cures except drilling offset wells, which takes months.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: DougR
Date: 30 May 10 - 04:19 PM

Mousethief: "There is nothing in what Obama has said that has anything to do with nationalism."

I certainly agree with you, Mousethief, were it true, it would be a first!

Kendall: "They (BP) are still motivated by profit first and safety second."

Of course profit is their motivation! If it weren't the shareholders would certainly be looking around for a new CEO! As to the importance of safety to the company, that's more a matter of opinion unless there are facts to support the statement. I know that the Texas City explosion was a terrible one for which BP was responsible but what is their overall record?

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 30 May 10 - 04:29 PM

But profit at the expense of safety and legality?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 May 10 - 05:17 PM

ABC News:
"In two separate disasters prior to the oil rig explosion, 30 BP workers have been killed and more than 200 seriously injured.
"In the last five years ..... BP has admitted to breaking U. S. environmental and safety laws and committing outright fraud. BP paid $373 million in fines to avoid prosecution'"
"According to the Center for Public Integrity, in the last three years, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas have accounted for 97% of the "egregious, willful" violations handed out by OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration).
"OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable violation."

In the Texas City disaster, BP "paid $50 million in criminal fines....and acknowledged violating the Clean Air Act."
It also was fined $21 million by OSHA for safety violations.

MMS fined BP for a near blowout at an offshore rig in 2002.

The Prudhoe Bay pipeline break dumped oil into Prudhoe Bay. Caused by failure to detect corrosion in the pipeline; it had stopped sending probes to detect corrosion in the line as a cost-cutting measure. BP was fined by MMS.

Tony Hayward, the boy wonder exec, has slashed 7500 jobs and made $4 billion in cuts to expenses.

I can find more.....

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 May 10 - 05:21 PM

The ABC report by Thomas, Jones, Cloherty and Ryan, "BP's Dismal Safety Record," May 27, 2010. ABC World News.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 May 10 - 05:30 PM

Much of what ABC News reported appeared earlier in the NY Times:
www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/business/09bp.html

Operation of the Atlantis platform in the Gulf of Mexico currently under investigation.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Songbob
Date: 30 May 10 - 11:58 PM

"These vessels cost about half a billion dollars, and are usually contracted by oil majors before they are built, and there are anxious companies waiting for one of them to become available."

I know where they can find an idle one, only slightly singed, and water-logged. It comes with its own lubrication, too.

Bob

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: kendall
Date: 31 May 10 - 07:01 AM

Everything they have tried has failed. This is the worst environmental disaster in our history. Blaming gets us no where. BP is responsible and they should be forced to do whatever it takes to clean up their mess.
These people who are howling that the government should take over the operation are not being realistic. Who is there in the government that is qualified to do that? Bobby Jindal is making a lot of noise but it's mostly political; he wants Obama to fail just like that bloviating fathead, Limbaugh.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 31 May 10 - 01:35 PM

Only another oil company with personnel experienced in deep water could take over. That might add transparency to procedures, but abilities the same.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: SINSULL
Date: 31 May 10 - 05:50 PM

Kendall,
I am surprised at your question. We'll just blow it off the face of the earth and be done with it,

Sorry, my toe hurts and I am getting as much mileage out of it as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 12:09 AM

What Q said. Take BP out of the picture entirely. Pick the major oil company with the best safety record over the last 10 years, give them blank check to do whatever they can to stop the leak and clean up the spill, and send BP the bill.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 04:15 PM

while I agree hat any companies involved in this accident should share responsibilty for the clean up and cost of lives, I don't agree with the term bigot in the thread title. Hypocrite might be more appropriate.


Following link does not help BP look better to the public. Are they stupid or what?

BP buys internet search terms to divert searchers away from oil spill news

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 08:34 PM

JThe Trans-Alaska Pipeline, partly owned by BP, shut down on Tuesday after spilling several thousand barrels of crude oil into backup containers, drastically cutting supply down the main artery between refineries and Alaska's oilfields.

The accident comes at a difficult time for BP -- the largest single owner of the pipeline operator, holding 47 percent -- as it struggles to plug a gushing Gulf of Mexico oil well.

The shutdown followed a series of mishaps that resulted from a scheduled fire-command system test at Pump Station 9, about 100 miles south of Fairbanks, said Alyeska Pipeline Service Co, the operator of the 800-mile oil line.

The power outage triggered opening of relief valves, causing an unspecified volume of crude oil to overflow a storage tank into a secondary containment. There were no injuries, but the approximately 40 people at the work site were evacuated, Alyeska spokeswoman Michele Egan said.

North Slope oil producers have cut their flow into the pipeline's Prudhoe Bay intake station to 16 percent of their normal rates, Egan said. There is enough storage capacity to allow the line to be shut down for 48 hours as long as producers maintain the 16 percent flow rate, she said.

It is unclear how long the shutdown will last.

"We're going to take as long as we need to make sure the site is safe before we start back up," Egan said. Supply problems in the pipeline potentially disrupt tanker shipments to refineries.

The volume of spilled oil is unknown. "We've estimated the spill is several thousand barrels," she said. All has been held within the secondary containment, which has capacity to hold 104,500 barrels, she said. The amount spilled is "nowhere near" the containment area's capacity, she added.

Alyeska is a consortium owned by five oil companies. Major owners are BP, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil. Unocal and Koch hold minor shares.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 09:20 PM

Virginia Tam, the site says the article is being prepared and should be ready in 5 minutes- some hours ago; the 5 minute wait is still a 5 minute wait.
You can find the story at SFGate, the San Francisco Chronicle site.

"If you search for news and information about the oil spill on the internet, your first result will be a link to BP's website that the tagline describes as "how BP is helping." That's because the company has purchased "oil spill" as words through Google and Yahoo. "Oil spill" has been among the top searches on Google, twitter and Yahoo for several weeks."
"To add insult to injury, the better source of information is the website of the Unified Command, which includes BP and Transocean as well as the government agencies involved in the cleanup."
(bold letters mine).

Obama previously criticized BP for buying $50 million in television advertizing .............

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 09:26 AM

But profit at the expense of safety and legality?

But of COURSE ! At the expense of any and every thing. That's The BuShite/Douggite dogma.

Its why the U.S. is headed for the crapper.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: kendall
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 09:46 AM

Have you seen the video of the gas pump that has the sign DO NOT LEAVE PUMP UNATTENDED. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SPILLS.
The funny part is, in the background is a BP sign!

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 10:31 AM

Funny? ya gots a strange sense of humor! ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 11:19 AM

Just in case someone has not read the other thread on what was involved in the leadup to the accident, I will repost this from that thread:

"The "Deepwater Horizon" was a drilling platform... it was being prepared to move to another location so a pumping platform could come in and extract the oil.
The explosion was a result of trying to simplify and shorten the process of attaching the pumping platform. As they were sealing the pipe in order to move, they used seawater instead of 'drilling mud' to block the pipe while final disconnections were mead. Drilling mud would have taken a couple of weeks to 'clear', and delayed the start of pumping oil. There was a flawed seal which was not tested properly which allowed pressure to 'blow out' the seal and send high-pressure water & oil up and cause the explosion & fire.
It was partially greed & impatience and careless maintenance by BOTH BP and the operators that led to the failure, but there was a big argument in the hours before the fire as to how to do the sealing... **BP** overruled those doing the work and told them to use the shortcut....and then claimed "We aren't the operators."

Now....the point is..no matter who was actually on the drilling crew, BP was giving the orders as to how to do the intended sealing

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 01:42 PM

Should we give London a taste of shock and awe for harboring these ecological terrorist? ;D

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 01:54 PM

Where are the vigilantes of yesteryear?

Coat Tony Hayward in tar and ride him on a rail into Gulf oil spill-

Well, it's a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 02:10 PM

Lets be civil.

Take Tony and give him a nice beach house right in the middle of the spill. Enforce his stay with house arrest. Make sure the air conditioner is defective. Give him estimates on how good the air conditioner is and how optimistic we are at how soon it will be repaired.

Make sure all his food and water come from the Gulf area.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: kendall
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 02:21 PM

Greg F it is not funny in the humorous sense, it is ironic.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: GUEST,Rev. Goose 'Goof' Gander (retired)
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 06:11 PM

BP Response Plan Severely Flawed

Surprise!

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 02:10 PM

There are voices in UK that now openly decree on BBC that the US goverment is a bigot when it comes to relations with big corporations like BP.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 05:22 PM

While it grieves me to agree with Boris (Bloody Stupid) Johnson, the conservative mayor of London, he is now saying that the anti British nature of US rhetoric on the spill is a matter for concern, and so are other politicians. Well, I suppose better late than never.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Alice
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 05:32 PM

So.... if a USA oil company drilled a well just off a sensitive wildlife and fishery habitat of Britain and they did not have a realistic disaster plan or follow safety checks, a major oil leak onto shore would result in a response from the UK of... ?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 05:42 PM

Oh, Alice, that is so different.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 06:30 PM

When there is human and environmental damage in other countries, how do USA companies measure up for care and compensation?

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Editorial/1186571.html

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Rev. Goose 'Goof' Gander (retired)
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 06:35 PM

Funny how a little oil spill can transform a modern liberal into an 18th-century Tory.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 06:44 PM

B.P. is a "country" unto itself. Tony Hayward belongs in jail.

This has nothing to do with Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Alice
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 07:00 PM

Yes, I think of Bhopal, India, and Union Carbide, too, the largest industrial disaster so far in the world.

My point is, no matter what company owns the responsibility, a disaster is a disaster no matter where it happens in the world. Corporations are responsible for what they do and don't do when they cause a disaster.

No matter where they are based or where it happens, corporations like Union Carbide, BP, DOW Chemical, Siemens, EXXON, BSAF, mining companies in China, the US... you get my point.


We should all be outraged when negligence causes industrial disasters anywhere in the world.



Alice

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 07:34 PM

BP had better start paying those bills for compensation that are piling up or it may face more than unkind words.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 08:59 PM

When there is human and environmental damage in other countries, how do USA companies measure up for care and compensation?

Nobody said US companies were all sweetness and light, so this is a total non sequitur. Megacorporations which flout safety regulations and act recklessly in their pursuit of the almighty dollar/yen/pound/euro are everywhere despised. Trying to get BP off the hook because it's a British company is also despicable. They fucked up, they can take their lumps, whether their headquarters is on the Thames or the Sea of Tranquility. This is so not a nationalist issue. I'm starting to think the Brits are just horribly insecure in their feelings about their own country, and any criticism -- even if it's not against Britain but against a company that used to have "British" in its name -- feeds the fires of their inferiority complex. How else to explain this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 09:46 PM

""BP had better start paying those bills for compensation that are piling up or it may face more than unkind words.""

There was an interview on BBC TV about ten days ago in which we were told that BP was already paying out on every damage claim presented, and were doing so in 48 hours, rather than the 45 days which is the norm in the USA.

Thet had already stated several times that they had every intention of paying the whole bill for the clear-up (in fact they said so long before the US government started this high profile vote saving attack on BP).

Now, I hold no brief for any company which puts profit ahead of safety, and notwithstanding any arguments as to degrees of responsibility, BP is, and has accepted that it is, ultimately responsible for clearing up the mess.

I fail to see, however, the benefits (given that they are footing the total bill) of slagging them off and threatening criminal prosecutions, and seizure of assets, as a result of which 40 percent of the company's value has been wiped out.

I know that things are done differently in the US of A, but I'd love to know how driving the company out of business will help to provide the billions needed for the job.

Don't you think it might be smarter to keep the smart mouths shut, and let them get on with it.

Incidentally, it has to be said that British companies were much more ethically operated up until the late 1950s when American business influences first made themselves felt over here. True indeed to say that US corporations taught people like BP all they know about modern business practices.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 10:02 PM

BP has paid out only $5000 on claims processed so far- billions are necessary to clean up their mess, pay for lost business and wages of the many now unemployed as a result, and restore wetlands and the organisms that inhabit them and the Gulf waters.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 10:37 PM

True indeed to say that US corporations taught people like BP all they know about modern business practices.

And they lapped it up like milk. Corruption corrupts. News at 11.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 11:06 PM

Nonsense, mousethief.
British Industrialists began with the Industrial Revolution and as early as the British East India Company.
A few in the 19th c. were William Forster, Robert Peel, Cecil Rhodes, Richard Awkright, William Armstrong, Richard Young, etc., etc., ......
They taught people such as Carnegie in the States.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: ichMael
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 11:13 PM

This whole event has been a scam. Goldman Sachs (huge bank) sold all their BP stock just before the "accident."

Goldman Sachs sold $250 million of BP stock before spill

Goldman Sachs knew what was coming, same as AB Brown (German bank) knew what was coming in the days before 9/11. Buzzy Krongard (#3 at the CIA) used to work for Brown, and Brown miraculously bought a record number of put options against United and American airlines just before the attacks. Hundreds of aviation stocks to choose from, and they bet against those two.

Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA's High

So this is another act of government-sponsored terrorism.

But who benefits? At first glance it seems that Obama's the loser--stumbling around looking ineffective--but don't forget that he's pushing "green" technology. You know...in this age of nuclear power he wants to force America back to medieval windmill technology and such. And he just got refuted at the Copenhagen Conference, so what's a ruthless genocidalist to do? Blow a well in the Gulf of Mexico and then stumble around like it's all a big mystery to him. And meanwhile, the damage gets uglier and uglier. After this, America will be easy to sell on the notion that we need that genocidalist ethanol, and thousand-year-old windmills instead of oil.

This whole thing is a sham. A show.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 12:15 AM

I, of course, remember the Bhopal catastrophe but this sentence in that link struck me: "The court levied the maximum penalties available under Indian law on the charges before it — that of criminal negligence."

In what way did the US dodge its obligations?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 02:45 AM

I find it difficult to conceive of the degree of masochism required to step out in a thread like this and defend BP...and you're usually such a clear-thinking fellow, Richard.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Howard Jones
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 05:02 AM

The story as it's being reported here is that Obama and other US politicians are giving out the message that the US environment and US jobs have been endangered by a foreign company, and that they're doing so for electoral reasons. Some of our own politicians have taken the hook, others are being more measured in their response. It's probably true that for many here BP still means "British Petroleum" so it's taken as an attack on a British company, even if that's no longer really the case.

It also has to be seen in a context where the US appears to view the "special relationship" purely in terms of its own advantage. For example, Britons are being extradited to the US (sometimes for offences which are not illegal here) without the protection of our own courts under a treaty intended for terrorists which the US has refused to ratify, with the effect that US citizens can't be extradited to the UK on similar terms. At the same time the US is happy to call on our help in Iraq and Afghanistan. So we may sometimes appear a bit defensive.

Be that as it may, the latest call to stop BP paying dividends is the worst kind of political grandstanding, for these reasons:

Firstly, if BP has the resources to pay for the clean-up and its other liabilities (and according to the papers here that's not in question) then whether or not it pays dividends is irrelevant

On the other hand, if BP doesn't have sufficient resources, putting further pressure on its already battered share price and devaluing the company further won't help it to raise any additional cash needed

Thirdly, who do these politicians think is going to be affected by withholding the dividend? Apart from the effect on share price (which helps no one), it won't be the business, which will be holding on to a large sum of cash. Some of the executives may see their share price linked bonuses fall, but rest assured they won't be going short. No, the people who will be affected will be all those people in the UK and the US who have pension funds, life insurance, investment funds, etc, invested in BP - in other words, you and me.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 06:26 AM

Nobody is trying to defend BP in terms of its responsibility for clearing up the mess.

What we are saying is that BP has stated very clearly, right from the start, that its intention is to pay for the lot.

Q says "only $5000 dollars has been paid out",while we hear that BP has been paying out all small damage claims to affected fishermen and others who have suffered losses.

By whose reckoning has the amount paid been only $5000?

Who has paid for the hire of containment equipment, for the capping devices, for the services of all the organisations involved, and for the chemicals used to disperse the slicks?

I suspect that the only part paid for (pro tem) by anyone other than BP is the shoreline cleaning, and BP have already promised to cover the cost of that.

The accident has happened, and nobody can change that fact. BP is taking responsibility for dealing with the aftermath, and doing everything it can to mitigate the disaster.

So what is it you US citizens are after?.......REVENGE?

How do you gain by the destruction of the very organisation you are relying on to put things right?

One comment from the BP interview made a considerable impression on me, and it was this:-

""When the well is plugged and the slicks are dispersed, then we (that is BP) will be spending months, maybe years dealing with the onshore and offshore damage. By that time, all the Media will have gone home""

I think that was fair comment. We will not see Media headlines about BPs efforts to repair the damage because the Media don't much care for good news, DO THEY?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 07:51 AM

But moreover, if (and I say "if") it is true that BP directions did cause the original problem, when the US bigmouths were first jumping on the bandwagon that fact (if it be a fact) was not known, and the assumption that it was BP at fault not either of the US corporations was based on nothing more than prejudice.

As for BP putting its hands up - you know the standard advice given to defendants before courts with the probity of Judge Jeffries, don't you? It will go easier on you if you admit your guilt (whether you are guilty or not).

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 09:11 AM

This is worth a read. Hopefully it hasn't been posted already.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/BP-CEO-John-Napier-Letter-To-President-Barack-Obama-Over-The-Oil-Spill-In-The-Gulf-O

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 09:34 AM

"In what way did the US dodge its obligations?"

From: http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/jun/11/praful-bidwai-on-the-bhopal-gas-tragedy.htm

"In such cases, the principle of corporate liability demands that owners are made to take full responsibility for all mishaps. This principle is rightly being applied to BP for the oil spill off the Louisiana coast in the US. President Barack Obama [ Images ] says he wants to 'kick ass' and 'make sure that they (BP) pay every single dime owed to the people along the Gulf Coast'.

The liability principle should apply with even greater force to the much greater disaster in Bhopal. Violating the principle can only encourage corporations to behave irresponsibly, cut corners on safety, cheat on regulations and expose the public to avoidable harm. No civilised society can allow that."

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Howard Jones
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 10:28 AM

I don't think anyone's suggesting BP should duck its obligations. It's the way US politicians appear to trying to give the impression that it's all the fault of foreigners, and their grandstanding for electoral purposes which is objectionable.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 11:07 AM

Don T, FWIW, Q is Canadian.


"For example, Britons are being extradited to the US (sometimes for offences which are not illegal here) without the protection of our own courts under a treaty intended for terrorists which the US has refused to ratify, with the effect that US citizens can't be extradited to the UK on similar terms."

Question for Howard Jones: What offenses would that be? I truly don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Alice
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 11:26 AM

All the fault of "foreigners"???

I think you should know most people in the US have seen tv ads for many years that say "BP Beyond Petroleum". Most people don't even know that BP is British. They are not upset because there is another country involved.... it is typical these days with oil drilling for oil projects to be multinational. They are upset because IT HAPPENED and was PREVENTABLE and the disaster plan was INADEQUATE.

You are over reacting to something being promoted in your news there to make you feel on the defensive as a country. It truly is not what is happening over here. There is no attack on Britain here.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 11:51 AM

BP has been found guilty of numerous safety and environmental violations over the past decade, has been found guilty of criminal violations and forced to pay millions in fines, judgments, and reparations. As a company, it has shown willingness to play fast and loose with even its own safety standards in order to minimize down time and maximize profitability. The fact that this behavior was tolerated for as long as it has been is as much an impeachment of the regulating agencies in the United States as it is of BP. I frankly don't give a damn if B stands for British or Beneficial or Bastardly. As for dividends, my fear is that BP will pay its stockholders, fold its tents, and declare itself insolvent and incapable of further action on the colossal mess it has created. Has the company proven itself worthy of our trust in any other way? And if all of this ruffles some Brit feathers for some reason, maybe you'll feel differently if the sludge starts rolling up on the Isle of Wight.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 12:20 PM

my fear is that BP will pay its stockholders, fold its tents, and declare itself insolvent and incapable of further action on the colossal mess it has created.

And why not? That's laissez-faire capitalism at its best. "The Magic Of The Market" at work.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 12:30 PM

Anyone who wants to sign up for laissez faire capitalism can get in line behind Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, and Rush Limbaugh, Greg. That concept has been shown to be the province of thieves and liars for quite some time.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 12:31 PM

The oil is now heading for my beach here in North Carolina. After it leaves my beautiful state, it will be heading east, towards the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:03 PM

America should have made sure that BP complied to the very strict requirements needed to run this sort of operation. They didn't and we now have this mess.

BP are obviously to blame but so is America.

Stop blaming BP as if its all their fault Obama and start to accept that if your previous bumbling President's had done their job properly and made sure BP wasn't able to get into this situation in the first place, it wouldn't have happened.

You have lost all respect from me Mr Obama. You are scoring cheap points against a foreign company who is working in your territory.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:08 PM

I'm sure your opinion makes him sad, Artur.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:13 PM

BP are obviously to blame but so is America.

True. The deregulation (and de-facto deregulation by way of not enforcing those regulations that still do exist) of the Reagan Era (which Obama and Co., alas, are slow to overturn) (not that the Repuglicans have ANY right to complain about that!) is coming home to roost in the last 3 years.

And why not? That's laissez-faire capitalism at its best. "The Magic Of The Market" at work.

"The Market" is vastly overrated. "The Market" gave us the global financial meltdown of October 2008. Regulate the shit out of it. Business should work for people. That's why the governments allow corporations to exist. Or should be.

What we are saying is that BP has stated very clearly, right from the start, that its intention is to pay for the lot.

Well, they agreed to pay for all legitimate claims, "legitimate" being a weasel word which one can fully expect to be used to dodge out of claims that any number of observers might think are "legitimate".

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Howard Jones
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:16 PM

Ebbie, I believe there are some some offences relating to business practices where the law differs.

A celebrated case here involved three businessmen involved in the Enron situation. Despite the fact that their alleged offence was committed in the UK against a British company, they were successfully extradited to the US where they were convicted. I don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of their conviction, but their publicity campaign highlighted the imbalance in extradition arrangements between the two countries.

They were convicted of "wire fraud", in which the use of electronic communications adds to the severity of the sentence. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe a similar distinction applies in English law - it would be treated simply as fraud, with all the circumstances having a bearing on the sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:17 PM

Not that bothered Ebbie. Just fed up of the yanks, ducking the flack and blaming BP 100% and not facing up to their own cock ups.

I think it's time our Prime Minister's stopped arsole creeping your President's.

I personally am very sorry to see such a disaster and my heartfelt thoughts are with all the good honest people who are suffering over there.

I think it's time we pulled out of all the war conflict's that you yanks have led us into, due to our own arsole creeping PM's.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Les from Hull
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:20 PM

Actually BP is not a British Company. The B does not stand for British any more, it stands for B - the name was changed from British Petroleum a few years ago. There are probably as many American investors in the company as there are British. It is a multi-national oil company that has its origins in Britain the same way that Royal Dutch Shell originated in the Netherlands. It is considered the 5th biggest company in the World.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:23 PM

I think it's time we pulled out of all the war conflict's that you yanks have led us into, due to our own arsole creeping PM's.

I think it's time that we (Americans) pulled out of the war conflicts. Fucking George Bush. And spineless Obama to keep us there.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:23 PM

made sure BP wasn't able to get into this situation in the first place

the poor performance of our regulatory agencies aside, a company that continues to act in criminal negligence is like a serial killer whose defense is "it's not my fault! Why didnt you stop me?"

The fact is, deep ocean oilwell drilling is a huge risk, and a company undertaking it should provide a series of failsafe backup procedures in the event of disaster. There should also be a contingency plan to eliminate the threat, should all of the failsafes fail. Here, BP was allowed to undertake a project for which they didn't possess the technology for a repair. And even though they don't, they unfortunately still hold the best resources with potential for a solution. To condemn Obama for not fixing the blown well, or for his criticism of BP for undertaking a disastrous gamble, is ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:29 PM

Anyone who wants to sign up for laissez faire capitalism can get in line behind Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, and Rush Limbaugh, Greg.

[NB: Add Ayan Rand to your list.And most of the Republican party.]

You Betcha! and millions have, despite conclusive evidence that ot's a crock.

God Help America.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:30 PM

L EJ

I am blaming America for letting BP get itself into this situation.

I just can't stand that spineless Obama blaming BP when he knows his own country is just as much at fault. He is very good at talking the talk.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:34 PM

I am blaming America for letting BP get itself into this situation.

Then you're an idiot. BP is a big boy, it should be able to police itself at least to the extent of following all the laws and industry-wide safety procedures. That they did not is not America's fault. They need to take responsibility for their own actions, not pawn it off on the regulatory agencies etc.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:36 PM

I beg your pardon Mousethief. Do not start flaming me. I have not insulted any mudcatter posters including you, and |I do not accept that from you.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:39 PM

Pardon. Then, what you have said is idiotic.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Howard Jones
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:39 PM

Ordinary Americans may not identify BP as a British company. However Obama and some other politicians have been referring to it as "British Petroleum", which the company has not been known as for many years. Now this may just be a slip of the tongue, but it's being interpreted by the media here as a deliberate and orchestrated ploy to emphasise the foreignness of BP. It also appears that a lot of American politicians are adopting tough attitudes, with talk about "kicking ass", in order to get BP to do what it has already agreed it will do.

All this posturing is being regarded as the politicians wanting to be seen to be defending American interests against nasty foreigners. Since BP is still viewed here as a leading British company, this is seen as anti-British. It's a view about American politicians, not the American people as a whole, but there's concern that it will begin to rub off on them if the politicians keep repeating it. It may not be an accurate interpretation of events, but it's how it's being reported here - the American media may have a different interpretation, I don't know.

The reality of course is that despite its history and London base it is a multinational company and as much American as it is British. The reality also is that millions of American as well as British citizens are indirect shareholders in BP via their pension funds and other investments. That's you and me.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:43 PM

Now this may just be a slip of the tongue, but it's being interpreted by the media here as a deliberate and orchestrated ploy to emphasise the foreignness of BP.

I'd say that's a deliberate and orchestrated ploy by your media. People who remember when BP meant "British Petroleum", and who were unaware of the fact it had changed its name (I wasn't aware of that -- I don't follow megaconglomerates very closely), I think can be forgiven.

It's like KFC. "Everybody knows" it stands for "Kentucky Fried Chicken" but it no longer does so. But that fact hasn't exactly been shouted from the rooftops. I found it on an obscure blog.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:46 PM

Mousethief, that is your opinion, but please refrain from flaming people who do not agree with your viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 01:51 PM

I said Pardon. Perhaps that's not clear. "I'm sorry I called you an idiot."

Yes it is my opinion, as is everything else I say here. Same for you, mutatis mutandis. And everybody here. Thanks for reminding us.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 02:15 PM

Quote from BP website-
"With our global headquarters in London and operations across the country, the UK is the hub of the entire BP business."

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=24@contentId=2000737.
-----------------------------------------------
From links at that site:
"The BP group operates across six continents, and our products and services are aailable in more than 100 countries."
"London is where BP's corporate headquarters are located, and the UK is therefore a centre for trading, legal, finance and other mainstreram business functions. The UK is also home to three of BP's major global research and technology groups."
North America
"The BP group is the largest oil and gas producer and one of the largest gasoline retailers in the United States. We are the largest non-US company on the New York Stock Exchange. Our BP Alternative Energy business has an operations centre in Houston, and we also have solar manufacturing facilities in the USA."
http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=40&contentId=7061813
--------------
Excerpts from BP press releases are found through the same sites.
Statements about payments to states are made there, but some press releases say no monies have actually been received.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 02:16 PM

"Ordinary Americans may not identify BP as a British company."
snippet
"Since BP is still viewed here as a leading British company,"

So, what is the difference between Americans viewing BP as a British company and British citizens viewing BP as a British company?

Me thinks mumble, mumble, mumble...

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 02:23 PM

To turn this into a partisan party politics, is absolute absurd nonsense!! I've just received some figures, in regards to the spill, that are staggering!!!...and WAY worse than either side(?) is letting the people know about!! Obama will exploit this, and use this to push his cap and trade. STUPID!..The oil industry and its investors, are trying to minimize how the 'reported damage' is for their financial and public image purposes.. STUPID! The media(read: infotainment), depending on whose interests are backing them, are misleading people ON BOTH SIDES on a massive scale!!

This is potentially, is a major historic event that threatens huge portions of mankind, both health, and economic. We are facing a lot different type of problem, than we may have ever faced before!..including mass evacuations, because of other compounds, being released..besides just oil!

Furthermore, the drilling is a lot deeper, than just 5000 feet below the surface of the water. It penetrates up to 30,000 feet below the ocean floor! They believe they have penetrated the earth's mantel.

The figures are not the mere figures that is being 'reported' on the infotainment propaganda services(so-called 'news'),..but are being estimated at 4 million barrels a day!

As far as 'capping' the pipe: Oil drilling experts and engineers, have determined that 1500 psi is 'acceptable' levels for safe drilling pressures. What they have found here, and not being reported, is the pressures are 20,000, and up to 70,000 psi! Unfathomable by by industry standards, and by most of our minds!

NOAA, (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration), has found multiple plumes and fissures, with gushers within a 20 mile radius of the 'leak'.

It is being reported by an unconfirmed source, (reportedly from leaked sources), that the material, Hydrogen sulfide, methylene chloride, benzene, and vanadium. Safe levels: Hydrogen Sulfide, 5-10 PPB (parts per billion)--detected: 1200 PPB....methylene chloride, safe: 61 PPB---detected 3400 PPB,...Benzene, Safe: 0-4 PPB---detected: 3000 PPB. Also amounts of Vanadium, a toxic metal, in undetermined large amounts.

There is discussion of using a nuclear device to seal the leak, but to use it, they would have to take months to 'angle drill', put in place, and because of the hardness of the ocean floor and or mantel there, they can't determine(as of yet), what amount of power, or strength....in essence, they have to make an educated(?) guess!...nor have they ascertained, if it may cause more damage to the ocean floor/mantel, and actually make it WORSE!
that the EPA has found other hazardous materials being released in staggering proportions..

To politicize this event, is sheer foolishness!!

Should the hurricane season, get nasty, because it is upon us(gee, is that a Democratic or Republican hurricane??), the implications on the damage and toll on human life, and after effects could be in the millions(of lives, not primarily dollars..but both), in this country alone! Should the toxic compound hit the gulf stream, the European continent as well, this is a lot more of a 'bummer(?!)' than something to merely intellectualize about.

There's more bits of stuff, but I thought that should give you some REAL food for thought......(pretty heavy snack, eh?)

P.S. Side note: Sea gulls and fireflies, have been spotted in the southwestern area of Colorado!???!. This is a first! Whether or not that is related, is conjecture, at this point, but rather unusual!

Yikes!...Now I'm going to hit the 'Submit Message' button....Here goes.........!

Have a Pleasant Day,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 02:59 PM

OK I accept your apology Mousethief. Thankyou.

We potentially have a world disaster and we all need to pull together, not blame everybody else.

Sometimes in life, a major disaster occurs and we sometimes have to forget our arguments and hatred's towards one another and stop passing the buck.

I have no idea how this problem will get solved, but I do believe Obama, should be saying to BP "OK this is a big mess, but let's move forward together for the sake of humanity. If and when we solve this disaster we will see where we go from there."

I believe the world needs to get involved in this and help in whatever we can. Whether that is technology, advice, donations of money etc etc.

So I say to Obama, get off your arse and invite the world to help in whatever way they can, before things get any worse.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 04:34 PM

Maybe I'm old, but I think of BP as AMOCO, formerly Standard Oil of Indiana, formerly John D. Rockefeller. The human face I attach to BP is John D. Rockefeller. As I said above, the ownership of BP is almost equally U.S. and U.K., with a small percentage of stockholders from other countries.

So, yeah, it takes a real idiot to think that American criticism of BP is an insult to the United Kingdom. Haven't you people over there ever heard of a "multinational corporation"? In other words, the entire premise of this thread is silly.

-Joe Offer (supported by mutual funds, and I think some have BP shares - should I be insulted?)-

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 04:34 PM

I accept your apology Arthur and in so doing you may continue to practice free speech as you like. In fact I will go as far as accepting everyone's apology without reservations.

Afterall if you buy and use petroleum products you are part of the problem.

------------------------------------------------
UK is miffed and is decrying the poor penniless pensioneers in London who depend upon their dividend to keep body and soul together. If the US tries to take their money away to throw it at some fisherman in the Gulf, there will be repurcussions!
Harumph harumph. what what

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 05:10 PM

You yanks just get on with it, but stop blaming everybody else but yourselves.

You are great at going into other countries and killing thousands of people without remorse, but you ain't so clever when something happens on your own soil.

No wonder you are disliked so much.

I just hope we in Britain stop sucking up to your incessant demands to tell other countries what to do by voilence by means of military intervention.

I will leave you to blame everybody else but yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 05:23 PM

Wow. When Mousethief apologizes to Artur, all hell breaks loose. Gracious thou art not, Art.

GfS, for a change your conclusions are coherent and focused but I would like some clarification:

1) Where did you get the idea that we are treating this as a Democrat/Republican matter?

2) Where did you get the idea that we take this calamity less seriously than you do?

3) Please link us to some source(s) where we can read for ourselves what is being said out there.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 06:02 PM

One-more-time...as Q posted a bit ago:

"Quote from BP website-
"With our global headquarters in London and operations across the country, the UK is the hub of the entire BP business.

...and I doubt I am the only one who is getting tired of the blanket condemnations of the US such as Arthur itus just dropped!
This is just stupid: "... going into other countries and killing thousands of people without remorse, ..."
As if we 'enjoyed' war and misery and conflict...

Should I make a list of UK involvements in the world for a few hundred years and generalize about them? Why does emotion have to negate reason?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 06:28 PM

Joe, you are close on the stockholders who hold beneficial shares.
44% UK, 39%US, 21% rest of world; BP figures on line at bp.com.

UK institutions hold 33% and American institutions 25%. The rest are large individual holders.

777 shareholders have over a million shares each.

There are some 19 million common shares; today the average price about noon was $34, about half of what it was before the gusher.

BP's drilling carelessness is costing everybody, even if their pensions, investments and savings are with institutions which hold no BP shares.

Guest from Sanity, the daily flow seems to be about 40-50 thousand barrels according to experts from various universities. Of course by the time relief wells are drilled, many millions will be in the Gulf- the Oil Sea.
-------------------------

The last compensation figure released by BP (June 6) is $84 million to some 14,000 applicants, or roughly $6000 per claim. Less than peanuts.
www.oilvoice.com June 6, 2010.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 06:52 PM

In an ad in 1999, BP told the US that they were "Bringing Oil To American Shores."

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 07:22 PM

Look - long before there was any information about BP misconduct, US commentators were going for BP and ignoring the US companies involved. Were they psychic, or prejudiced? It isn't hard to figure out.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 07:42 PM

Q: "Guest from Sanity, the daily flow seems to be about 40-50 thousand barrels according to experts from various universities. Of course by the time relief wells are drilled, many millions will be in the Gulf- the Oil Sea."

You mean, various universities that receive massive government funds???

The figures and info I received was from a reliable source... not only that, no sooner than I left here, went somewhere in the car, ABC radio, just reported that the spill had gotten further into the Gulf, and was a lot larger than they originally thought....and to answer Ebbster's questions, which is related, in a way, the EPA data was leaked, you might find more about it online, however I'd rather not divulge that, at this time. HOWEVER, this thing ain't going away too soon, I'm sure more will come out, as time goes on.

I am not, have not, nor will not, pass misinformation onto you guys, to the best of my knowledge, (though I might piss a few of you off, especially those who can't distinguish between satire and hatred)..nonetheless, musicians/poets etc. are a peculiar people, whose gift, when NOT laying dormant, wallowing in the past, are NOT people I would ever intentionally bullshit!!

When used properly, and when 'dialed-in', you have at your disposal, the means of changing lives, policies, and hearts. Giving you bad input intentionally, will NOT happen...from me......though, once again, you may or may not agree. As an example, look at the criticism, I posted during the elections, and primaries...that stuff is being made manifest, everyday that we live! Same with the corruption..same with the phony manipulation of the economy, for the sake of control!...all coming true.

Musicians should be ahead of the curve, not parroting behind the curve, as set forth by the propaganda and infotainment industry!

i wasn't going to even post on this thread, but being as I got the new info, i thought I'd pass it. Do with it as you'd like, but to the best of my knowledge, it is accurate!!

There are some things to consider about how this was(or wasn't) handled, but there have been some massive mistakes made in judgment, and now it has been turned into a 'blame game'. This is sheer lunacy!! Mama Earth is bleeding, we did it, and rather than fix it, the evil clown(s) are trying to use it for their own arrogant purposes. The arguments we hear, are the ones put forth, and repeated by whomever, has something to gain, one way or another. Please, do NOT fall into it.

Okay, better go now, before I go into 'sermon mode'!

Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Alice
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 07:58 PM

Richard wrote "going for BP and ignoring the US companies involved"

You are misinformed. The American news has been covering Transocean, the Minerals Management Service that was the agency that did not regulate as they should, decades of poor regulation, Dick Cheney and his closed door meetings with energy companies during the Bush years... and much more.

You are seeing something in the British news that is distorting what is really happening here. Dare I suggest that someone has an interest in trying to stir up emotions by creating the impression in Britain of your country being attacked?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 08:04 PM

Sanity, I think you are about ready for restraints.
New info from where, reading your tarot cards?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 08:41 PM

I think we should feel sorry for poor little Switzerland, home of Transocean now that it left the Caiman Islands. The big, bad Americans are bullying the poor Swiss yodelers, simply because Transocean is a Swiss corporation.

Well, actually, no. Americans are very nervous about multinational corporations - companies so big and widespread that they don't have to bother answering to any government authority.

Don't give me this bullshit that criticism of BP is prejudice against Britain. BP is beyond Britain - and it's as much a threat to the UK, as it is to the US. It has too much power, and too little ethics.

Oh, and we've been picking on Exxon ever since they spilled a little oil in Alaska..... Are they British? Nope - they're another descendant of John D. Rockefeller.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 09:05 PM

Q: "New info from where, reading your tarot cards?"

let's not get snotty, you can perhaps find it online, maybe not, but I'm not, at this time, going to burn my source.

..and Joe, is absolutely correct. Multinational Corporations are unto themselves, as little countries. They know no borders, as we relate to them...and seem to avoid regulation. More than money, power is what they're after. They have their own alliances, some within themselves. they are at odds with political systems, that they haven't been able to fully corrupt. The ones they DO corrupt legislate laws in their favor, not the people who the 'representatives' are supposed to be representing...Oh, and that includes 'The Fed'..a private corporation!

....and by the way, should I find, through my sources, that my info, was in error, in part, or all, I WILL amend it, or retract....but as for now, it stands!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 09:13 PM

Source, or forget it.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 09:25 PM

I am blaming America for letting BP get itself into this situation.

Just for the record: Not only is this statement idiotic, its assinine.
And no, I've no intention of apoligizing.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 11:16 PM

Greg F, that was an interesting quote- makes no sense at all.

I don't think many Americans throw all the blame on BP, although it must be made responsible for its mistakes. BP, as operator, took shortcuts that they might not have taken if the MMS had been hard-headed and insisted on certain checks and procedures, especially since BP had been so lax as to collect fine after fine.
Congresses past are largely responsible for the MMS failures; it looks like MMS will be much different in the future (closing the barn door after... and all that).

BP (Too little information to comment on Transocean's responsibilities) may find it is a takeover target because of its losses because resulting from the drilling shortcuts and the massive settlements sure to come.

One NY paper suggested that the Chinese might bid for BP, but I don't think they would buy into trouble. They have bought into Canadian and other companies and Sinopec is a major petroleum corporation on the world scene.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 11:51 PM

"Greg F, that was an interesting quote- makes no sense at all." Q June 11, 11:16

"I am blaming America for letting BP get itself into this situation." Arthur_itis June 11 1:34

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 01:24 AM

What is this article on about. Is it suggesting mis-information from the Government?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/11/eveningnews/main6573318.shtml?tag=stack

Also this article, seems to suggest that the rig was not inspected regularly and that the last person to do an inspection was an apprentice Quote The last government inspection of the rig was on April 1 by Eric Neal, a government inspector who had only recently started his drilling inspection training, yet he was sent to the rig by himself to do the inspection. End of quote

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20007514-10391695.html?tag=stack

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 03:23 AM

AoL news, APril 30.

"Yet while both BP and Transocean have issued public apologies following the explosion and subsequent leak, the company that actually manufactured the BOP in place on Deepwater Horizon has remained curiously reticent about its role.

Cameron International, formerly known as Cooper Cameron, is the worldwide leader in providing BOPs to offshore rigs, according to industry website RigZone. The Houston oil and gas systems company has been recognized by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers for creating the first blowout preventer of its kind, all the way back in 1922"

Alice asserts above that US voices now attack Transocean as well as London based British Petroleum.   There appears to be some argument whether Cooper Cameron or Halliburton produced the blowout preventer that BP just leased. While some US voices criticise Halliburton or Cameron Cooper, the vast preponderance (and, so far as I have heard to date, all US politicians) attack the two non-US-based corporations - and have done so from times well before any indications of maladroit operational decisions by BP. It still looks like xenophobia to me.

By the way I am very critical of the ethos of multinational companies - but I stop short of blaming them for what they have not done.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 03:30 AM

BP has been operating maladroitly for 10 years.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 04:20 AM

But it's not a matter of one nation against another - it's the people against the corporations. Corporate ethics seems to be at an all-time low, and the moderate-income and poor of the world are the victims.
Americans have known since the days of Dick Cheney that Halliburton is corrupt, and Americans assume that almost all oil companies are corrupt. We didn't know about that Swiss drilling company - but it seems that they're corrupt, too.
But we actually like the UK, and we often wish we had a President like that Tony Blair fellow....

I'll get me coat....

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Howard Jones
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 05:11 AM

Joe, it shouldn't be a question of one nation against the other, but that is what the politicians and some of the media seem to trying to stoke up.

In today's Times newspaper there's a letter from someone just returned from New York describing how one TV station there linked the spill with a visit to the White House by Paul McCartney by asking why the President was "inviting the citizen of a country which has destroyed the planet".

US politicians want to appear to be acting tough in a situation which they don't actually have any control over. I'm not saying they shouldn't be criticising BP (although at the moment the priority should be fixing the leak and cleaning up the mess - there will be plenty of time later to argue over who is to blame), it is the way they are specifically identifying it as a British company (when it is 44% American-owned and employs twice as many Americans as Brits) which is not going down well over here. It seems from the story I quoted above that some of the US media have already fallen for this line, so it's only a matter of time before ordinary Americans start to believe it too.

As for Tony Blair, you're welcome to him.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 07:59 AM

"it's not a matter of one nation against another - it's the people against the corporations"
Yes...and the power and trust that nations put in these global companies, in a misguided belief that the corporate best interests are the same as the citizens best interests.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 10:13 AM

Corporate ethics seems to be at an all-time low, and the moderate-income and poor of the world are the victims.

And yet the moderate-income and poor of the U.S. of A. (read Tea-Baggers, Republicans et. al.) want to throw out of office the people who are attempting to do something to help them and put back in power the same assholes that created the mess in the first place.

and the power and trust that nations put in these global companies

"nations" can't put trust or anything else in corporations- its people- like the idiots above- that do.

Are Piaget's stages of development taught in schoolsany longer, I wonder??

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Alice
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 11:32 AM

Americans work for BP, and Americans have investment in BP for their retirement, just as millions of people around the world.
BP is not being "attacked". BP is RESPONSIBLE for a disaster and is being held responsible for what they have done.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 12:46 PM

"People against corporations"- the old nonsense appears in yet another thread. Most of us depend on corporations for our employment, our savings funds, our products, our homes- in fact for our material possessions and the income to possess them.

Whether the corporations are large, like Apple, Exxon, MacDonalds- corporate value in the billions- or small like that of the immigrant who employs 10 salesmen and a few others in the business end of his furniture shop, or the successful musician, his agent, driver, etc.or the plumber shop or whatever- corporate value a few million- is immaterial, our life is corporate life.

And every decade through the last 150 years more and more people are able to live a comfortable life.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 12:57 PM

"In today's Times newspaper there's a letter from someone just returned from New York describing how one TV station there linked the spill with a visit to the White House by Paul McCartney by asking why the President was "inviting the citizen of a country which has destroyed the planet".


arrrrgghhhhhh! Do you actually believe that? Unless this letter writer came up with a TV station or show where this allegedly happened, I don't believe it for one gd moment. People are insane.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 01:07 PM

"Our life is corporate life"

This doesn't mean corporations are an unmitigated good, or that whatever they want to do is good for all of us. Multinationals are not the all-seeing, all-knowing benefactors of mankind you make out. They do a lot of terrible things in the name of profit, and the governments that they buy with their campaign donations sit idly by while they ruin people's lives and the environment.

Most Americans work either for the government, or small businesses, not corporations.

Real wages have declined quite a bit since 1980 in the United States, due in no small part to the practices of large corporations such as offshoring jobs, restructuring to get rid of well-paid employees, etc.

Your bleary-eyed worship of corporations is ill-founded. Unless you're among the megarich.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 02:46 PM

Of course there are bigots in the U.S. congress as there are in the House of Commons or House of Lords. They're everywhere.

B.P. is a criminal. This implicates Tony Hayward. They've destroyed America's coastline by cutting corners and hiring incompetents. I don't think all Brits want to be associated with B.P. just as most sane American's don't.

This thread is bogus. It assumes that because Americans are down on BP, they are down on Brits. Not true and insulting.

Goldman Sachs or AIG are American companies and many Americans are down on them,
and justifiably so.

The Multinationals are the new "countries" who are calling the shots (literally and figuratively) throughout the world. They need to be "trust-busted". They have taken over both the U.S. and the U.K. and it's time for citizens to reclaim their respective countries (but please, not like Rand Paul).

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 03:35 PM

Small businesses here are incorporated (Canada), and the same in the States.

When I retired, I wanted to work as a consultant, and the first thing I did was incorporate my company. Legally in business I became "Joe Blow" Professional Corporation under the laws of the province.
All professionals working independently or employing assistants or in partnership incorporate their business.

It puts the incorporated business separate from the personal effects- home and possessions, etc.- of the individual and/or associates, and is necessary for legal and tax purposes.

Corporations, large or small, may or may not be good corporate citizens; many of us look on BP as a bad one but that should not be a blanket condemnation of all corporations.

To incorporate in the province of Alberta, this government website gives the essentials-
Government Alberta Corporations

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 06:45 PM

Of course, there are ethical corporations, Q. Most of us are smart enough to know that, and we shouldn't have to explain that every time we say something. There are good corporations and there are corrupt corporations, and that has always been the case.
Still, there seems to have been a downturn in corporate ethics in the last thirty years, at the same time that politicians have tended to deify corporations.
I think it started with the Reagan-Thatcher economics of the 1980s, when the Conventional Wisdom dictated that business could do no wrong and government could do nothing right. As a result, those nasty government controls were relaxed, and business was allowed to do what it does best - become corrupt (I suppose the same is true for government: without control, it becomes corrupt). So, we have had one huge corporate scandal after another since the 1980s.
Barack Obama is a ray of hope for many of us, but it has yet to be seen whether he can do anything to stem the corporate corruption of the last thirty years. Then again, many of us once thought that Tony Blair was a ray of hope....

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 11:08 PM

I hope it's not too long......

Common delusions notwithstanding, the United States, I submit, is not a democracy – by which is meant a system in which the will of the people prevails. Rather it is a curious mechanism artfully designed to circumvent the will of the people while appearing to be democratic. Several mechanisms accomplish this.

First, we have two identical parties which, when elected, do very much the same things. Thus the election determines not policy but only the division of spoils. Nothing really changes. The Democrats will never seriously reduce military spending, nor the Republicans, entitlements.

Second, the two parties determine on which questions we are allowed to vote. They simply refuse to engage the questions that matter most to many people. If you are against affirmative action, for whom do you vote? If you regard the schools as abominations? If you want to end the president's hobbyist wars?

Third, there is the effect of large jurisdictions. Suppose that you lived in a very small (and independent) school district and didn't like the curriculum. You could buttonhole the head of the school board, whom you would probably know, and say, "Look, Jack, I really think…." He would listen.

But suppose that you live in a suburban jurisdiction of 300,000. You as an individual mean nothing. To affect policy, you would have to form an organization, canvass for votes, solicit contributions, and place ads in newspapers. This is a fulltime job, prohibitively burdensome.

The larger the jurisdiction, the harder it is to exert influence. Much policy today is set at the state level. Now you need a statewide campaign to change the curriculum. Practically speaking, it isn't practical.

Fourth are impenetrable bureaucracies. A lot of policy is set by making regulations at some department or other, often federal. How do you call the Department of Education to protest a rule which is in fact a policy? The Department has thousands of telephones, few of them listed, all of which will brush you off. There is nothing the public can do to influence these goiterous, armored, unaccountable centers of power.

Yes, you can write your senator, and get a letter written by computer, "I thank you for your valuable insights, and assure you that I am doing all…."

Fifth is the invisible bureaucracy (which is also impenetrable). A few federal departments get at least a bit of attention from the press, chiefly State and Defense (sic). Most of the government gets no attention at all – HUD, for example. Nobody knows who the Secretary of HUD is, or what the department is doing. Similarly, the textbook publishers have some committee whose name I don't remember (See? It works) that decides what words can be used in texts, how women and Indians must be portrayed, what can be said about them, and so on. Such a group amounts to an unelected ministry of propaganda and, almost certainly, you have never heard of it.

Sixth, there is the illusion of journalism. The newspapers and networks encourage us to think of them as a vast web of hard-hitting, no-holds-barred, chips-where-they-may inquisitors of government: You can run, but you can't hide. In fact federal malefactors don't have to run or hide. The press isn't really looking.

Most of press coverage is only apparent. Television isn't journalism, but a service that translates into video stories found in the Washington Post and New York Times (really). Few newspapers have bureaus in Washington; the rest follow the lead of a small number of major outlets. These don't really cover things either.

When I was reporting on the military, there were (if memory serves) many hundreds of reporters accredited to the Pentagon, or at least writing about the armed services. It sounds impressive: All those gimlet eyes.

What invariably happened though was that some story would break – a toilet seat alleged to cost too much, or the failure of this or that. All the reporters would chase the toilet seat, fearful that their competitors might get some detail they didn't. Thus you had one story covered six hundred times. In any event the stories were often dishonest and almost always ignorant because reporters, apparently bound by some natural law, are obligate technical illiterates. This includes the reporters for the Post and the Times.

Seventh, and a bit more subtle, is the lack of centers of demographic power in competition with the official government. The Catholic Church, for example, once influentially represented a large part of the population. It has been brought to heel. We are left with government by lobby – the weapons industry, big pharma, AIPAC, the teachers unions – whose representatives pay Congress to do things against the public interest.

Eighth, we are ruled not by a government but by a class. Here the media are crucial. Unless you spend time outside of America, you may not realize to what extent the press is controlled. The press is largely free, yes, but it is also largely owned by a small number of corporations which, in turn, are run by people from the same pool from which are drawn high-level pols and their advisers. They are rich people who know each other and have the same interests. It is very nearly correct to say that these people are the government of the United States, and that the federal apparatus merely a useful theatrical manifestation.

Finally, though it may not be deliberate, the schools produce a pitiably ignorant population that can't vote wisely. Just as trial lawyers don't want intelligent jurors, as they are harder to manipulate, so political parties don't want educated voters. The existence of a puzzled mass gawping at Oprah reduces elections to popularity contests modulated by the state of the economy. One party may win, yes, or the other. But a TV-besotted electorate doesn't meddle in matters important to its rulers. It has never heard of them.

To disguise all of this, elections provide the excitement and intellectual content of a football game, without the importance. They allow a sense of Participation. In bars across the land, in high-school gyms become forums, people become heated about what they imagine to be decisions of great import: This candidate or that? It keeps them from feeling left out while denying them power.

It is fraud. In a sense, the candidates do not even exist. A presidential candidate consists of two speechwriters, a makeup man, a gestures coach, ad agency, two pollsters and an interpreter of focus groups. Depending on his numbers, the handlers may suggest a more fixed stare to crank up his decisiveness quotient for male or Republican voters, or dial in a bit of compassion for a Democratic or female audience. The newspapers will report this calculated transformation. Yet it works. You can fool enough of the people enough of the time.

When people sense this and decline to vote, we cluck like disturbed hens and speak of apathy. Nope. Just common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 01:30 AM

Credit where credit is due, GfS.

That above article Copyright © 2008 Fred Reed.

From http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed139.html.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 01:32 AM

I didn't sign it, did I??

But it is right on!

>>>>>GFS<<<<<<<

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 03:24 AM

sheesh And here I was thinking that Sanity Guest had finally taken the time to be coherent. Thanks, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 03:41 AM

Thanks again Don - I was getting worried that I was going to agree with some parts of something Fugitive from Sanity said.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 03:58 AM

Anybody on the in concerning Cameron Obama phone call?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 05:26 AM

Coherent?..Here, let's be very plain about it. Thinking between the lines doesn't seem to be one of your leading traits!

The two polarizations, that are oppressing this nation of people, happen to be, the product of propaganda, opposed by myself, and eloquently written by Fred Reed. He gets it, I get it...and so do you!
At what point do you stop running into the arms of those feeding you that line of crap, that, because of some self imposed trap, you can't let go of??...and running away from the truth....WHICH YOU JUST RECOGNIZED!!!!

You would, and have said, and done anything, to discredit either myself, or ANYONE, and diverting everyone's attention away. Away from someone who is, and has been calling you on your bullshit!
ALL this to avoid you accepting, that the polarization, and anger in this country, on both sides, which you have chosen one, has you pitting the very VICTIMS of this fraud, against each other!

How far does it have to get before your jaw drops open, as you gasp, "Oh, my God, their shooting at each other, in the streets?"..or, are you going to 'intellectualize' about it, even when you windows are rattling??

Maybe that's your goal, but I, for one oppose ANYTHING of this sort, and am doing, and will do everything I can, to disarm it, and the stupidity that brings it!...on here, in music, and in my daily life's dealings! STOP FEEDING IT!!

As I've said before, and I'm sorry..I just can't remember where I first heard it, "SNAP NOW, AND AVOID THE RUSH!!"

Clear and coherent enough??? ....Got too much personal and bull shit clogging your filters?

Rethink....your political mantras ..and who fed you that crap!..and why!

Most Sincerely,
Guest from Sanity

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Howard Jones
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 07:23 AM

Ebbie, why shouldn't I believe it? It sounds like just the sort of dumb question a TV journalist would ask. The person who wrote the letter was on holiday with his wife - I doubt he noticed or cared what channel or what programme it was on, but he noticed the comment, and a growing anti-British sentiment in the media.

No one is accusing the American people of being anti-British. The criticism is of a number of politicians who appear to have been deliberately and repeatedly making the point by referring to BP as "British Petroleum" that it is a British company. Although they deny being anti-British as well, the sub-text is there. If they keep repeating it, that subliminal message will start to get across to ordinary Americans.

In fairness, some of our own politicians have been making an issue of this too, which is equally unhelpful. But the issue is causing some concern here - not because we defend BP, which has handled both the event and the aftermath badly, but because of the possible damage to US-UK relations.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 07:50 AM

Ok here is a link to 'BP oil spill: Obama comments 'not anti-British' for what it's worth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10303619.stm

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 10:00 AM

""Well, they agreed to pay for all legitimate claims, "legitimate" being a weasel word which one can fully expect to be used to dodge out of claims that any number of observers might think are "legitimate".""

So what do you want them to do then Mousethief?

Pay out for some Kansas farmer who claims the spill hs ruined his fields?

Of course they'll only pay claims for damage that actually happened i.e. "legitimate claims"

It's a no brainer, and it's more than US insurance companies do.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 10:06 AM

""Actually BP is not a British Company. The B does not stand for British any more, it stands for B - the name was changed from British Petroleum a few years ago. There are probably as many American investors in the company as there are British.""

Actually it is 40 percent British, 39 percent American, and 21 percent unspecified others, according to info from the BBC yesterday.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 10:19 AM

""Furthermore, the drilling is a lot deeper, than just 5000 feet below the surface of the water. It penetrates up to 30,000 feet below the ocean floor! They believe they have penetrated the earth's mantel.""

Wow! GfS rewrites geology.

30,000 feet is 10 Kilometres, which could possibly penetrate the very edge of the upper mantle. However this depth would be insufficient except in a tiny percentage of the worlds surface area, and in any case would be many kilometres short of the mantle proper.

I think GfS, that you would know if the mantle had been penetrated, as they would have been fighting a vocanic eruption, not a bloody oil spill.

How do you propose that oil would exist in molten rock?

Just gets dafter and dafter.
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 10:27 AM

""and to answer Ebbster's questions, which is related, in a way, the EPA data was leaked, you might find more about it online, however I'd rather not divulge that, at this time.""

I'll just bet you would rather not, or more accurately, rather cannot.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 10:36 AM

""we often wish we had a President like that Tony Blair fellow....""

You should have said Joe. By 2005 we would have happily given him to you, and thrown in Gordon Brown free of charge,   WITH GREEN STAMPS!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 10:50 AM

""Americans work for BP, and Americans have investment in BP for their retirement, just as millions of people around the world.
BP is not being "attacked". BP is RESPONSIBLE for a disaster and is being held responsible for what they have done.""

Yes Alice, BP is responsible, and accepted that responsibility long before American politicians started talking about "kicking ass".

Can you explain what you find useful in the idea of whipping a horse that is already going in the direction you want, at the best pace of which it is capable.

When RB started this thread I thought he was being paranoid, but there is one thing about which he is indubitably correct.

Your politicians and your news media are accentuating the "British" Petroleum increasingly, and it simply cannot be passed off as accidental.

Remember how the Shrub emphasised Iraq in connection with 9/11, until many Americans thought that the USA was invading Iraq because Saddam was responsible for 9/11?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 01:01 PM

Don T "30,000 feet is 10 Kilometres, which could possibly penetrate the very edge of the upper mantle. However this depth would be insufficient except in a tiny percentage of the worlds surface area, and in any case would be many kilometres short of the mantle proper."

That's ri-i-i-ght!

In other words, this thing is worse than being reported!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 02:10 PM

BP, in their own website, states "We are the largest non-US company on the New York Stock Exchange." Their head office, and legal operations, are handled from there.
Stock ownership does not determine the ownership of a company, unless it has control of the Board and legal operations.

All this posted above.

Stock Ownership 44% UK, 39% US; Institutional ownership 33% UK, 25% US, rest individuals.
Also posted above.

Stock ownership may be changing rapidly as many are divesting their portfolios of BP stock and reflected by the current low stock value.
------------------------

The well has drilled into sediments below thick salt layers and rock which formed an effective seal, trapping the oil and gas, and leading to high gas pressure, leading to the danger of blowouts.
The mantle is not involved; at this location it is much deeper.
Temperatures are high, however, also leading to high gas pressures.

Several companies have drilled test wells into these sediments below the salt layers; it is risky because if something goes wrong or there is carelessness, blowout like BP's may occur and corrective measures are experimental or poorly tested.
--------------------------------------

BP used to be called British Petroleum; as they increasingly operated all over the world, the Board decided the name should be simply BP. Of course many people still call the company 'British Petroleum'. So what? Not important.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 02:12 PM

Handled from there should read- handled from the London headquarters.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 03:25 PM

""The mantle is not involved; at this location it is much deeper.
Temperatures are high, however, also leading to high gas pressures.""

Did you get that GfS. Given the averages involved, it was a racing certainty that such would be the case, since the thinnest parts of the crust would be concentrated at the edges of the emerging tectonic plates, none of which are anywhere near the drilling sites, being concentrated in the Pacific "Ring of Fire", and the Atlantic "Mid Ocean Ridge". The Carribean and the Gulf of Mexico would presumably be closer to the subduction zone at the other edge of the plate, where the crust would be thicker.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 03:38 PM

"Common delusions notwithstanding, the United States, I submit, is not a democracy"

There is no pure democracy anywhere but there are tendencies that are apparent in some countries, more than others.

"First, we have two identical parties which, when elected, do very much the same things."

Not historically. The Party of FDR was considerably different than that of G.W. Bush.

"But suppose that you live in a suburban jurisdiction of 300,000. You as an individual mean nothing. To affect policy, you would have to form an organization, canvass for votes, solicit contributions, and place ads in newspapers. This is a fulltime job, prohibitively burdensome."

Burdensome, perhaps but well worth the effort. This is how grass-roots issues become national policy. This is true democracy albeit not "pure".

"Fourth are impenetrable bureaucracies."

Not totally. They are porous when world situations change such as the policies of the Pentagon during the Vietnam War.

"Fifth is the invisible bureaucracy"

Again, not totally. It is incumbent as a citizen to know who is who in these bureaucracies and to advertise their misdeeds. This has and can be done.

"Sixth, there is the illusion of journalism."

Most mainstream media are corporate controlled. But there are other wonderful voices to be relied upon such as Amy Goodman on Democracy, Now. There are also certain blogs and magazines that tell the truth. Again, it's up to an informed citizenry to find them.

"Seventh, and a bit more subtle, is the lack of centers of demographic power in competition with the official government."

This may be a good thing. Centralized power can sometimes be dictatorial whereas a displacement of various power sources can get things done particularly on a local level.
Sometimes coalitions of power groups can be successful in instituting public policy.

"Eighth, we are ruled not by a government but by a class."

People are not ruled by any institution if they choose not to be. We are seeing that today in the grass-roots although some of that is misguided such as the so-called "Tea Party" which is corporate sponsored. On an individual level, a person doesn't have to buy in to the prevailing views of any administration of government. There can be still in this country countervailing group influences. We are not totally a fascist country yet.

"Finally, though it may not be deliberate, the schools produce a pitiably ignorant population that can't vote wisely."

This depends on the school. Education has suffered a set-back in its ability to get students to think, but young people can sometimes overcome this and can find support for their dissent in certain schools. We see this on Berkeley campuses and other institutions where the students question the prevailing authorities.

"When people sense this and decline to vote, we cluck like disturbed hens and speak of apathy. Nope. Just common sense."

There is nothing commonsensical about not voting. The idea of democracy is predicated on the importance of the process. Obama's election, regardless of his betrayal in his administration, represented a willingness of the electorate to want to improve the government from what it had under Bush. This can happen again.

When the government is not working especially well, there is always a tendency to say that it will never work well. This is not historically true. Often world events will dictate that repairs must be made as in the case of say FDR during the Depression. One can criticize FDR on many levels but overall, there was an improvement in the way government worked under his administration. Even the war-mongering Johnson got us a Civil Rights Act with Thurgood Marshall.

It's fashionable today to take a Libertarian view that government never works. There is no substantial proof of this, however, historically. The evidence points in the opposite direction. When Wall Street becomes unregulated, economic chaos ensues. That's what caused the Great Depression.

Today's "critics" look to a under-achiever policy, if it isn't perfect than why bother?   It's easy to take that view but not responsible. As citizens we have the responsibility to know what's going on and attempt to change it if we think it's wrong. The arm-chair cop-out is to sit back and throw darts.

I, for one, am not totally disillusioned about our government and the problems of power and policy. Sometimes it's important to read about the stuff that isn't in the accepted history books such as the role of labor. It has been counted down and out only by those
who don't have the information or have other agendas to know what's really going on.

In short, there are alternative methods for getting newsworthy information without succumbing to corporate mainstream media.

Hey, Mudcat is one.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Alice
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 03:59 PM

I am a news "junkie". I wake up to NPR news. I listen to the non-commercial radio news on National Public Radio, which includes BBC news at night. I usually have tv news on in the background while I work, which is CNN, MSNBC, non-commercial Public Broadcasting System, which includes BBC, CSPAN, and I check numerous news web sites during the day, BBC, Pravda, and Reporters Without Borders, covering world news, at

http://en.rsf.org/ Reporters Sans Frontieres

Most Americans I think are just trying to get through the day. They may not be very well informed about what is going on in the world, as putting food on the table and keeping the rent or mortgage paid is their main focus. Most Americans don't vote, unfortunately. Most do not have work schedules that allow them to keep up on daily news from sources around the world.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 04:47 PM

If one is uninformed, one either doesn't care, or doesn't look.

BBC, of course, is on many cable systems, we get it 24 hours a day.
The internet has too many news sources to list.
A few I look at semi-regularly-

South China Morning Post- one in today's news- "Britain is cracking down on corruption among British companies worldwide..." May have far-reaching impact on Hong Kong and mainland firms-

Al Jazeera- A report that Pakistan's Intelligence Service (ISI) backs Taliban- analysis of a paper from London School of Economics. Causing worry to US forces.

Arizona Republic- various articles about Bill 1070 and its effects on legal immigrants and citizens. Many are worried, some are angered about being harrassed because they are darker-skinned. The Tucson police chief is worried that Sheriff Arapaio, etc., are causing conditions that may lead to riots. Some Hispanics are considering moving to another state.

London Times- BP is considering putting several billions into a ring-fenced cleanup fund to appease Americans

Where is the PB chairman, Carl-Henric Svenberg? He has been silent.
He should be active in the disaster.

BP was worth only $73 billion on Friday. It is vulnerable to takeover by Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, etc. Unlikely until after things quiet down and the gusher controlled.

and so on- anything and everything is available

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 05:00 PM

Carl-Henric Svanberg, the new BP chairman, has been summoned to a meeting with Pres. Obama.

He has been chief executive of Ericsson Telecommunications. He is on the board of "9 different organizations across 12 different industries" -Bloomberg Business Week.

Annual Compensation from Ericsson was 17 million Kroner.
Degree from Uppsala (and a couple of honorary doctorates.

Not versed in the oil business.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 05:09 PM

PB has put forth this image of Svanberg-
Svanberg

Those eyes-

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 05:39 PM

Sorry- didn't work. Probably can be found through www.bp.com

Andy Inglis, Board member (Pembroke College, Cambridge, engineering) is Chief Executive, Exploration and Production. Earlier, had led BP's deepwater Gulf of Mexico exploration, 1997-1999, before moving to US natural gas business. Tony Heyward was his predecessor as CE, Exp.&Prod.

Haven't heard anything from him, either.

There are 13 Board members, plus the Chairman.

Two Board Members are American, or former Americans.

Robert Dudley, BP Managing Director, is American. Amoco beginning.

Dr. Byron Grote, Chief Financial Officer, has a PhD in chemistry, Cornell Univ. Standard Oil of Ohio and Kennicott Mining positions in his early history, BP since 1988 (Alaskan area originally).

Cynthia Caroll (Canadian, now British?) started with Amoco; currently a director also with DeBeers sa and Anglo Platinum Ltd; former chief executive of Anglo American plc.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Alice
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 05:47 PM

Svanberg photo at BP.com

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 06:10 PM

Whew. Wouldn't want to get in *his* way. :)

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 06:14 PM

Thanks, Alice.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 06:23 PM

the teachers unions – whose representatives pay Congress to do things against the public interest.

When did teachers and other union members stop being members of the public?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 08:07 PM

Oil spill casts doubts on deep water exploration

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/Oil-spill-casts-doubts-on-deep-water-exploration/articleshow/604

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Uncle Rumpo
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 08:37 PM

blame who they like,
claim as much $$$$$$$$$$ compensation off BP as they like,

but some disgustingly ruthless greedy power crazed yanks
long time ago decided
drilling in a world valued eco environment beauty spot
would be a splendidly profitable good idea....


live by the oil
die by the oil...

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 12:40 AM

A few posts ago, I posted that the amount of oil leaking was MUCH higher than being reported. I also said, that this is not going to go away soon, and as time goes on, more of the story will come out. Since then the reports have been modified TWICE, within a couple of days, like I said. Now, they're saying it is up to 400,000 barrels a day...though the figure is still higher..much higher. Just thought I'd point that out...to all my naysayer critics!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 12:53 AM

BP hires mercenaries to hide the evidence

More about the coverup

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 01:13 AM

300!
Thank you CarolC!
As to the toxins, I also posted that, too.
More will come out....watch!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 02:36 AM

http://www.democracynow.org./2010/6/9/years_of_internal_bp_probes_warned

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 03:09 AM

I understand that members of Congress are slowly starting to question the practices of US based big oil too, and that a pattern is emerging that none are any better placed than BP to deal with a blowout like this one.

Tiddley-pom.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 03:16 AM

Once again, CarolC, thank you!! Very interesting video!....and it brought up several items I previously posted, about multinational corporations(BP), having larger budgets than most countries, and they are likened to 'countries' of their own...and how they can thumb their nose, at our government, and the EPA. Again, I posted that this is "the corporation machine versus the political machine"...and yet they have corrupted each other, and the PEOPLE are their victims..and we virtually have no say! On top of that, they both are lying through their teeth, to us!

You go girl!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 03:18 AM

Incidentally, BP PLC (that stands for "Public Limited Company" is incorporated and exists under and in accordance with the laws of England and Wales. It was incorporated in 1909, and its registered number is 00102498. Its registered office is in London (it also happens to be its head office but that is not the point). It was incorporated as "the British Petroleum Company Ltd". It became a PLC when that status became available as a matter of law.   It changed its name to   BP Amoco PLC in 1998 and to BP PLC in 2001.

It is an English company, regardless of who owns the shares or who the directors are, or who by any means controls it.

Is that clear now?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 06:36 AM

Present reports from US government sources are 35,000 to 60,000 barrels per day.


Previous estimate was 40,000 barrels per day.

Before that ,it was various numbers, starting at 5,000 barrels per day, then 10,000, then 20,000.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 06:57 AM

The volume of the emissions is nothing to do with who is to blame for them. All very dreadful, and a waste too, and when are Transocean, Halliburton, and Cameron-Cooper going to step up to the plate?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 11:18 AM

Bruce: "Present reports from US government sources are 35,000 to 60,000 barrels per day.
Previous estimate was 40,000 barrels per day.
Before that ,it was various numbers, starting at 5,000 barrels per day, then 10,000, then 20,000."

Sounds like an auction!
When the truth, of IF the truth comes out, Bruce, the numbers will stagger your imagination!

If it is a Government report, you can count on it being a lie!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 11:26 AM

GTS,

What, you don't think Obama is telling the truth???

I have been informed that whatever he says is true.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 02:25 PM

Is that clear now?

Clear as crystal. But what's not clear is why the fuck it matters. If a company has done wrong, it will be called on the carpet, even if it's duly registered in Antarctica.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 02:46 PM

You want to make sure you have your units straight. I've heard all sorts of wildly varying reports on how much oil is pouring into the Gulf. Some reports say "barrels" and some reports say "gallons."

So you might want to be clear on what units you're talking about.

Some folks want to make it sound like a piddliig amount, others want to make it sound like it's a cataclysm of galactic proportions. Each for their own reasons. So. . . .

Me? No axe to grind. I'm just waiting for something definitive.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 03:06 PM

It's relevant, mousie, because too many US commentators are trying to pass the buck to BP, and in the absence of any good reason it can only be because of xenophobia.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Alice
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 03:32 PM

BP has stated they are responsible for damages. There is no passing the buck.

Quote from today:
Mr. Svanberg apologized "to the American people" for the disaster and said that BP would "look after the people affected, and we will repair the damage to this region and the economy."
(New York Times report)

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 03:58 PM

C'mon, Richard.

No "passing the buck" and no "xenophobia" on the part of the vast majority of Americans. Many Americans would be just as angry at Exxon, Shell (Dutch owned), Standard Oil, or Uncle Charlie and his brace-and-bit if they had caused this.

In the Exxon-Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, the spill was blamed on Exxon. Sure, it was a drunken captain who was the direct cause of the disaster, but it was still the responsibility of Exxon to see that their tankers had competent crews. The captain had a record of drinking and negligence, but Exxon still kept him on. He was a disaster looking for a place to happen. So Exxon was ultimately responsible.

And it was a BP executive who ordered the drilling crew to speed up the drilling, while the crew argued that it would be unsafe to do so, anticipating what might—and did—happen. The executive was adamant and insisted. Short of mutiny, there was little the drilling crew could do.

BP is ultimately responsible. The fact that BP stands of "British Petroleum" is beside the point. Nobody holds the British people responsible.

The idea that there is bigotry involved is just plain silly.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 04:07 PM

BP has put (?) $20 billion in a fund for relief- we don't know what kind of oversight there will be or how payments will be made.

BP has also suspended dividends for the year.

Don, flow estimates are 30,000 to 60,000 bbl/day, from various sources within university science and engineering departments; BP talks of soon capturing 30,000 bbl/day.
A barrel contains 42 US gallons.
The European standard is tonnes, but most reports use the barrel, or translate into gallons.
(millions make my eyes glaze)

The apologist, Richard Bridge, if he likes the company so much, may soon be able to buy it with pocket change. The suspension of dividends is lowering the share price again (at $31.50 the last time I looked today and as low as $29.58).

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 04:14 PM

I think it's time to buy Richard a tinfoil hat.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 04:44 PM

"Nobody holds the British people responsible."

I'm sure, and to prove it here's Some BP guy with a comedy American accent

;0)

I don't really care either way. But this guys appalling accent did me in!

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 04:57 PM

The BBC, a couple of nights ago, showed the BP sunflower(?) shedding leaves.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Alice
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 05:59 PM

When BP itself has accepted responsibility for it, how can you go on ranting like that?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 06:06 PM

Svanberg's obviously a bigot!!! Man The Barricades!!!

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 07:21 PM

Those Americans are being so mean! Doggone them! At least, the British press says so. And they should know. There's no indication of it in the American press, which you'd think would be joining in the Brit-bashing if it were an anti-Brit free-for-all. But maybe it's a cover-up conspiracy. Yeah, that's it. If any American newspaper or cable news show or anything looks like it's about to say anything that might spill the beans about our increasing hatred of the United Kingdom, they are hushed by the fellows in the black helicopters and the designer shades.

Anybody? 50p / 25¢ will go a long way toward buying a roll of aluminum foil. (Buy a man a tinfoil hat and you keep him safe from ionizing brain rays for a day. Buy him a roll of aluminum foil and you keep him safe for weeks, easily.)

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Tootler
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 07:40 PM

...US commentators are trying to pass the buck to BP

They are not passing the buck. BP are responsible for the current oil spill off the US coast nor are BP denying it.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 08:41 PM

Svanberg probably wishes that he had stayed with Ericsson.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: Charley Noble
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 10:32 PM

Has no one suggested marching the GP executives down to the shore and tossing them in to sink or swim in their own oil spill? Why should the pelicans and other sea creatures have all the fun?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 01:38 AM

Don't be silly. Svanberg is saying what he has to say - the confession of a defendant in a show trial.

Tootler, read my explanation above about liability for sub-contractors. The principal has liability for the negligent choice of subcontractor - and hence the liability of Exxonn for the Exxonn Valdez.

BP were (IMHO) not negligent to subcontract to Transocean, Halliburton, or Cameron-Cooper. They may be liable for their own instructions, if negligent (in general there is usually no strict liability for being wrong, merely liability for being negligent) but at the time the US commentators started hounding BP (and, in the case of Obama, specifically calling it "British Petroleum") there was no knowledge of any (alleged) BP negligence. It was a hanging jury.

Do the drilling permissions granted to BP make BP strictly liable for all spillage resulting from the permitted operation? If so BP are liable. Does some other principle of applicable law make BP strictly liable for all spillage resulting from the permitted operation? If so BP are liable.

If not then (a) BP are only liable if THEIR fault can be shown and (b) the lawyers who drafted the drilling licences for the relevant US authority were (probably) negligent. I had a partner once who used to negotiate and draft drilling licences for some small countries not all that far from the affected area in this case.

BP are probably capitalist sociopaths from top to bottom, but that itself does not make them liable, and baying after them because they are an English company not only does not make them liable but is wrong in principle. Their nationality is and shouldbe regarded as a matter of irrelevance. That is not what is happening.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 01:47 AM

The spill is ultimately BP's fault, because the circumnavigated the inspections. They complied with 6 out of 21, points of safety precautions. Had they done all 21, this would not have happened.

The administration is responsible for the foot dragging, to take care of it. The President should have called for a Federal disaster, early on. He didn't. That is ultimately his fault. Within 24 hours of the spill Norway, offered help, being as they were familiar with those problems up in the North Sea. Obama turned it down. The Netherlands offered help; he turned it down.

Two things that caught my attention, consistent with what I've been a tellin' you. Obama turned International offers of help down, for whatever reason(we can all speculate as to why), but whatever the reason, perhaps he should 'cool it' when he goes abroad and spouts off with apologies, because 'America is arrogant'. He is pretty damn arrogant, himself!

The other thing, that I heard on the 'news' today, and you can all hear it, is after the meeting at the White House, the BP chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, comes out, and addresses the people affected by the oil spill, saying he is going to pay for the damages, but uses the term, ' the little people' when referring to them!..PARDON ME???

To me, as I've posted before, that shows a contempt, and a 'looking down your nose' attitude toward folks, who are not one of his 'elite' class....just as the political elite disregard their constituents!

We are getting it from both sides! That being said, the Republicans are making hay of this whole sordid affair..BUT..they still have offered NOTHING for people to vote FOR, other than voting AGAINST the Democrat incumbents...which looks like a slam dunk. THIS IS STUPID!!

It should be obvious to even the most challenged observer, that this doesn't work. We just went through that with Bush..and look what we got!

Okay, enough for my 2 cents worth. I could go on, but some numb-nut will jump up, and frantically foaming at the mouth accuse me of being a bigot-homophobe-hater-of butterflies, and lady bugs!...and whale killer!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 01:54 AM

Richard, in all of the coverage I've seen of this disaster (and I've seen a lot), I have never seen anyone focusing on the idea of BP supposedly being a British company, or being "English". All of the criticism I have seen has been direct their being a huge corporation that is guilty of serial criminal negligence. That's all. Nothing whatever about Britishness or Englishness. Nobody really gives a flying fuck where BP are from. We're too busy worrying about our fucking Gulf of Mexico, and our fucking Mississippi Delta and all of our fucking pristine wetlands that are being fucking destroyed by an evil fucking criminally negligent fucking behemoth of a corporation. You really need to get off of this "bigotry" jag that you're on, because it's making you look a total prat.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 02:01 AM

"...because they are an English company not only does not make them liable but is wrong in principle. Their nationality is and should be regarded as a matter of irrelevance. That is not what is happening"

But don't you see, Richard, that you are the one who persists in labeling them as English?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 02:10 AM

And on top of all of that, Richard, on top of all of that, BP are forbidding any of the people whose livelihood they have destroyed, and who are now forced to work for BP cleaning up their mess just in order to survive, they are forbidding these people to wear protective gear or they will be fired. So people are getting sick. Thousands of people are having their health ruined because B fucking P doesn't want to look bad and they don't want anyone to think that their mess is dangerous to people. These people belong in jail. For the rest of their lives. And with you not only defending them, but attacking anyone who is pissed off about this, makes you look like you don't give a flying fuck what happens to any of the people whose lives have been destroyed and will be destroyed by their criminal negligence. You should go to work for BP. You've got what it takes to fit right into their corporate culture.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 02:11 AM

Even though 'BP' stands for 'British Petroleum', it is a multi-national conglomerate. So let's not be too trigger happy with resentment toward the Brits, nor are they 'bigoted', like some of the mentally challenged on here, like to spew. Also does, Carl-Henric Svanberg, sound like a British name???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 02:14 AM

Who's showing resentment toward "the Brits", GfS?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 02:15 AM

...and who's accusing them of bigotry?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 02:28 AM

Sorry CarolC!! I was going by past posts, on this thread. You've been cool!
Also, "US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)" just shows some irrationality, on either or one side of the pond.

Shit happens, and there is culpability on both sides!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 03:03 AM

There's definitely culpability on both sides. But to try to characterize people's anger at BP as being bigotry towards the British is just cruel. We're angry at Bush, too, and I'm not particularly happy with Obama right now for letting BP continue to call all of the shots, and most people in the US are always pissed off with Haliburton (who, in this case, appear to have been actually trying to be responsible, as much as it pains me to say it). But calling us bigots because we're also pissed off with BP, and telling us we should be pissed off with everyone else except BP. That's totally out of line, and shows an incredible lack of compassion for the people whose lives are being destroyed, and lack of concern for the damage that's being done to our environment.

And to characterize Obama, who resides in the back pocket of BP, as being too tough on them is just ludicrous.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 03:58 AM

Fugitive from Sanity, I have carefully explained, above, exactly why BP is an English company.

It takes little or no searching to find many Americans, from Obama down, referring to BP as "British Petroleum" (which is no longer their name) and emphasising BP's headquarters in St James, London (England). Since those things are irrelevant to BP's liability or responsibility (often not the same thing) why are they emphasised save as a matter of prejudice?

The vast preponderance of utterances from the USA focus on BP - and few on Transocean, Halliburton, or Cameron-Cooper, whose products actually failed in use. Why should that be so save as a matter of prejudice.

By all means condemn BP if and to the extent that it is guilty, but not because it is English.

I should appreciate an authority for the allegation that BP is prohibiting cleanup workers from wearing necessary protective clothing. If they were subject to English law in respect of those acts (they are not, since the alleged acts occur outside the jurisdiction) that would itself be an offence under health and safety legislation, regardless of any injury sustained.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 04:12 AM

Richard, the workers themselves are saying that. And they're out there, working without protective gear, because they are afraid they will lose their jobs if they wear it. That is, when they overcome their fear of speaking out. BP has forced them to sign papers saying they won't talk to anyone about anything, and they have private security guards prevent people from having access to them when they're out in the field (even when they are on break). BP is also preventing people in our media from having access to public areas so they can film what is going on. BP is dictating to the US government and the US government is letting them. BP is functioning as our government.

BP has a track record of these kinds of things. They have the worst safety record by orders of magnitude of any oil company operating in the US. They have already been found guilty of one or more felonies in other cases of criminal negligence. This is their corporate culture. It's what they do. And you are defending it.

AND ONE MORE TIME - WE DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK WHERE THEY COME FROM. WHAT WE CARE ABOUT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 04:26 AM

A couple of comments from British newspapers this morning

Quote
They called it the "perp walk" - the moment BP executives marched up to the White House for what the Independent calls a "presidential spanking".

"Perp walk", the Guardian tells us, is American slang for a police parade of suspects - short for "perpetrator".

The paper says BP's $20bn compensation fund and suspension of dividends is President Obama's "pound of flesh".

The Daily Mail says it was a day of BP-bashing by a president who, it claims, "bullied" the firm into capitulation.
Unquote

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 04:34 AM

That's all bullshit. He's just pretending to be tough on them to diffuse some of the anger of the people of this country. They had to pretend to be on a "perp walk" and to be humbled for the same reason. In reality, he's handling them with kid gloves, and they still call the shots.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 07:10 AM

""The idea that there is bigotry involved is just plain silly.""

Maybe not exactly Bigotry, Don F.

Call me an old cynic if you like, but it certainly wouldn't do the American oil companies any harm at all if BP were crippled, or better yet, removed.

Everything that has been published since the start of the spill, both by the US Media, and the US government, has had the effect of destroying the share value of a foreign competitor.

Of course, we are constantly being told there is no such agenda, so that must be alright then. After all, US Media and politicians don't lie, do they?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 07:35 AM

You've got to be kidding, Don. Why don't you come on over here, maybe volunteer to help clean up along the Gulf, and you can see for yourself what's going on. And don't bother to wear a respirator. You deserve to be given proof that the fumes from the oil is making people sick. Maybe getting sick yourself is the only you're going to find out.

Every decision that BP has made (and I get most of my information from sources other than the US corporate media), has been specifically for the purpose of mitigating liability rather than mitigating harm, and they are causing far more harm in the process. And the government of this country has assisted them in doing that every step of the way. For instance, environmentalists have consistently said that using large amounts of chemical dispersants would compound the damage caused to the ecosystems in the Gulf rather than mitigating it. But BP prefers to spray the dispersants because their liability is measured by the barrel of oil spilled, and it's a lot harder to measure the amount of oil spilled if it's dispersed into underwater plumes (which BP tried to pretend weren't there until it became impossible to do) than if it's floating on the top where it can be skimmed off and measured. And our government said, fine. And when our government told them they had to switch to a less toxic brand of dispersant, they basically said too bad and kept on using the more toxic kind, which, by the way, is banned in your country. And what did the government of this country do about their refusal? Absolutely nothing. Because BP is allowed to do whatever the hell it wants.

And they're skulking around in the nighttime collecting and disposing of dead animals because it's a felony to kill protected and endangered species. Scientists want to know how many animals are being killed and they want to study the effects of this disaster, but BP is making it very difficult for them to do that, and all because it wants to mitigate its liability.

These are scientists and environmentalists who are saying these things.

And Riki Ott, a marine toxicologist who has nothing whatever to do with competing oil companies, and whose entire concern is the welfare of the people of the Gulf and the environment there, since her business as a fisherman in Alaska was destroyed by the Exxon Valdes spill, is saying all of the same things I have reported here.

You guys really are showing yourselves to be utterly lacking in compassion, and you really have no idea what you're talking about.
Here you go, Richard. Video evidence about BP not allowing the workers to wear protective gear...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#37744181

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 08:20 AM

Here's Riki Ott talking about the Exxon Valdez...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84W5kaz4AxA


Here's Riki Ott talking about the disaster in the Gulf...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wrQCY76fps

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: artbrooks
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 08:23 AM

AP article on protective equipment

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 02:07 PM

Code Pink to the rescue

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 02:19 PM

Call me an old cynic if you like, but it certainly wouldn't do the American oil companies any harm at all if BP were crippled, or better yet, removed....

Yeah, you know that Warren Report was a crock, too, & you do realize the Moon Landing was faked in a studio in Cincinnati.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 02:25 PM

Gee, why should people be mad at BP except that they hate the English? Hmm. Couldn't have anything to do with the 40k barrels of oil (I think that's the latest estimate--correct me if I'm wrong) pumping into the Gulf of Mexico and ultimately coming to shore on American shores? Nah, that couldn't be it. It must be national chauvinism.

Listen to yourself!

Why would people say "British Petroleum" if they weren't spiteful of the British? Hmm. Couldn't be because that was the name of the company for time immemorial, and they got used to saying it and weren't aware of hte name change, and have a hard time remembering the name change anyway because once you get into the habit of using a certain term it's bloody hard to get back out of it? Nah, that couldn't be it. It must be natural chauvinism.

Holy fucking shit. Do you have two brain cells to rub together?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 02:51 PM

Is that meant to be funny Carol. If so it wasn't. If it is mean't to be real, then where is the evidence from this woman to support the gas coming out of her mouth.

You americans are just good at mouthing off when things don't go right for you and very good at blaming everybody else.

I think it's a disaster and am really sad about it all. However all this American hatred to BP is not solving the problem.

Your Government are full of gas and only lining their pockets for the election or whatever is coming up.

Give you mouths a rest and let BP get on with it and support them and help them to get it sorted.

What the hell are you going to do if BP tell you to f*** off and walk away from it. What will you do then.

Has USA put right everything you did in Iraq. The devestation that you did based on lies was an absolute catastrophy. How you can hold your heads up, I don't know. I will never forgive America for drawing Britain into agreeing to help you. Both leaders should face war criminal charges.
America should be paying billions to put right what they did in Iraq.
Funny that, I bet you don't feel it's your responsibilty, do you.

I am out of here.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 02:55 PM

"I will never forgive America for drawing Britain into agreeing to help you."

Aw, poor baby Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 02:59 PM

Tony Hayward used the old "I don't know" and the "investigation is incomplete" defense before the Congressional Committee today. This is 59 days after the blowout and the Board doesn't have the information? Nonsense, of course.

The dispersant used by BP may cause as much damage as the crude oil itself.
I cited this paper in the other thread, "Acute Aquatic Toxicity of Three Corexit Products: An Overview" by researchers with Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc.
The dispersants are the most toxic tested by the researchers.

Acute Toxicity

Exxon set up this company at arms-length so that its research would not be hindered by main company management or company association.
It is one of the reasons Exxon had only one culpable infraction and BP had many hundreds.

I understand that Chevron does much the same by placing research funds into arms-length programs at various universities; their violations have been few as well.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 03:04 PM

Arthritis, if we didn't laugh, we would have to cry. And spare the that "you Americans" bullshit. I'm as critical of my country and my government as anyone else, and more than most (as my previous posts demonstrate). But you are apparently unable tolerate any criticism of anything even remotely British. I think that makes you the bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 03:07 PM

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/55189


The Gulf of Mexico BP Oil Spill is the worst natural disaster in US history and the hurt is coming down on British Petroleum (BP) for their negligence and the damages they have caused… or so we thought.

Today, the White House announced that BP has agreed to put $20 Billion in a fund to pay for damages and claims due to this disaster. This comes a day after new estimates place the amount of oil spilling into the Gulf per day at 40,000 – 60,000 barrels. Since the estimates and math for this fiasco haven't been adding up from the start, let's compare this oil spill to a previous spill, The Exxon Valdez and see how we're doing, shall we?

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill:
- Year: 1989
- Barrels Spilled: 250,000
- Cost of clean-up: $8.6 Billion ($14.69 Billion in 2010 dollars)

    * $2.5 Billion in allocated funds by Exxon for clean-up
    * $5 Billion charged in punitive damages*
    * $1.1 Billion in other settlements

*Exxon has appealled this ruling up through 2008 and the supreme court reduced this settlement value numerous times. The initial 1994 ruling also lead to the first ever modern day credit default swap, when Exxon obtained a $4.6 Billion line of credit from J.P. Morgan & Co. Ironic that this disaster was something that helped lead to our recent financial disaster.

BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig Explosion/Spill:
- Year: 2010
- Barrels Spilled: 2.32 Million – 3.48 Million (As of 58 days into spill)
- Cost to pay for clean-up: $20 Billion (As of June 16th, 2010)

As stated above, the 2010 value of Exxon's initial agreed cost to clean-up the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill would be $14.69 Billion. Let's work on some simple math here:

In 2010 Dollars:
- Clean-up/payment in damages for 250,000 barrels of oil = $14.69 Billion
- As of today, as much as 3.48 million barrels of oil have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico
- That means the BP Gulf Oil Spill is 13.92 times LARGER than the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
- Estimated cost to clean-up/pay for damages: 13.92 x $14.69 Billion = $204 Billion

Hmmm, I'd say BP is getting quite a deal, wouldn't you? And one may wonder how they were able to bridge this gap between $204 Billion and $20 Billion. How about another history lesson and comparison to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill? As stated above, Exxon appealed the ruling of their having to pay $5 Billion in punitive damages up through 2008. And the result: In 2008, the Supreme Courts ruled 5-3 that Exxon is to pay no more than $507.5 Million in punitive damages for the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.

The original ruling was that Exxon was to pay ~$5 Billion, they actually ended paying out closer to ~$500 Million. Roughly 10%. BP's current expected liability, if the amount going into escrow is any indicator, is evidently ~$20 Billion. Whereas (asssuming a linear projection) their actual liability should be closer to ~$200 Billion. Oh look, there's that 10% again. Thus, we bridge the gap.

One can't help but wonder if the US Govenrment isn't just pricing a string of BP legal victories through our court system into the total going into escrow. Considering the pathetic condition of the US courts ability to hold corporate malfactors accountable, this is probably a shrewd decision. But, what if BP loses? Wait, wait… who are we kidding? I'm sure $20 Billion will be just right.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 03:25 PM

Stop having a go at BP them and get with them to hopefully sort things out as quick as possible.

You just keep posting criticism after criticism on BP. Get the thing sorted then start sorting out who is to blame. Obama does not help the situation one little bit.

Yes BP has f***** up, but your incessant baying is not helping the situation.

As I said you guys have a lot to answer for all the wrongs you have done around the world.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 03:34 PM

...President Barack Obama reiterated his defense of oil giant BP after a White House meeting with the company�s CEO Tony Hayward and board chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg.

After the meeting, Obama and BP announced the establishment of an independently operated escrow account, the Independent Claims Facility, funded by up to $20 billion paid out over the next four years. BP said it would delay dividend payouts over the remainder of the year estimated at $10 billion. Other details of the escrow account remain vague.

The US media presented the meeting and announcement as a humbling of BP. It was nothing of the sort.

In fact, the meeting was a choreographed event with two purposes: to diffuse popular anger against both BP and the Obama administration, and to assure the financial markets that BP is in no danger of bankruptcy or criminal prosecution. There will be no serious consequences for the disaster that killed 11 workers on April 20 and has since pumped upwards of 60 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

Even were it clear that the $20 billion will really be made available to the blowout�s many economic victims�and it is not�this is a preposterously small sum for a catastrophe whose real cost will run into the hundreds of billions, if not trillions. All the costs of environmental cleanup are to be paid out of this fund, according to the Financial Times. There can be no doubt that this alone will far surpass $20 billion.

The deal ensures that the overwhelming burden of the costs of the disaster will be borne by the government, and ultimately the working class...

...hough the administration had done nothing to punish BP, Obama had been under pressure from financial circles to throw it a lifeline. The preceding weeks had seen BP shares tumble by half and on Tuesday Fitch downgraded the company�s credit rating by six notches.

The escrow account is meant to shield BP from potentially hundreds of billions, or even trillions, in damages. While both Obama and BP promised that the account did not mean a $20 billion cap on liability had been put in place, the Independent Claims Facility is a preemptive blow against the tens of thousands of lawsuits BP is likely to face over the coming years.

While it remains extremely vague, the escrow account will be BP�s first line of defense in determining what are �legitimate claims,� a phrase both Obama and company executives have repeatedly used. Those claimants deemed �illegitimate� might turn to the court system for redress, but having been ruled unfounded by a supposedly neutral observer, they will have a black mark hanging over them, and US courts are already notorious for defending corporate privilege.

This is the fate that awaits the blowout�s financial victims. Millions of Gulf Coast residents are likely to suffer financially through layoffs which will ripple through the economy far beyond the fishing and tourism industries, through declining home values in a region already devastated by the real estate collapse, and through, in all probability, an epidemic of health problems.

If there are 10 million such victims�less than the combined population of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, the three states hardest-hit so far�the miserly $20 billion escrow account would mean a mere $2,000 per person...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jun2010/spil-j17.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 03:44 PM

Arthritis, on another thread I said several times that the United States is the biggest cause of problems in the world. And I stand by that. However, that doesn't excuse anything that BP is doing or has done. BP's history is just as full of devious and despicable things as is that of the US, starting with its theft of Iranian oil, and it's instigation of the US covert overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran. You guys really are no better than us, you're just a little bit more past your prime so you're not quite as dangerous as we are. You still have all of the same imperialistic impulses, though... just not the resources to back them up. So spare me your puffed up self-righteousness.

We need to spend more time criticizing BP, not less. We need to get the truth out about what they are doing, which they are doing their level best to cover up. The problem doesn't get corrected by turning our gulf into a military zone and covering up the evidence. It is corrected by ensuring that the truth gets out so we can make sure something like this never happens again.

Personally I think the world would be a far better place without corporate criminals like BP.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 03:45 PM

So if we're going to start accusing people of bigotry here, let's take a good look, shall we?

"You americans—"   Now, that right there sounds like a bigot about to pop off. "— are just good at mouthing off when things don't go right for yo and very good at blaming everybody else."

Every single American, Artie?

And just who should be blamed, Artie? It was a BP executive, a bean-counter and desk-jockey who obviously knew diddly-squat about oil drilling, who complained that the drilling was taking too long and costing too much, and who insisted that the drilling crew speed up the process. The drilling crew warned him it would be dangerous to do so, but he insisted. What the drilling crew was afraid could happen is exactly what did happen!

Then, the BP exec said, "I didn't know an oil well would do that!"

Had he never seen an oil gusher before? What kind of oil man was he, anyway? As I said, a paper-pushing desk-jockey.

Nobody is blaming the British people, Artie. So lighten up.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 04:33 PM

Yep getting too involved.

I will stop posting on this thread and apologise for flaming.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 06:32 PM

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20100617/ARTICLE/6171090/2416?tc=ar


BP decided on Wednesday to give $25 million to Gulf Coast researchers for oil spill studies, a fraction of the $500 million promised a month ago.

The money -- a quarter of what scientists requested in Florida alone -- falls far short of what experts say they need now to study the effects of the oil that has been blasting into the Gulf of Mexico at a rate of more than 2 million gallons a day since April 20.

BP, the company responsible for the spill, has no plans to release more money soon.

Instead, over the next 10 years, the remaining $475 million will be funneled through a panel of six scientists appointed by BP, none of whom reside in the Gulf Coast region.

Universities and research institutes from Texas to Florida have deployed sensing equipment, research ships and much of their staff -- oceanographers, chemists and marine biologists -- to the oil spill.

Of the $25 million BP decided to give Wednesday, Florida scientists will receive $10 million. That amount barely allows scientists to continue emergency research that was patched together by diverting resources from other projects.

The Florida Institute of Oceanography, a coalition of 20 research groups, with backing from Gov. Charlie Crist and congressional leaders, asked BP two weeks ago for $100 million.

They need the money to pay for new sensing equipment to help track the spill, more lab gear to analyze water, sediments and animal and plant tissues and to hire more staff. They also wanted to take more research trips at sea, which could employ fishermen grounded by the spill.

The research would help improve oil forecasts in the short term. And it would lay the foundation for studying the effects of the oil and dispersants on the food chain and the health of communities over the long term..

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 06:39 PM

I've been in a position where someone owes me a sizable piece of change and ya' kinda do have to waltz with them to a certain extent to get anything out of them... That's what Obama is doing here with BP... He's pounding them just enough so they don't quit on the deal, go banrupt and tell everyone to go screw themselves... It's a fine line... Pound too hard and get perhaps nothin'... Don't pound enough and get nothin'...

If he get's the $20B before BP goes Chapter 11 then it will be a success...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 07:40 PM

""Holy fucking shit. Do you have two brain cells to rub together?""

Yes I do! And I have asked this question twice before without response.

Since BP is working to control the spill, and to repair the damage, and since it has stated clearly (even before you and your Pres started jumping up and down) that it would take responsibility and pay for all the work needed to put things right, and since furthermore, it has set aside twenty billion dollars for the purpose, tell me what is the reason for driving its share values down, and possibly bankrupting the company, if not to eliminate competition for the benefit of the other oil companies, which just happen to be American owned?

A second question is this. How do those of you who are gloating over BP shares tumbling to $29 think that the cost of repairing the damage will be met when BP shares are worthless, and the company goes under?

I'm really curious about your response to the above, because it seems to me that anybody who had even one brain cell would want to ensure BP remained capable of paying, and that just doesn't sem to be the case.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 07:52 PM

Tony Hayward belongs in jail for ruining America's coastline. He refuses to take responsibility for his actions. The hearings were a farce because he stonewalled all of the questions.

We don't need big oil companies exploiting our needs and America does not need big oil addiction. We need electric cars, alternative energy if possible and a cessation of offshore deep water drilling immediately.

BP has made a lot of money. They should pay it out to the people whose lives and livelihoods they have ruined.

Americans should be held accountable for their gas guzzling S.U.V.s and the automobile industry is culpable here too in collusion with the gas and oil companies.

Also, G.W. Bush is culpable for his collusion with the oil companies. He is responsible for the corruption of the MMS which didn't do its job. And this goes for all the sympathetic Libertarians who would like to dismantle the U.S. Government and limit regulation.

Tony Hayward is Britain's shame (if Brits were really involved). BP as stated above is a trans-national company which is probably a country of its own.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 08:00 PM

""We need to spend more time criticizing BP, not less. We need to get the truth out about what they are doing, which they are doing their level best to cover up. The problem doesn't get corrected by turning our gulf into a military zone and covering up the evidence. It is corrected by ensuring that the truth gets out so we can make sure something like this never happens again.

Personally I think the world would be a far better place without corporate criminals like BP.""

You may well get your wish much sooner than you think Carol. I usually find myself agreeing with you, but in this case I think you, and a lot of others, are seriously awry.

Are you not aware that every day, the criticism and vilification of BP by the USA, is reducing the value of the company. The shareholders of any company will only hold on to the shares if they see some likelihood of a return on their investment.

With share prices in free fall and no dividend, there is every likelihood that BP will see massive dumping of shares onto the market, which will inevitably attract the attentions of asset strippers.

Your assessment of the costs may well be accurate, in which case I would suggest that you need to stop kicking BP and get behind their efforts. You need, like it or not, both their expertise and their money, so it would seem sensible not to kill them off too soon.

What do you think?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Alice
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 08:04 PM

BP's shares dropping is a result of the actions of BP!

The shares didn't drop because people are upset about the disaster, they dropped because BP didn't prevent the disaster from happening!

What do you think should have been done... the explosion kept secret? No reporting? No press coverage?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 08:20 PM

I'm kinda with Don on this one... What has happened has happened... The blame will eventually land where it belongs... Right now???... I don't see any logic in buryin' BP and then having taxpayers pick up the tab...

A little patience will get US alot more than pounding away...

(But, Boberdz... Pounding away will get more votes...)

Great... Will votes reimburse the poor shmuck who is makin' $3000 a month payments on a boat he can't take out into the Gulf to earn a living??? No, votes don't mean squat right now... What we need is BP's money and future stability so the checks come in...

b~

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 08:23 PM

Since BP is working to control the spill, and to repair the damage, and since it has stated clearly (even before you and your Pres started jumping up and down) that it would take responsibility and pay for all the work needed to put things right, and since furthermore, it has set aside twenty billion dollars for the purpose, tell me what is the reason for driving its share values down, and possibly bankrupting the company, if not to eliminate competition for the benefit of the other oil companies, which just happen to be American owned?

Obama's little bit of theater was designed to help BP get it's share prices back up again, and it worked. So what are you complaining about?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 08:25 PM

Having said that, nobody with any sense expects BP to even come close to making anything right. As I said before, all of their decisions have been for the purpose of mitigating liability, not harm, and all of them have increased the harm that has been inflicted rather than mitigating it.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 08:36 PM

$20 billion in escrow is a start; the cost, of course, will be considerably more. The courts will be busy with claims for years to come.

After hitting a high of 650 pence near the end of March, it was about 360 pence today, a little improvement over a low of 337p yesterday; funds and individuals with BP stock have taken a damaging blow. ($32 approx. NY Ex, I haven't checked today)

MMS shares the blame by not enforcing proper procedures; it's management was badly corrupted and/or incompetent.

I agree with Bobert; take what is possible. Of course the rest of us will lose some liquidity over the coming years as a result. Drive BP into near bankruptcy, and Chevron, Sinopec or someone else will take over the company; then they will claim the damages are "not my problem" and suits would become impossible.

I didn't hear all of the questions (not that it mattered, Tony only came up with a stock answer that the investigation was not complete) but I didn't hear anyone question his record- in his BP bio it is stated that he saved BP some $4 billion. Some emphasis could have been put on the charge that he is responsible for the cost-cutting and hence inadequate procedures in drilling.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 08:43 PM

""Hey gnu - a few days ago, I got four stitches in my thumb. The price tag was more than $500. What do you think about that?""

So now you are saying "let's attack them some more, and drive the price back down again".

And how much did it rise? I'd suspect nowhere near a significant amount, though I haven't seen the latest figures.

Sometimes you just have to say "the milk is spilt. Let's concentrate on mopping it up, and worry about blame and punishment afterwards".

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 10:10 PM

So now you are saying "let's attack them some more, and drive the price back down again".

And how much did it rise? I'd suspect nowhere near a significant amount, though I haven't seen the latest figures.

Sometimes you just have to say "the milk is spilt. Let's concentrate on mopping it up, and worry about blame and punishment afterwards".

Don, it sounds like you are more concerned about your portfolio than you are about the lives of millions of people. Shame on you.

Do you think we should just bend over and take it up the ass just to protect your assets? Because that's precisely what is happening right now. Speaking out means we stand up for our rights and for the environment. Doing what you suggest may help your portfolio, but it doesn't help any of the people in this country who are being fucked over by BP, or the environment, either. And in case your attitude is, "well, hell, why should I care, that's so far away from me", my answer is, don't bet on it. The oil is going to be heading your way after it's finished with my state. Perhaps you'll be singing a different tune then, when you find out just how much help the people in your country get from BP after you are awash in oil.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 11:52 AM

On the subject of the cleanup

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 04:25 PM

When the clock radio went off this morning with the news, there was a sound clip of someone, either an elected official or an oil company executive having a wall-eyed fit and ricocheting off the walls about Obama's declaring a six-month moratorium on off-shore drilling, at least until we get this business sorted out. The screamer was howling that the moratorium would destroy the oil industry and ruin the American economy. Some of the things he said about Obama reminded me of our paranoid-schizophrenic friend, ichMael.

I didn't get who it was, because the newscast moved on to the next story.

Then, in this morning's e-mail, I get this:

When BP CEO Tony Hayward testified before Congress this morning, many expected to hear him apologize for the disaster his company has caused. Instead, GOP Congressman Joe Barton was the one saying he was sorry -- to BP.

In his opening statement, Barton, the top Republican on the committee overseeing the oil spill and its aftermath, delivered a personal apology to the oil giant. He said the $20 billion fund that President Obama directed BP to establish to provide relief to the victims of the oil disaster was a "tragedy in the first proportion."

Other Republicans are echoing his call. Sen. John Cornyn said he "shares" Barton's concern. Rep. Michele Bachmann said that BP shouldn't agree to be "fleeced." Rush Limbaugh called it a "bailout." The Republican Study Committee, with its 114 members in the House, called it a "shakedown."

Excuse me!!!???   What the hell???

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 05:12 PM

The Republicans are continuing their program of opposing anything Obama does.
This tactic may backfire- the remarks by Barton et al go against majority opinion. They are definitely not the brightest fireflies in the bayou.

In the other thread I have outlined BP's term payout of the $20 billion, the decision to sell $10 billion of non-core assets, assignment of Robert Dudley to replace Tony Hayward in oil spill operations, and speculation that their Russian assets are to be put on sale.
-All items from BBC News.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 05:46 PM

The Democrats need to scream this from the rooftops. This could save them in the mid-term elections.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: DougR
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 05:57 PM

Both the Democrats and the Republicans made asses of themselves in that hearing. I don't know why congressional committees feel they have license to beat up on witnesses appearing before them. Well, yes, I guess I do. They want to show the folks back home how tough they are.

None of them take into account that they work for us, not us for them!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 06:03 PM

""Don, it sounds like you are more concerned about your portfolio than you are about the lives of millions of people. Shame on you.""

God Carol, when you decide to be obtuse you really make a good job of it.

First of all I have precisely zero shares in any company. My pension won't run to it. So I'm afraid that little ad hominem was a waste of your time.

Secondly, I have never said that BP should get away with not paying every last penny of the damage.

I have simply questioned whether it makes sense to keep up a barrage of vituperation which may result in you, and other US taxpayers having to pick up the tab if BP goes under. It isn't smart, and it isn't practical.

That is not support for BP (I couldn't care less if they fold tomorrow), but you should care, because if they fold, you get zilch out of them.

Now do you finally understand what I've spent a lot of time and energy trying to get across to you?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 07:34 PM

I would say characterizing people who are trying to get out important information about what BP is still doing wrong as engaging in a "barrage of vituperation" is the ad hominem that is in operation here, Don.

If we don't do it, it will get swept under the rug, which is precisely what BP is trying to ensure happens. As I've said at least twice now, all of BP's decisions since the blowout have been designed specifically to mitigate liability rather than to mitigate harm, and they are causing a lot more harm in the process. What part of "they are still causing harm" are you unable to understand? Do you really not give a shit that BP are ruining people's health for no reason other than to mitigate their liability?

Do you really not give a shit that they are right now causing immense harm to the ecology of the Gulf of Mexico for no reason other than to mitigate their liability? Do you really think that shutting up is the right thing to do while they are causing so much death and destruction for no reason other than to protect their corporate bottom line?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 10:21 PM

At this point, quibbling about whose fault it was, is not very productive. However, there is fault for not cleaning the thing up, and closing it....and the figured are much higher than reported, on here. Also, the pipe is a 20" diameter pipe, two inches thick. One half of the pipe is reported to have worn away. Crude oil has particulates and aggregates in it. When the Alaskan pipeline was shut down for repairs, it was worn down, to 1/2 its thickness. It took 30 years to do that...this one took only less than two months!

Also, 14% toxicity, in the air, with these toxins is fatal...we are at 8%, at present...which is making people sick(head aches, nausea, dizziness etc etc.

for the benefit of my Mudcat buddies, and (name callers), if you have friends or relatives near the area, you might give them a buzz, and tell them to calmly, and thoughtfully, get the hell away from there!

I've got more...but not for stupid arguments.
Just for the sake of a side note, I think the President has not been very Presidential about this, and looks way worse than Bush, during Katrina!...and has foolishly politicized this, instead of doing everything he could/can to get it stopped!

The longer he sits on his hands, and "not wasting a crisis", the wider the hole gets!

When they drill for oil, they often pump water into the void, as not to cause a collapse, from the umbrage. This is not being done, of course, which is going to be of another concern.

Also, the gasses, are a lot more than methane, as being reported!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 08:20 AM

Teribus is wrong- the drilling crew was entirely BP crew and supervised by BP employees.

Transocean owned and cared for the rig, but the drilling program was entirely BP's. - Q

Now let me see Q, the Deepwater Horizon suffered a blow-out didn't it, in which case the gas under tremendous pressure would have torn up the drill string and the explosion would have been centred on the drill-floor of the rig. A question for you. How many BP personnel were killed? I would have expected most of the 11 would have been BP employees if what you said was true (which it isn't).

Another question for you Q: If the drilling crew were entirely BP, why was it that Transocean organised a memorial service for those killed?

The Deepwater Horizon was not drilling at the time the blow-out happened. Halliburton were cementing casing and plugging the well for temporary abandonment.

This accident did not happen because anyone told anybody else to "drill faster".

This accident did not happen because of any decision to use a head of seawater instead of a head of drilling mud to hold the pressure during cementation of the casing.

The accident happened because the BOP Failed, no-one at present knows how or why it failed. It will be quite some time before we do know.

Simple question for anyone who has watched the leak. Is the oil leaking out of the BOP, or out of the seabed around it? From what I have seen it is leaking from the BOP, which means people that the well casing and the cement job to set that was good.

While BP may have planned the drilling programme to be followed that was complete, and had been completed without incident.

Transocean was responsible for actually carrying out the drilling operation, it was their rig and they supplied the manpower to operate it. Anybody doubts that just look up the Transocean web-site and take a look at their job opportunities pages (To work in the US GOM you have to be American basically and it tells you that). The last Semi-Submersible Drilling Rig that BP ever operated was the Sea Gem back in the early 1970's. IF there was any dispute about drilling it is Transocean who have the final say NOT BP (As stated previously you may sit in a taxi and order the driver to speed up or run a red light, if he gets stopped and issued with a ticket, or has an accident it is the driver of the taxi who is at fault not the passenger).

Cameron supplied the BOP, this may have been leased (probably was considering the depth) to BP but it would be down to a combination of Cameron and Transocean to maintain and operate it.

Halliburton were cementing the casing, and as such they would have control of the drill-floor during that operation, it would Halliburton specialists who were directing what Transocean drilling crews were doing.

I would love to see this order from BP for workers not to wear protective clothing, but I doubt if any evidence of such an instruction will ever appear.

I take it Guest from Sanity that the 1500psi normal capping pressure you mentioned was a "down-hole" over pressure? and the others actual guage pressures?

I am with RB, Howard, Don T and others on this, BP right from the outset stated clearly that they regarded themselves as being responsible and that they fully intended to pay for all damage, losses and clean up costs. Barack Obama then waded in and started political grandstanding. You never know, he might even be able to lay off some of the Hurricane Katrina clean up and recovery costs costs onto BP as well.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 09:11 AM

Both the Democrats and the Republicans made asses of themselves in that hearing...feel they have license to beat up on witnesses...

Jesus H Christ- Douggie's really overtopped the usual degree of inanity & stupididy- hard to believe, byut true!

Poor, poor pitiful BP - ???

Right.

the remarks by Barton et al go against majority opinion.

The remarks by Barton et. al. defy reason and common sense. Only shows the degree to which the Republicans will act like complete assholes to oppose anything the Obama administration does.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 12:01 PM

If the majority do remove him from his post as minority leader on the Energy etc. committee, then some of the wind will be taken out of the Democrats' sails. Otherwise it's a sure sign (so the advertising will say, hopefully) that the GOP in general agrees with him.

"Don't vote the Republicans into a majority in the House, or this man will be the head of the Energy etc. committee. Can we really afford another Deepwater Horizon?"

It won't change the votes of the party faithful, but it could move the swing voters away from the BP-ass-licking Repuglickin's.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 01:00 PM

So, it's going to become a big political fight- or it is already.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 01:30 PM

The current crop of Rethuglickin's make everything a big political fight. It's all they know.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 02:20 PM

Teribus, the information you have posted is 180 degrees out from all the evidence and reports of those who were there at the time.

Documentation? I can bury you in it if you wish.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 03:55 PM

I wish to apologise for identifying the crew as BP employees; nine of those killed were Transocean employees including the driller and toolpush.
Two were employees of M-I-SWACO, a company that says it manages risks of fluids-related issues and safeguards completion, among other jobs. They mention that they work at deepwarer solutions.

Unsworn testimony to media specifically mention a number of BP faults in procedure and prior damage to the BOP, cementing procedures directed by BP and footing of the well; it will reappear as sworn testimony in government reports and various legal actions. Anadarko, a partner (25%) in the well, condemned BP on the well yesterday.

The BP report will apologise for the incident, but will absolve them of any fault in procedures. What else would one expect them to do?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 08:45 PM

Times Newsline, 19 June, 2010:

Anadarko CEO Jim Hackett said today that BP actions probably amounted to "gross negligence or wilful misconduct."
Anadarko, 25% partner in the deepwater gusher, is trying to keep the blame squarely on BP shoulders.
Tony Hayward "strongly disagreed" with the allegations and said that he expected the firm's partners to "live up to their obligations."

Meanwhile, Hayward's yacht competed in the J. P. Morgan race around the Isle of Wight, coming in 4th in its class. He had the boat built by Farr, Annapolis, Maryland.

"Industry experts" (unnamed) "pointed out that if all attempts to contain the leak fail, oil will keep on flowing into the Gulf of Mexico for the next two years or more,...." The reservoir is estimated to contain some 50 million bbl. of oil.

http://www.timesnewsline.com, "Gulf Oil Spill Result of Negligence & Misconduct, says Drilling Partner."

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 09:12 PM

GfS,
I largely avoid the threads you post to; to avoid friction in my life and yours; but you just stepped into a place where I promise you, I know plenty. Sorry to copy from another thread, but here it is (quoting TIA):

I've heard a lot of this "Obama should have done something right away" nonsense spewing from Faux and its followers.

As a frequent contractor to the Federal government, I have some experience on which to base a quick thought experiment.

Here it is:
The federal government does not actually "do" much of anything. They hire contractors, and provide oversight. When the Corps of Engineers (for instance) is fixing a dam (for instance), they hire contractors to do the drilling and grouting, or whatever. This is largely because they do not have the necessary specialized equipment.

So,
Obama steps in and has the Fed fix the spill. They will hire contractors. Who would be the contractors? Who has the specialized equipment? Yup, you guessed it - BP!

So,
What Faux is really saying is: "let's *pay* BP to stop the leak instead of pushing them to do it on their own dime."

But,
The Fed gets its money from whom? Yup, you got it - YOU!

So,
Faux is really saying: "You citizens of the USA should be paying BP to stop the leak"

Brilliant. Doesn't sound quite like that when Hannity and Limbaugh say it, does it?

Some people really need to learn to **think**"



And, I just cannot let this slide:

GfS says:
"When they drill for oil, they often pump water into the void, as not to cause a collapse, from the umbrage. This is not being done, of course, which is going to be of another concern."

Dude or dudette - oil is less dense than water. Pump all the water you want into any oil well as deep as you want, and it won't stop the flow of oil. But, don't believe me. Just try to stop a helium ballon from rising by putting air on it okay? And, get back to me with those results.

This event has produced more "experts" talking out their asses than any news event I have ever seen. The Dunning-Kroger effect is in full blossom (JFGI).

Odd parallel between BP Spill and the Birther threads. It is not really about the constitution and not really abo

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 09:21 PM

Crap, wrong key...

Odd parallel between BP Spill and the Birther threads. It is not really about the Constitution, and not really about stopping the environmental devastation. It is really about finding fault **any fault** with a "librul" President who is non-white.

Wow. Now I shall duck because all the reverse racism, and "you are projecting", and "I am a counselor so I understand your true problem" arguments come flying. But; the foo shits, so wear it. Tell your problems to lansing (lots of commas and no caps please).

And, post all the indignant replies you want. I promise you, I won't see them for a month...I am meeting the Queen this week. No shit. Believe or not at your pleasure. Buh-bye.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 09:23 PM

And, just to feed your favorite subject...
Perhaps I *am* the Queen!

Mwoohahaha!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 09:34 PM

Sorry, one more, but this dealio hits close to home for me...

Q is **way** on top of this one:

"Industry experts" (unnamed) "pointed out that if all attempts to contain the leak fail, oil will keep on flowing into the Gulf of Mexico for the next two years or more,...." The reservoir is estimated to contain some 50 million bbl. of oil."

end quote, now back to TIA...

The "Industry Expert" that I have spoken to is Matt Simmons. Never believe TIA's word. Go Google, "Matt Simmons". Read his credentials, his history of predictions related to the oil industry (as well as specific details related to this event), and weep for the Gulf of Mexico, Planet Earth, and your (and my) kids' future. If this guy's expertise holds, we are fooked.

Got no dog in this fight. I make no money being right or wrong about this. Accuse me of whatever bias you wish, but please argue with Matt Simmons if you wish to argue.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Jun 10 - 09:56 PM

So much talk and so few facts. OK, I twist off too, but I try to correct; mostly I just post news releases, trying to put information into the thread.

Deepwater Gulf wells suspended by Obama are 33, most belonging to Chevron, Shell, Hess, Exxon and BP. Not having a subscription to the Oil and Gas journal, I can't list them.

Bloomberg Business Week says BHP Billiton (Australia) has $10 billion to spend, and may buy out BP share of Gulf wells that they partner. These include Atlantis, Mad Dog and Gunflint.

TIA, valid point. And give the Queen a buss for me!

I hold no brief for Tony Hayward- I don't like cost cutters- but his critics want to hang him before a guilty verdict can be assessed. There are worse things than being a yachtsman.
And it is equally silly to condemn Svanberg for his failure to understand that in the US some word usage has become politically incorrect that is taught in English language courses elsewhere in the world. Remember, in Amsterdam if a Dutch friend says he is going to take a douche, he means a shower.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 12:42 AM

TIA: "And, I just cannot let this slide:

GfS says:
"When they drill for oil, they often pump water into the void, as not to cause a collapse, from the umbrage. This is not being done, of course, which is going to be of another concern."

I thought you said you knew something....what I posted is true. They pump water back into the void.

You probably just had to contradict that FACT, and couldn't hold back, ..like a fat person who just ate two gallons of navy bean soup!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 03:09 AM

And what will stop the oil from rising through the water, GfS?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 08:38 AM

Teribus, the information you have posted is 180 degrees out from all the evidence...

Business as usual, then.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 09:06 AM

Please do Don.

What operation was ongoing at the time of the blow-out?

Was the well being temporarily capped to allow the Deepwater Horizon to move and allow another rig to come in and replace the drilling BOP with a Production Manifold?

If the answer to that last question is yes, then there is no way on God's earth that the rig was still drilling. To allow the temporary capping of the well the drilling would have stopped and the bit removed and have been retrieved a long time previous (any personal experience of how long it takes to run in and out of a hole that deep? have you got any clue at all?)

As the rig could not have been drilling then how fast a hole was drilled is highly irrelevant.

When you first start drilling you do so via a thing called a Temporary Guide Base, through this guide base you place and set your casing depending on the design of the well it starts out a 30" then gradually reduces the spaces between casings and between the outer casing and the formation through which it passes is filled with cement. As there is no oil leaking from the seabed it is obvious that that cement job has held good.

What caused the blow-out was the failure of the Cameron supplied BOP. At the moment Don NOBODY KNOWS why or how it failed, NOT EVEN YOU. So how much of that is 180 degrees out?

Very pleased to hear that Q has revisited his ridiculous contention that BP supplied the drilling crew. Now go back to my 180 degrees post Don and get some factual information regarding who onboard Deepwater Horizon were responsible for what.

When will the relief wells be completed Q? In a far faster time than for the blow-out in shallow water in the Gulf of Campeche? Who is directing the drilling those relief wells Q? BP right?

Destroying the coastline of America - Bullshit in five years time you will not even know that this has happened.

If however you do want to talk about lives ruined and major harm and damaged caused start looking to the collapse of the US Sub-Prime mortgage market and what the effects of that were world-wide. How and why did that come about? Because idiot US Politicians dictated to the two major mortgage brokers in the US that they must lend money to people (US citizens) who were bad risks. The incentive and inferred reassurance having been hinted at that the Fed would guarantee those loans - The Fed did not, now start unlimited compensation discussions for that fiasco caused by US politicians, want to have a stab at the size of fund that would have to be set up?

Pleased to hear that Indian Government is going to revisit the Bhopal incident, and the amount and extent of compensation paid there. Maybe some of Barack Obama's rhetoric might be rammed down Union Carbide's throat.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 09:48 AM

Not 180 degrees out when it came to identifying who was responsible for operating the drill floor though eh Greg F??

The only business as usual going on here Greg is that I am dealing with fact most others are dealing in gossip, rumour and speculation.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 10:29 AM

Some perspectives on Bhophal:

Bhopal Gas tragedy: A chronology of events, Bhopal/New Delhi:

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article448771.ece


Warren Anderson


Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/bhopal-tragedy-who-is-warren-anderson-30302.php?cp

http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/bhopal-tragedy-who-is-warren-anderson-30302.php

Were future USA-India "business interests" a Major Factor in the matter of no Anderson extradition?
http://www.thehindu.com/2010/06/12/stories/2010061265471600.htm

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 11:50 AM

Bullshit in five years time you will not even know that this has happened.

You are absolutely correct that your statement IS bullshit, Teezer.

The shit from the Exxon Valdez(1989) is still smeared all over the coast of Alaska, and will likely be there forever.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 12:07 PM

Delicate ecosystems in the marshes destroyed by this aren't going to return in five years, or fifty. It's not like the critters and plants can just hold their breath and then come back out after the oil is gone (as if the oil is going to be gone in 5 years).

And what will stop the oil from rising through the water, GfS?

Dispersant.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack who's cookie has gone west
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 12:56 PM

"Bullshit in five years time you will not even know that this has happened."

complete and utter rubbish Tezza, which I suspect you know. This is the arrogant attitude to nature and the environment that caused this tragedy in the first place.

This report from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council (this link opens a 17mb pdf file) provides a comprehensive overview of the cleanup and the impact on the ecosystem of Prince William Sound. Twenty years on many species are not recovered to pre-spill levels, with cetaceans, other mammals and fish being particularly affected. As the trustees state: "Because complete recovery from the oil spill may not occur for decades, and because healthy habitats are essential to the permanent recovery of the spill region, the Trustee Council has taken steps to extend its efforts to protect key habitats."

The amount of oil leaking into the Gulf, along with the use of chemical dispersants which are themselves toxic to the environment means the impact of the spill will still be with the
Gulf for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Jun 10 - 10:28 PM

Just a little review of BP-induced problems, background for the attack by their partner, Anadarko.
New York Times, Ian Urbina, "Documents show Earlier Worries for Rig's Safety," first published on front page, April 30.
Preliminary findings presented to Congress April 23.
"The problems involved the well casing and the blowout preventer, which are considered key pieces in the chain of events....."
In March, after several weeks of problems, BP was struggling with a loss of "well control."
On June 22, 2009, e. g., "BP engineers expressed concerns that the metal well casing the company wanted to use might collapse under high pressure. "This would certainly be a worst case scenario," warned Mark E. Hafle, a senior drilling engineer at BP in an internal report. "However, I have seen it happen, so know it can occur."
The company went ahead with the casing, but only after getting special permission from BP colleagues because the casing violated the company's wn safety policies and design standards."
Mr. Hafle later backed off and told a MMS and Coast Guard panel that "Nobody believed there was going to be a safety issue." Later, he refused to answer questions.
In April this year, BP engineers concluded that the casing was "unlikely to be a successful cement job," - a document referring to how the casing would be sealed to prevent gases from escaping up the well. A later document said it "is possible to fulfill MMS regulations."
A memorandum with preliminary BP findings indicated that gas was bubbling into the well (April 20), a potential sign of impending blowout.
A parade of witnesses at hearings told about bad decisions and cut corners in the days and hours before the explosion.

In March, reports or problems including "gas Kicks" and a pipe falling into the well; BP officials informed federal regulators that they were struggling with a loss of "well control.
BP reported on three occasions that the blowout preventer was leaking fluid, which the manufacturer of the device limits its ability to function properly.
Greg McCormack, Director Petroleum Extension Service, Univ. Texas, said he was surprised regulators and company officials did not halt the drilling operation at that point.
Permission was requested to delay the federally mandated test of the blowout preventer until problems were resolved; MMS at first declined but lated acquiesced.
Tests on the blowout preventer were at 6000 lb/sq. in. rather that the 10,000 psi mandated and used before the delay.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 12:23 AM

Thanks for the link to the Bhopal Gas Leak incident, it does indeed put things into perspective.

Barack Obama in his grandstanding performances recently has compared the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as as serious an attack on the US as 9/11, utterly ridiculous of course as the former was an accident and 9/11 was a deliberate action of intent.

With regard to 9/11 around 3,000 people lost their lives. The culprits were known and their extradition to answer for their crimes was sought. Those sheltering Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda refused to hand him over, the US intervened in the ongoing civil war in Afghanistan and drove the Taleban from power forcing the Al-Qaeda leadership to flee Afghanistan. Since October 2001 43 countries have been engaged in the conflict in Afghanistan all because of 3000 lives lost in the 9/11 attacks.

The Bhopal incident killed 15,000, the culprits were known and their extradition was sought. Those sheltering the culprits refused to hand them over. Anybody see any double standard in operation here?

Q, as for this:

On June 22, 2009, e. g., "BP engineers expressed concerns that the metal well casing the company wanted to use might collapse under high pressure. "This would certainly be a worst case scenario," warned Mark E. Hafle, a senior drilling engineer at BP in an internal report. "However, I have seen it happen, so know it can occur."

I would like to know the full context of this cherry-picked "concern". Look at the date, June 22, 2009 one year ago. Has the "casing collapsed under pressure"? No it has not. Once installed and cemented in place the casing sections are like an extended telescope inserted into the seabed. The well casing only supports the top end of the hole that has been drilled, it does not extend the full length of the well. Knowing how casing is assembled and constructed, I find the language incongruous particularly the use of word collapse. At the time were they talking about shallow gas pockets? On what has been "presented" by Q we have no idea.


Function and operation of the BOP would be the responsibility of Transocean subsea engineers and Cameron as equipment supplier. Again I would like to know exactly what was leaking - another piece of half information presented without context.

It would appear that at all points MMS were kept in the loop the reduction in test pressure for the BOP could only have come about with MMS sanction and a case would have been presented to them for review, comment and verification before that decision was made.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 04:01 AM

Both Ebbie, and Mouser: "And what will stop the oil from rising through the water, GfS?"

Sorry I seemed to have taken so long to respond, but I had to go to a reliable source, for info.

Great question! A musical, sound engineering question or psych question would be easier. Now the problem with dispersant is this; When you think of 'dispersants', you think it just breaks it apart, and sort of 'dissolves' the oil, and it merely washes away, but not in an oil form. But that is not the case. The dispersant that has been used, that is most effective, also breaks it down, but hugely into a gaseous material, which of course, goes into the atmosphere, and is HIGHLY toxic. Coupled with the other gasses coming up from the well, this is not able to be done safely. It's not just the sludge, that washes up on the beaches, with the dispersant in it that is toxic, which has been reported...though that PART, is also accurate.

As to your question, if the pressure, was as I posted before, 1500psi, this may have already been able to have been accomplished...MAYBE. But the pressures are far, FAR greater than being reported, as to not panic people. Frankly, those in the 'know' also know they are in DEEP shit!

As I've posted before, the nuke option, would only be a matter of guesswork, as to the size nuke, because of the reasons previously posted..PLUS..it would take weeks, if not months to slant drill, as to the placement of it...being as it would have to be placed below 'ground'.

I thought 'Q's' post was very informative, however, only as to lay where the fault lays, and why..to a point.

Man, if I could figure out a way, I'd do everything in my power to get it to them...but as you've seen, BP, (as reported), has done 9 attempts, with no success.(And I don't know all the methods, that they've tried).

Perhaps a series of powerful, but non nuke, could do it..but at this point, as far as I know, (or what I don't know), I don't think they'd want to run the risk of being unsuccessful, and weakening the ocean floor there, making it bigger. Man, let's brainstorm it. I've always thought that this forum had a lot more potential, than the degree of how we can insult each other!

Ebbie, and Mouser, Thanks for your thought provoking question! I Have thought about it, but now, because I was asked, I'm going to 'brainstorm' it!

Regards to All,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 04:02 AM

Oh, and 400!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 04:13 AM

BP induced problems??

1) Your first regarding the pipe used for the casing is irrelevant, the casing still holds good to this day.

2) The second relating to the cement job. What cement job were they talking about? the one to initially set the casing? Or the one to temporarily cap the well? The first calls for the outer casing sections to be perforated, the last does not as the cement is used to form a plug. Again the blow-out has got nothing whatsoever to do with the cement

3) Gas "kicks" and gas build up in the reservoir are exactly what the BOP is intended to cope with. The BOP failed, the BOP is designed and fitted out with 100% redundancy as far as operating systems go. One pod was leaking and no information as yet has been given as to exactly what the source of that leak was and how that leak would affect the operating capability of that pod. The other pod was functioning normally and was not subject to any leakage. Had either Government Agency or BP personnel ordered a shut down then exactly the same operations would have been undertaken to enable recovery of the leaking pod or BOP to surface.

4) "Pipe falling into the well" Q? All that does is that it indicates carelessness on the drill floor by Transocean personnel, nothing to do with BP at all.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 04:39 AM

Seriously doubt if pipe will 'fall' against the tremendous pressure, into the well!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 04:46 AM

GfS: "Seriously doubt if pipe will 'fall' against the tremendous pressure, into the well!!!"

Not only is that highly unlikely, what is probable, or eventual, is the pipe eroding, and then the gusher eroding the concrete even faster than the pipe. Pipe is said to be eroded half way, already!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 09:30 AM

"Now the problem with dispersant is this; When you think of 'dispersants', you think it just breaks it apart, and sort of 'dissolves' the oil, and it merely washes away, but not in an oil form. But that is not the case. The dispersant that has been used, that is most effective, also breaks it down, but hugely into a gaseous material, which of course, goes into the atmosphere, and is HIGHLY toxic. Coupled with the other gasses coming up from the well, this is not able to be done safely. It's not just the sludge, that washes up on the beaches, with the dispersant in it that is toxic, which has been reported...though that PART, is also accurate"

My understanding is the purpose of all dispersants is to break oil down into tiny droplets....(and each one has its best conditions for use). This dillutes the oil, takes the oil from the sea surface (sinks it down), and enables bacteria to act on it better (increases the surface area that bacterial can act on).

Most compounds are toxic to a different degree to different forms and stages of sea life at high concentrations. This is also the case for oil and all dispersants. However, my understanding is the scientific assessment (of the any scientists involved) is that the use of dispersants on this oil spill(considering the amounts and the potential impacts on surfaces sepecies and coastal areas)... is a better option than just leaving the oil reach the surface untreated, where it would stay there or move onshore in big amounts.But, didpersing oil is definately not 100 percent effective, especially in these conditions. So, some oil reaches the surface, and the shorelines...but not at the levels that would occur if not used...(and if not used at source).

Oil at the surface gives off considerable toxic fumes....especially at these levels (and, I understand this oil is lighter, which could give off more toxic compouunds to the air) Oil that is dispersed deeper into the vast ocean, would gives off much less toxic fumes into the atmosphere...and would provide a safer working environment at the sea surface site.

While dispersed oil (aka, a plume) can be detected by scientific instruments, I doubt that well-dispersed oil would look much different than regular seawater to the naked eye.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 09:57 AM

Give this article a read:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/88/8824cover.html

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 02:04 PM

A long article in the NY Times today, "Regulators Failed to Address Risks in Oil Fail-Safe Device," details concerns about shear rams and blowout preventers.

Rather than extracts, the article is worth reading as a whole.
"Single-point failure," such as the leakage or failure of one of the small shuttle valves in the blowout stack, could cause failure of the blind shear rams. The device is "temperamental" according to experts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/us/21blowout.html?th&emc=th

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:40 PM

Were those failures "BP induced" too Q??

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:42 PM

Pssst Don, where is all this documentation you were going to bury me in?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 07:28 PM

Sorry, Teribus, I've been neglecting you. I do have a life away from Mudcat.

Give this a look. Sorry about the commercials, but I can't do much about that.

GfS, you might take a good look at this, too.

Plenty more out there, so:

"I'll be back!"
          —The Terminator

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 08:53 PM

BP-induced? Indubitably!

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 04:18 AM

Thank you 'Ed' and 'Q'...I'll add it to the 'data banks' and compared notes with which I've been getting. I know, I have to consider the sources, but even if something is underplayed, or falsely represented, it comes out. Sometimes when you spot a lie, it actually points the direction, as whereto look...Then ask yourselves, "Why?". (Sorta like counseling)...it's best to start out, with NO preconceptions, political, or commercial. Let's just get everything! Also, I noted in the article, that they have notched up the amount to 800,000 Barrels a day. Well that figure is still rising toward mine, by leaps and bounds! I think I posted the 800,000 number earlier, but only as info, as to how it was going up, toward what I got earlier. My first number I got was 4 million. If that turns out to be the case, I'll post my sources, for you all to check out...ok? That way, the more scouring the data, and their sources, that might turn up something, that points the way to capping it!
Shit,, if this turns out, we might even start a band!(wink)

I think that for the time being, I was considering how the oil could be gathered for use! Kevin Costner, testified before a Congressional hearing, about the use of centrifuges....which I heard about, a few years back, because my son was looking into investing in one. So, I familiar with these things, and the DO work,(Separating the oil from the water). Apparently they are using them, in quite a few locations, on the globe..... So when I heard of Costner promoting them, my ears perked up.
That doesn't help cap anything, but I thought, that if anyone wanted to check in on it, you might. I don't have tons of time(that's why I was so late in responding)

Thanks for the links, again! I'll be doing homework...in the woodshed!

Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 01:38 PM

The problem with centrifuges, etc., is that they have to be manufactured to fit the situation and each one can handle only a small amount. Not practicable. Lots of procedures work in the lab, with small quantities, but engineering and making the devices to fit large volume situations is time-comsuming and very expensive.

Skimmers and burning handle larger quantities but do nothing with the underwater plumes that seem to be forming. Skimmed product can be sent to refineries to remove water and make a usable product. Burning leaves behind the heaviest crude fractions (By heavy I mean the hydrocarbon compounds with large carbon molecules).

The main hope is that the relief wells can intersect the well.

An Op-Ed writer with the NY Times suggested today that the Navy should take over and "demolish" the well. Earlier, it was suggested that a bomb be sent down and detonated to do the same thing- but experts have cautioned that this might just split the flow into multiple channels, making control impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 04:31 PM

I put a link in my post of 21 Jun 10 - 07:28 p.m. and when I checked yesterday, it was there and working. Today it seems to have disappeared. Dunno what happened!

Anyway, here it is again:    CLICKY.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 06:02 PM

That 60 Minutes report describes the early damage to the annulus of the blowout preventer, and continuing poor decisions. A good piece of reporting.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:17 AM

Q and Don, In your video, they just said that Mike Williams, chief engineer(pick this up, at 1:32 minutes into the video), had just dug the deepest well, in history, at 35,000 feet!..the same number that I came up with, on my first post here!!!5,000 to the bottom, and 30,000 more. I just wanted to point that out, because as I've previously posted, and maintained, that they have been falsely reporting a lot of stuff. Thank you Don(shit, did I SAY THAT??--wink), for your link.

As soon as they fess up to the real pressure numbers, and the amount REALLY coming up, as well, then us 'peons' will have a better grasp, on the REAL dilemma facing capping it...and how little time they have, before it wears larger!   

Also, I posted the bit about the radius area around the 'spill', and new .....wait a minute, Here's my original post...:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jun 10 - 02:23 PM

Anyway, we're getting 'warmer'!

Also, my advice to Mudcatters that have friends and relatives in or around the area, tell them to leave calmly NOW, before it gets to be a region in chaos, sickness and death!

Still doing homework on it!

Thank you all for your co-operation!

Regards!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 09:53 AM

The destruction of generations of birds, dolphin, turtles, blue fin tuna and smaller fish due to the spill, are the LEAST of my concerns.

My concern is the microscopic life we can not see such as phytoplancton, diatoms and tiny animals that comprise the very foundation of life in the waters and shores of the sea.

This invisible life determines all the rest of animal and plant life.
The big life forms we sea dying in agony is but the outer skin of onion.

The story of the invisible foundation of life will take about a year before it is openly discussed.

------------------------

As for BP we all owe an apology to all of its billionaire owners right down to the most modest workers because we all undoubtedly enjoy and consume the benefits of the energy they produce. The price of oil is artificially low just as nuclear power electricity is low since we do not include the cost of the waste, accidents and global consequences in our energy bill.

We are all both the victims and the perpetators.
When we are blinded by the buck it is exquisitly easy to make horrendous choices.

When BP goes to drill in the slushy frozen methane depths in the Artic I am certain there will be more enormous spill, albeit those spills will be easier to hide disguise and lie about.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 11:05 AM

Donuel-
re "just as nuclear power electricity is low since we do not include the cost of the waste, accidents and global consequences in our energy bill'

What waste, accidents and global consequences are you referring to?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 11:17 AM

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl come to mind. I can't help wonder if there weren't other, lesser accidents that were covered up, if you know what I mean. Not exactly an "accident" but the ground in and around the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in eastern Washington State will be radioactive until further notice. This can't be the only place in the world where this is the case. Nuclear energy is mostly safe. It's the unsafe bits papered over by that mostly that worry me.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: SINSULL
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 12:55 PM

OOPS!
Adm. Thad Allen said Wednesday that an accident triggered the removal of a containment cap on the oil geyser. Officials are examining the cap to look for hydrate formation and hope to replace it on the gushing well.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 01:37 PM

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl come to mind.

& Hanford and Vermont Yankee and............

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 01:57 PM

I've a mind to start a thread, "British oil company attacks US coastal waters"

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 02:29 PM

No sweat, GfS. I do support what you say when you're right.

But the big question I have is just how deep IS that well? I've heard several reports from people in authority who all agree that the sea floor at that point is a mile down. But they can't seem to agree on the depth from there. I've heard everything from "1,300 feet" to "13,000 feet" to "30,000 feet" to "a total of three miles" (from surface to bottom of drill hole) to "seven miles."

And all of these figures come from persons who claim to be in the know.

So—?

Since I haven't put on my scuba gear, swum down, and measured it personally, I'm waiting to hear something definitive.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:39 PM

Don, the reporters are confusing several points. I think I posted bad info on depth as a result.
The drilling ability of the Transocean rig at Macondo is roughly 30,000 feet. Its maximum drilling capability is 8000-10,000 feet of water.

Quoting from "Offshore Technology" - "The initial exploration for the project was submitted bu BP to MMS in march 2009. The plan included drilling and temporary abandonment of two exploration wells over the prospect. ........
"The rig started drilling a well at water depth of 5000ft in MC Block 252 in February 2010, but exploded during drilling in April 2010.
"The well was planned to be drilled to 18,000 feet, and was to be plugged and abandoned for later completion as a subsea producer."

Now in more detail from "O&G" - "According to the oil drum, the drilling depth at the Macondo well had reached a total depth of 18,360 feet, with the previous casing shoe at 17,168 feet. The annulus or drill hole was eight and one-half inches in diameter, with the Rotary Kelly Bushing (RKB) to mud line 5067 feet. .........
A casing was run the entire length of the drill pipe, at seven inches by nine 7/8 inches from the total depth up to the wellhead. The casing had beeb cemented using ca. 100 bbls slurry. There were no losses and the plug was bumped. No back flow was observed after displacement. Top of cement is est. at 16,200 feet.
The casing was tested to 2650 psi, with the blind shear rams closed."
The rest of the article details the sequence of events leading to the explosion, including removal of the oil-based mud.
"Some problems with the inflow-draw down test, but it was deemed satisfactory" "As a result the annular or dril pipe, would have been opened up to seawater, which meant that the oil-based mud was transferred to a supply boat...."
"........pressure from the annulus had dropped and increased, presumably due to escaping gas, which eventually led to the explosion.
The rest details the pressures, the explosion, etc.
http://www.ngoilgas.com/article/why-the-macondo-well-exploded

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 04:09 PM

Thanks, Q.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:38 PM

"Three Mile Island and Chernobyl come to mind.

& Hanford and Vermont Yankee and............"

Savannah River Plant. Dead zones around the area.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:49 PM

Just follow the advice of the advs. on TV, stick with clean coal.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 02:31 AM

Don: "Since I haven't put on my scuba gear, swum down, and measured it personally, I'm waiting to hear something definitive.

Don Firth"

You can use mine!....I haven't in a few years!

Don: "No sweat, GfS. I do support what you say when you're right."

Well, at least THIS time..(wink).

As to the figures that I posted, I'm still sticking with them, including the toxins in the air. Until I hear anything definitive otherwise...IF I do, I shall immediately post an amendment. So far, everything that I'm getting, since, supports my source....including some on here.
Don's posted link, was a surprise to me, that SOMEONE, on national 'news' covered that same figure.

Anyway, I've gotta check to see if anything newer has come in. If I get something, I'll pass it to you.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 03:04 PM

Okey dokey.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 05:15 PM

My apologies for coming in late, but I didn't want to start another thread, so thought this one might be the best suited for the following about far right candidates in Colorado and BP:

So that's what right wing politicians are "begging the energy industry" for--campaign cash.
First, it was the candidate for Colorado Governor who vowed he would "beg the energy industry for forgiveness" for daring to protect our state from irresponsible drilling. Then a spokesman for Jane Norton claimed the President "forced" oil giant BP into a "slush fund" to compensate people along the Gulf coast.

Now, Rep. Cory Gardner, a Republican running for Marilyn Musgrave's former House seat, is holding a fundraiser in Washington D.C.--hosted by one of BP's chief lobbyists! (Ft. Collins Coloradoan, 6/23/2010) The kind of arrogance we're seeing today from the right wing is truly stunning to behold.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 08:53 PM

From
http://www.nalco.com/news-and-events/4348.htm


INACCURACY: COREXIT dispersant will evaporate into clouds and come back down in the rain
FACT: COREXIT dispersants are made to disperse oil into the water column and not to evaporate. They biodegrade into the water and are not released back into the atmosphere. In fact, Admiral Thad Allen noted at a June 11 press conference that the primary surface use of Corexit is to protect worker safety.
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doctype/2931/54095/

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 10:16 PM

Nalco is the manufacturer of the Corexit dispersants.
If Corexit is so safe, why did Exxon Biomedical Services describe its "Acute Toxicity" in a peer-reviewed journal?
See my post of 17 June, 2:59pm, for a link to the article.

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:56 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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!!!

---

If this isn't over our one-screen limit for non-music copy-pastes, it's awfully close. If it's longer than one screen, please summarize it or post and excerpt, and supply a link.
Thanks.
-Joe Offer-

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 - 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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 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: 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 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 12:10 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,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: 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: 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 - 05:34 PM

Above reports from ADVFN Canada, www.advfn.com

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:59 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 01:19 AM

guffaw

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: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 01:25 PM

Punitive Damages are tax-deductable.

A bill is up in Congress to change this.
See New York Times today online, July 1, 2010. "Damages Control, *Polsky and Markel.
"When corporations like Exxon, State Farm and Phillip Morris lose tort cases, juries occasionally award, in addition to compensation for the plaintiff's injuries, extensive punitive damages.
"But jurors are often unaware that companies are able to deduct those punitive damages in calculating their federal income taxes, saving them millions of dollars and undermining the original goal of the damages: to punish reprehensible corporate behavior."
Bp stands to take advantage if such damages are awarded.
"When a settlement is reached....... before a trial.....they aren't required to specify which parts of the settlement are punitive and which are compensatory;....... allows defendants to disguise the amounts that they would have paid as punitive damages as additional compensatory damages."
"And because the measure maintains the deductable status of compensatory damages, nearly all punitive damages will remain, as a practical, matter, deductible."
* Law professors at North Carolina and Florida State, resp.


Welcome to the land of OZ!

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 11:11 AM

Latest that I've gotten: They are boring, not just into the 'pocket' but into the actual shaft to relieve pressure, by diverting the main flow, to other new shafts. To me, all I can say is, all the more power to them! Hope it is successful!
   Next, they have noted that the ocean floor has risen a bit there, and I don't have the measurements, of how much. With that is the concerns about the pocket this will leave,(as posted before), and/or concern if a collapse, when it is over, would cause a tsunami. Don't laugh, they were discussing it on the radio....so try...try real hard, to just grit your teeth, and not shoot the messenger!
   
   Next, they have hit MASSIVE pockets of methane, where the crew on the rigs, all had to stop drilling, and put on protective gear. They are having to be extra pre-cautious, because methane is HIGHLY flammable, and they're saying it was the cause, of the first drilling rig's blast,..(at least, that's what their saying).
   Also, the report, on the radio, confirms another earlier report, which I posted, (and was poo-pooed about), that the pressures were 'upwards of 100,000 psi'(exact quote). My earlier posted report was 20 to 70 thousand, if you recall.

    Finally, the reports of widespread ill effects of the toxic gasses are coming in, nausea, headaches, dizziness, etc, etc.

So, there you have it. The latest reports coming in. As per aforementioned,as time went on, and 'new revised numbers' would be coming in, that they would confirm what I posted originally. My apprehension is, I wonder if my original numbers have gotten worse....as time has gone by!

Peace and Best Wishes,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 11:43 AM

"The latest reports coming in":

IMO, There's lots of those reports, indeed. The challenge is to separate the logical stuff from the less logical and the nonsense. It is difficult because some parts are unknown, the knowledgeable folks are limited in their comments, controlled by the operation, or drowned out by the massive number of "so called, experts who often tend to sensationalize (no need for that, considering the real stuff).


There are no shortage of reports, opinions, PR speculation, blogs, folks wanting to be seen as right (or, seeking public attention) or just plain nonsense on this issue. This is likely because it is a major, high profile issue (especially in the USA, a media center), there is plenty of public and media interest and concern, and there has been attempts to control information out and to skew public attitudes. This recipe makes it ripe for conspiracy theories and gives credibility those with information or opinions who to profess to be experts.

Just my opinion, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 03:09 PM

A lot of exaggerated nonsense in blogs on the raddio.
Seismicity is used to find likely oil and gas traps in the subsurface. "Highs" or blockages to trap hydrocarbons in porous sediments are two anomalies sought by petroleum explorationists, and become prospects.
The hydrocarbons encountered vary, depending on the thermal history.
The hyrdocarbons in sediments undergo a natural 'cracking' depending on the heat and pressure on the formation. Very heavy hydrocarbon molecules are separated, lighter fluids and gases are generated that can be extracted through the well bore. If thermal effects are very strong, the result is more gas and less or no liquid hydrocarbons.
The formation being explored at the Macondo well has a strong gas element, but liquid hydrocarbons are also present; contributing to a desirable crude. Gases have become an important contributor to our energy needs.
Of course if the formation is breached, the gas pressure will force both liquid and gaseous materials to the surface, usually confined and prepared for production.
Unfortunately, mistakes and unpreparedness led to the gusher at Macondo being uncontrolable.

Nonsense about eventual collapse and tsunami belongs in children's science fiction comics. Of course the disaster is catastrophic enough without such laughable speculation.

Hydrocarbon gases normally are a mixture of the lightest hydrocarbons, methane to ethane and etc.; there is nothing unusual about that. In some regions subjected to stronger thermal effects, the gases approach the very light end, methane.
Along with the hydrocarbon gases, many crudes contain sulfurous gases and compounds. There is a good market for sulfur at present, but I remember seeing large piles of extracted sulfur near some refineries.
All of these gases are toxic, the degree depending on the type and concentration. Care must be taken in handling them. Crude oil itself is not the friendliest of substances.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 12:55 AM

I guess I could say, "I know all that"...but I also said I'd post anything I heard, that was related. The Tsunami thing was a new one on me, however, they were talking about IF there was a collapse. So far, when I've posted stuff about that, someone posts the usual reply, of calling it nonsense......but then, on this matter, the stuff I've posted HAS been accurate...just ahead of what was reported on the regular 'news'(?)

I did, on the original post(or was it the second one, mention how they normally pump water or mud back into where they pump offshore, so when they mentioned the other part, I thought it may be of interest...and I'm only posting what I've heard, as aforementioned.

Hey, everyone have a good one!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 08:41 PM

GFS,

Here are some links to keep your inquiring mind busy...at the end ot the post.

They are theories of offbeat scientist Thomas "Tommy" Gold, who died in 2004? He was proven right on a lot of his theories that scientists (of the time) did not accept. He suggested that the moon's surface was covered with a fine rock powder...proven to be true. He stated that the ear (not the brain) was capable of resonating and discriminating between different musical notes, again proven years later. Another was that pulsars are neutron stars emitting radio waves as they spin....again proven years later.

One unconventional theory, never to catch on, was that oil and natural gas are formed not from decaying organic matter, as most scientists believe, but from geologic processes and continually well up to the surface from deep underground.

"The presence of organic molecules in all petroleum deposits has long been taken as evidence for the biological origin of petroleum. Gold argued instead in his 1999 book "The Deep Hot Biosphere" that the organic molecules come from subterranean microbes that feed on petroleum deep in the Earth's crust. Gold's vision of a supply of oil and gas that is essentially inexhaustible drew intense criticism from petroleum geologists".

http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/99/1.28.99/Gold-book.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread38279/pg1

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 09:15 PM

Remains of microorganisms (mostly; some other plant materials) and geochemical study of the range of organic compounds preserved in association with petroleum deposits have proven that the source is preserved organic materials transformed by heat and pressure of burial under the weight of sediments.

Geochemistry has proven to be of great value in determining the relationship of hydrocarbon deposits to source beds, due to the pioneering work of W. G. Meinschein, Huang, Staplin and others and, of practical value to petroleum explorationists, the identification and mapping of source-reservoir relationships which has contributed to important discoveries of reserves.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 04:10 AM

I know TH-A-A-A-T!!! (wink)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 08:52 PM

"Scientists have found that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be synthesized under the pressure-temperature conditions of the upper mantle —the layer of Earth under the crust and on top of the core".


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090726150843.htm

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 10:56 PM

Hydrocarbons can be formed in other ways- some noted in meteorites (I published long ago on one chondrite that may have organic remains and which contains organic compounds, but there is much better, more recent analysis by geochemists), and inferred from scans of planets- but the abundant hydrocarbons we find in buried sediments are derived from organic precursors, remains of which are common in oils that have not undergone much thermal heat and/or pressure, and which have the same geochemical fingerprints.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 11:13 PM

An interesting, (though long) blog/perspective on oil from 2005 (old, but still interesting):
http://mises.org/daily/1717

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 06:38 PM

Isn't it comforting to realize that BP (through its affiliates AMOCO and ARCO) can now legally spend as much money as they wish in getting freindly US politicians elected? Ahh....free speech.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jul 10 - 04:23 AM

"14 Jul 2010: President of the Organisation for International Investment tells UK firms to beware anti-British rhetoric in forthcoming US mid-term elections in the wake of the BP oil spill"


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/14/british-companies-reputation-threat-us


I told you so.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Jul 10 - 01:41 PM

Many of us hope that BP will be bought out by companies that pay more attention to government regulations and to honest business practices.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Jul 10 - 03:11 PM

""Many of us hope that BP will be bought out by companies that pay more attention to government regulations and to honest business practices.""

American companies of course!

And what you'll get is companies who are better at hiding their disregard for regulations which interfere with making profit. Only next time, those companies (Transocean, Halliburton, etc.) won't be able to hide behind a foreign competitor, and avoid taking any responsibility for their own actions.

I hold no brief for BP in all this, but they weren't alone, and only they are taking the flak for what happened. And you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that US companies are any more likely to be trustworthy. Next time, and there will be a next time, you'll have nobody to blame but your own guys.

Still, as I said earlier, it looks as though you all are going to be rid of the biggest competitor of US big oil.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jul 10 - 04:23 PM

Post verified as being from GfS - but GfS, you should put your name in the "from" box. -Joe Offer-

---

Don: "Still, as I said earlier, it looks as though you all are going to be rid of the biggest competitor of US big oil."

What does being a 'U.S.' company have to do with it???? The multinational conglomerates don't give a damn about the U.S., unless it wants to rent their military. Neither do the 'globalists', nor the socialists....its all one big happy family!

Sooner or later a light will go on...........

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 15 Jul 10 - 04:37 PM

By the way. CNN is reporting that the leak in the Gulf has finally been capped. Let's hope it holds this time.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Alice
Date: 15 Jul 10 - 09:30 PM

Most Americans don't even think about British companies or would recognize them if asked. Most would respond "Simon Cowell" if asked about the British or maybe the GEICO gecko. Strange as it may seem to you, most Americans don't think about Britain at all.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Jul 10 - 10:05 PM

Had to go to Wiki to find out who Simon Cowell was (He is a Britisher, it seems). I have heard of Idol but never watched it.

Geico is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett's company, about as American as one can get. I thought the accent was pure gecko.

True, never thought about British companies before BP's catastrophe, but now I do. BP's atrocious example has hurt UK business reputations (Now I won't buy that Lotus!).

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Alice
Date: 15 Jul 10 - 11:24 PM

The gecko accent is a joke used in their recent ad:
"British... I thought you were Australian!"

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 12:19 AM

I'm sorry, Richard, but it was a BP executive who told the drilling crew that the drilling was taking too long and costing too much, and ordered them to speed up the drilling. When the crew objected, saying that it would not be safe to do so, he insisted, and threatened to fire them and bring in another crew unless they followed his orders. So they obeyed his orders and what they feared might happen did!

Reported by a man who was there, and damn near died when the rig blew up.

That's what happened.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 12:24 AM

Get off your high horse, Richard. Bigotry has nothing to do with it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 03:33 AM

Well, it looks as if BP have capped it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10657088

And in comparison with all the attacks on BRITISH Petroleum for screwing it up do I hear anyone praising BRITISH expertise in getting the cap working?

All President Obama says is that it is "a positive sign".

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 05:13 AM

Agreed Richard

Obama is an A******e
He hasn't got the grace to show any encouragement to BP. That is IMHO, not the way most Americans behave. They are normally very helpful and encouraging (even if it is a disaster).

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 06:48 AM

I'm sorry, Richard, but it was a BP executive who told the drilling crew that the drilling was taking too long and costing too much, and ordered them to speed up the drilling.

What relevance this has to what happened escapes me. IIRC the well was being temporarliy capped to let the drilling rig move off so that a production manifold could be put in place. If that was the case then the drilling would have been completed days before, therefore how fast the hole was drilled doesn't enter into it.

What failed was the cement job to cap the well (Halliburton) and the BOP (Cameron/Transocean)

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 07:33 AM

...BRITISH expertise in getting the cap working?

Ya mean the one that should have worked months ago? Or the one that they don't know is going to continue to work as yet?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 08:32 AM

When the crew objected, saying that it would not be safe to do so, he insisted, and threatened to fire them and bring in another crew unless they followed his orders. So they obeyed his orders and what they feared might happen did!

So a BP executive (whatever is supposed to be meant by that - I have worked offshore on many rigs and never seen any Oil Company Executives onboard them) threatenned to fire Transocean employees? How was he going to do that? Not really a logical step even if the executive could fire the employees of another company, I mean lets face it if his complaint was the time they were taking, his threat to fire them would mean halting operations, casting round to find another crew, get them out there and up to speed in operating an unfamiliar rig, that is an enormous amount of time simply wasted, sorry not a very credible threat.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 10:20 AM

I'm reminded of the late unlamented Robert Maxwell who paid off a person he found smoking on company premises - only to have the person reveal that he worked for someone else, pocket the money, and walk!

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 05:42 PM

Sorry, guys, but for some years now, BP has had a considerably less than admirable safety record.

CLICKY #1.

And Teribus, just because you haven't had the experience doesn't mean that it didn't happen on the Deepwater Horizon rig.

So both of you—Teribus and Richard—read the story and watch these two videos and inform yourselves. Sorry about the commercials, but the interviews with Mike Williams and the others are very informative and quite revealing.

CLICKY #2.

(Williams didn't say "BP executive." He said, "BP manager" and "BP company man.").

It occurs to me that, considering a couple of mishaps that had taken place earlier with the drilling, there is a certain touch of the song "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy" about this oil blowout.

The question, "Who was ultimately in charge?" BP.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Jul 10 - 06:23 PM

Who fabricated the containment caps? Who designed them? Just temporary measures, but this hasn't been mentioned in the press or at least I haven't found it.


Going to be years before the people who depend on the Gulf for their livlihood get back to normal. Similarly much wildlife.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 09:00 PM

Associated Press- A federal official said Sunday that scientists are concerned about a seep and possible methane seen near BP's busted well.
The official said BP is not complying with the government's demand for more monitoring.
An announcement is expected tomorrow.

The Huffington Post reports that if Adm. Allen "doesn't get the response he wants, the testing could stop."
"Gulf Oil Seep: Methane, Leak Suspected near BP's Blown Out Oil Well."
www.huffingtonpost.com

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 09:28 PM

"...anyone praising BRITISH expertise in getting the cap working?"

Several reports say they used off-the-shelf technology and equipment that could have been used weeks ago.

Got an hour, Richard Bridge? Or even 30-40 minutes? (that will get you thru all but the Q&A part.)

Watch this video on how deep water wells are done- and differences between how Shell & BP do it...then tell me about 'expertise'.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Jul 10 - 10:00 PM

Thanks for linking the Shell-BP comparison video- It is well-presented. As I remarked in this or the other thread, it is unusual for engineers of a major to denigrate the work of another major and sometime partner.

There is now worry that the oil is not contained, that there is gas coming up from below. An announcement expected Monday.

Somehow BP reminds me of the drunken guest who barffed on the carpet and said, "Oh, well, it isn't my carpet." The BP errors will take years to correct.

Shore rock around Prince William Sound still hides leaked oil, and organisms important for the basal food chain are scarce. Small seabirds are still uncommon, and the herring harvest has been lost.
Millions of people are affected by the situation in the Gulf.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 03:37 AM

The point is this.

Something goes wrong - and the USAians say "BRITISH Petroleum".

Something goes right, and they say "Oh, someone else did that".

I suspect that what Shell are doing is trying to drive BP's share price down to try to get a cheap takeover possibility.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 07:13 AM

Your shirt stuffing is soggy and drooping Richard. Why do I suspect that if the name was French Petroleum you'd be all over them like white on rice?


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 01:33 PM

Yes, Richard, most Americans would like to see BP sliced and diced; taken over by one or several companies.

Apache has backed away from bidding for the Alaskan segment. A difficulty is that under American law, they would also become for some of BP's liabilities, which may reach $100 billion.

Unfortunately only a fraction of this amount will ever be paid.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 02:06 PM

become liable....

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 03:52 PM

I was asked not to divulge any of these rumored facts last month so not to jeopardize the source or agency involved:


The area of the deep horizon site has a fifteen mile radius of armed security which is ordered to repel any unauthorized water or air craft from any investigation by BP orders enforcable by the US Coast Guard. The rumor was that six miles from the broken riser is a large ocean floor rift which is pouring out oil and methane gas at pressures up to 4,000 psi.

Today there are reports tht a "seep of oil from the ocean floor" exists a couple miles from the drilling site.

The drilling pipes that may have burst are only 7 inches diameter at the bottom end and are gradually expanded to pipes well over a foot wide that surround the drilling pipe. When the numerous methane kicks (explosions) burst the blow out preventers prior to the rig exploding and sinking, it is easy to assume that the methane bursts had also burst the pipes beneath the sea.

The relief drilling will be of no use unless it contacts pipe with no breaks beneath the intersection.

This means that the success of the relief wells that are now in progress is very unlikely.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 04:31 PM

Richard, as an American, I can say that, for quite some time, BP had a pretty good reputation in this country. The general attitude was, if anything, a sort of reverse bigotry. "They must be pretty good. It's a British company." This, as contrasted with companies such as Exxon, with the Prince William Sound spill, and a number of other oil companies who had pretty well established that they were not very well "house trained."

But within recent years, BP's shoddy safety record, due mainly to their cost-cutting and safety short-cuts, has—quite understandably and quite rightly—undercut their previously good reputation.

To try to claim that Americans are bigoted against BP simply because it is a British oil company is disingenuous. Consistent with their recent abysmal safety record and an almost predictable result of their recent company policies, BP fouled up.

To claim that, merely because it is a British-based company, holding BP responsible for their foul-up is "bigotry" is sheer nonsense. Among other things, no one is holding the British people responsible for this.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 05:03 PM

"I suspect that what Shell are doing..."

What Shell IS doing.... a company is an entity over here, just as a sports team is....and takes the singular. ☺

But that aside, Richard....did you bother to watch the video? It is as fair and neutral as possible. Shell is just pointing out that there ARE serious differences between good and bad techniques of well safety.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 05:42 PM

Digression-
That plural bothers some Brits as well, although it is required in BBC broadcasts, etc. And not just hupper class usage.

The Army are, Manchester are, BP are, etc.
Not heard in Canada. Used in Australia?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jul 10 - 11:58 PM

To claim that, merely because it is a British-based company, holding BP responsible for their foul-up is "bigotry" is sheer nonsense. Among other things, no one is holding the British people responsible for this.

Stop being reasonable. That's clearly not wanted here.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mandotim
Date: 20 Jul 10 - 04:45 AM

The BP disaster is just revenge for the dietary pollution caused by MacDonalds. Probably similar amounts of oils involved too.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jul 10 - 09:33 PM

""To try to claim that Americans are bigoted against BP simply because it is a British oil company is disingenuous. Consistent with their recent abysmal safety record and an almost predictable result of their recent company policies, BP fouled up.

To claim that, merely because it is a British-based company, holding BP responsible for their foul-up is "bigotry" is sheer nonsense. Among other things, no one is holding the British people responsible for this.""

I'll swallow that on the day that some American authority says that Transocean, and Halliburton, and others responsible for associated hardware, bear some responsibility.

From all that I'm hearing they have been allowed to head for the hills unopposed, while the whole blame is loaded on the British Company.

I am well aware just where the buck stops, but there should, nonetheless, be action taken against those lower down the chain of command, particularly those who were operating the rig when the fire occurred. Such action is conspicuously absent.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Jul 10 - 09:46 PM

Robert Kaluza, apparently the head BP man on the rig, refuses to testify, invoking the Fifth Amendment.
Further actions may be and should be taken against him and others if they refuse to testify for Congressional Committees.
Rumors are he was the one who made the decision on the mud.

An article in the Los Angeles Times July 19, but Kaluza had already announced his stand in April.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jul 10 - 01:30 AM

Your oil seepage apparently has got bugger all to do with the well now they say. Why do Americans (Media and Senate) run around like headless chickens when faced with any crisis? Why is the default position always the blame game instead of dealing with the matter in hand? (9/11 & Katrina being two previous prime examples). Moratorium on deep sea drilling? fair enough if you lot used less and paid more for it. It happens to be a different way of stating to the world - We'll use up your oil first

While BP is responsible the blame attaches to Haliburton; Transocean; Cameron and the US Regulators from what I can see.

None of it will ever be paid Q? Don't you believe it, that stated on another British trait - We pay our bills.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jul 10 - 01:48 AM

As you can see, and as Donuel, and Don Firth has posted, more and more is coming out, about pressures, methane, and more seepage, as I've posted originally. I haven't been on here much, since, because I figured (and correctly so) that time would prove my earlier reports to be accurate.

What I've heard now, as of recent, is there is a sick game being played out, between the administration, and BP in regards to the cap. The cap was hurriedly put in place, because after it was 'put on', and poorly so, the responsibility now shifts over to the government, as to the responsibility and liability..even if it fails, and away from BP...so any further damages will be at our cost..not BP'S. The government is trying to allow it on,long enough to appear as if there is some success(somewhere), but is making noises about wanting it removed, for some work on it...which might not have a good outcome...and for that call, they don't want to appear responsible.

Yes folks, you heard it here!..oh, and by the way.....its accurate.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Jul 10 - 04:04 PM

They dumped Tony Hayward- he will be gone in a few weeks.

It will be impossible for BP to ever pay all the claims, which will total more that the company is worth.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jul 10 - 05:01 PM

What's Tony's severance package, on top of his last years' 45 Million annual salary?

My heart goes out to him.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jul 10 - 06:47 PM

"What's Tony's severance package..."

He...um... "gets his life back"

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Jul 10 - 10:32 PM

Tony Boy's pay last year was roughly $1 million, plus c. $1 million bonus.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 12:33 AM

Just for you!!!

Black Water


Enjoy!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 01:06 PM

I don't find anything remotely humorous about the Gulf catastrophe.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 04:00 PM

A bit of historical perspective:

On 18 March, 1967 the "Torrey Canyon" struck Pollard's Rock in the Seven Stones reef between the Scilly Isles and Land's End, England. She was the first of the big supertankers, carrying a cargo of 120,000 tons of oil.

31,000,000 gallons of oil leaked from the ship and spread over the sea and up the English Channel, killing most of the marine life it touched along the whole of the south coast of Britain and the Normandy shores of France, blighting the region for many years thereafter.

Because nobody had planned for this, all sorts of emergency measures were attempted, many of which made matters worse; lots of chemical dispersants were eventually sprayed onto the oil slicks, but these were more lethal for life than the original oil.

About the ship:

1.   The ship was built in the United States in 1959 and was owned by Union Oil, an American company.
2.   It was registered in Liberia
3.   It was manned by an Italian crew
4.   It had been chartered from the American oil company by—    BP.

The governments of both England and France brought suit against Union Oil, the American company, because they were the owners of the Torrey Canyon—despite the fact that the ship had been chartered to BP and was manned by an Italian crew, and at the time of the disaster, Union Oil had no control over the running of the ship!!

In the meantime, because the ship was registered in Liberia, a Liberian Board of Inquiry investigated the incident and found the captain of the Torrey Canyon, Capt. Pastrengo Rugiati of Genoa, Italy, guilty of "a high degree of negligence."

This determination of responsibility was ignored. And Union Oil was blamed for the disaster.

So—

In the Gulf oil disaster, there were indeed subcontractors working for BP, but it was a BP manager who issued the order to speed up the drilling. The crew of the Deepwater Horizon objected, saying that it would be dangerous to do so. The BP manager insisted, implying that if they didn't follow instructions, they would be fired and another drilling crew hired. In fact, BP managers interfered with safe and established drilling procedures on several occasions, on the basis that it was going too slow and costing too much.

People ought to learn the facts before they start popping off about who's responsible for what, and accusing others of bigotry when they expect compensation from the ones who really are responsible, instead of trying to shift blame to those who had no control over what was going on at the time of the disaster.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Rev. Goose 'Goof' Gander (ret.)
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 04:26 PM

Oh, Don, you're such a bigot!

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 06:42 PM

Oh, yeah. Have the poor taste to point out whose face the egg is really on and you're a bigot for sure. . . .

(I don't recognize your name, but your voice sounds kinda familiar.)

Don Firth)

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 08:26 PM

Storm Bonnie on the way- hope it changes direction. The well will be capped and closed, but drilling of relief wells will cease, and ships come to shore for 10-14 days.
Oil in the Gulf could be blown onshore.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 02:48 AM

Q; "I don't find anything remotely humorous about the Gulf catastrophe."

Neither do I. Ridicule dishonors, more than dishonor itself!

The satire is toward both BP and the corruption in our government.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 07:41 AM

""People ought to learn the facts before they start popping off about who's responsible for what, and accusing others of bigotry when they expect compensation from the ones who really are responsible, instead of trying to shift blame to those who had no control over what was going on at the time of the disaster.""

So what you want then, is revenge for the time when the boot was on the other foot?

Union oil was wrongly blamed for one disaster, so BP must be blamed for this one?

The contractors got away with it before, so the same must happen now?

Ninety percent of the time I agree with your perspectives, which is why I am so disappointed to find that you believe two wrongs DO make a right.

BP must of course shoulder the responsibility for poor safety policy, but, as has been pointed out, the drilling was over, and Transocean were operating the rig during the changeover to a pumping rig.

Transocean are being shielded from the proper consequences, as are the makers and installers of the BOP.

This is wrong!...Just as wrong as the Torrey Canyon decision.

But hey, if payback is all that's important, go for it!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Vic
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 08:39 AM

It's simply a waste of time talking to Keith A. He defends the murderous British army and their football thugs in uniform who walked the streets of the North of Ireland shooting children with plastic bullets and murdering people in Derry attending a Civil Rights march.

Keith has the bit between his teeth against the Irish due to an incident in Manchester city centre in the early 90's. A young tart who was living with him went into the city that day shopping. She wasn't anywhere near the two operational sites, but came back to T.A. Keith crying. So this is all down to the fact he was slipping this girl a length on the quiet and she was upset.

He is a very sad example of an older man chasing young skirt.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Rev. Goose 'Goof' Gander (ret.)
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 12:32 PM

Don Firth, I'm afraid you are suffering from irony deficiency today.

Let me speak as clearly and simply as I possibly can: I agree with your post.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 02:51 PM

Don T., most of the time I agree with the viewpoints you express. But in this case, you are misinterpreting—distorting—what I said. I am not advocating anything like revenge for the Torrey Canyon incident. To claim that this is what I am saying is disingenuous, and it's unworthy of you.

I am pointing up the predilection many people, particularly companies, have to blame someone else so they can disavow their obvious responsibility when it is they who have screwed up.

The cause of the Torrey Canyon oil spill was an incompetent captain. Yet both the British and the French governments, sued Union Oil, which had no control over, hence no responsibility for, the shipwreck. Why? Because that's where the money was!!!

The Gulf oil spill is an entirely different situation. You, Richard Bridge, and a few others seem to want to blame anybody but BP for causing the disaster. True, there were subcontractors, whom you want to blame, when it was BP management who were complaining that the drilling was taking too long and costing too much money, so they order the drilling crew to speed things up. When the drilling crew objected, saying it was not safe to do so, the BP paper-pushing desk jockeys threatened to replace them.

In the light of this, I would say that if the subcontractor bears any responsibility, it is in that they should have refused and threatened to quit.

No revenge, Don T. Put the responsibility where it really belongs.

I resent your attempt to warp what I have said.

Don Firth

P. S. And thank you, Rev. Goose.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 06:43 PM

""True, there were subcontractors, whom you want to blame, when it was BP management who were complaining that the drilling was taking too long and costing too much money, so they order the drilling crew to speed things up. When the drilling crew objected, saying it was not safe to do so, the BP paper-pushing desk jockeys threatened to replace them.""

Like most of the others on this thread, you are ignoring the fact that drilling was over!

Please explain the relevance of BP's insistence on faster drilling, when, after drilling had finished and the drill been removed, the blowout preventer (Not made or installed by BP) failed, and the rig which was under the control of Transocean at that point, blew up.

I have repeatedly said that BP bear ultimate responsibility, but, Transocean and Halliburton should not be allowed to walk away Scot free.

The situation is analogous with the Torrey Canyon affair, in that in both cases, those dirctly involved walked away untouched, while the buck stops with the major contractor who made the mistake of employing them.

BP immediately announced that they would foot the total bill, but your Media had to put the boot in out of their usual motive. "Screw the truth, sell copy"

Those same vultures will be nowhere in sight when the leak is stopped, and BP is spending the next ten years working to repair the harm.

After all, GOOD news sells no papers.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 07:01 PM

After all, GOOD news sells no papers.

What kind of good news is in this? Especially in the early days when all the things you mention happened?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 09:05 PM

If what is being testified now is true, there is plenty of blame to go around.

"The rig's history of mechanical errors was documented in a confidential audit conducted by BP seven months before the explosion and reviewed by The New York Times. According to the September 2009 document, four BP officials discovered that Transocean, the rig's owner, had left 390 repairs undone, including many that were "high priority," and would require a total of more than 3,500 hours of labor. It is unclear how many of the problems remained by the day of the catastrophe.

"The 60-page audit found that previously reported errors had been ignored by Transocean. "Consequently, a number of the recommendations that Transocean had indicated as closed out had either deteriorated again or not been suitably addressed in the first place," investigators wrote.

"In a statement, BP said it had expected Transocean to take the audit seriously. "The goal is to have the contractor address all safety critical items in a prompt manner," the statement said. "As we have previously said, the Deepwater Horizon tragedy had multiple potential causes, including equipment failure."


Lots More

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 09:12 PM

Don T., I think you have the sequence of events mixed up.

I have an acquaintance who has worked on such oil rigs and is following this with both great interest and much expertise. I'll check with him and be back in a day or two.

In the meantime, Attorney General Eric Holder is naming ,all three, BP, Transocean (owner of the Deepwater Horizon), and Haliburton, as liable in the Gulf oil spill.

That works for me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 09:44 PM

Previous reports in the NY Times detailed BP's mistakes. And as noted before, Robert Kaluza, BP's top man on the rig, has invoked the Fifth Amendment and so far refused to testify.

The forthcoming Criminal investigation by Congress will show, as Ebbie notes, that there will be blame to go around. Certainly Transoceans own reports are very damaging to their image.

Don T., it would help if you got the timeline straight. From the selection of light-weight drill pipe to the handling of the drilling mud to the failure to properly test the BOP on the rig (not done fully since 2000), etc. this well, as one Transocean employee had told his wife, was the well from Hell. He was killed in the explosion.

And yes, the regulatory agency was derelict in its duty and the head was fired. We can hope that the reorganized agency will work.

I expect the accumulation of reports and subsequent hearings to go on for a long time.

Loss of tourist dollars over the next three years is now estimated at $23 billion alone, more than BP is trying to raise to pay damages.
According to a new study launched by the U. S. Travel Assn. and facilitated by Oxford Economics "the region is on the precipice of unimaginable tourism losses and financial ruin.
July 23, 2010, "Gulf Girds for $22.7 Billion Tourism loss..." Glenn Haussman.
http://www.hotelinteractive.com/article.aspx?articleid=17659

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 10:34 PM

Dang, George W should have gone in and finished the job.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 10:43 PM

Q: And yes, the regulatory agency was derelict in its duty and the head was fired. We can hope that the reorganized agency will work.

Not if the Republicans get back in office and quietly return to "business as normal" à la 2007.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Jul 10 - 11:46 AM

Well, BP should be attacked for hiring Halliburton, if nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Jul 10 - 03:57 PM

""What kind of good news is in this? Especially in the early days when all the things you mention happened?""

If I have to explain my posts sentence by bloody sentence it ain't worth the effort, but just for you,.....

The good news of BP remaining involved in repairing the damage, as they intend, will somehow escape the attention of your wonderfully unbiased Media, because there is no monetary gain from reporting anything positive.

So, from the moment the well is finally killed, and there is no more mileage in further denigration of BP, and absolution of Transocean and Halliburton, said Media will cease to show the slightest interest in BP's efforts to ensure the damage is mitigated.

I make this prediction with absolute confidence. If you want to know what BP does to that end, you will certainly have to look at the British Media for the information.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Jul 10 - 04:37 PM

Don-
Legally, of course, BP had no option: they have to pay for repairs. The point of the 20 billion was to make sure that there was at least that much available.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jul 10 - 05:02 PM

The repair work by BP will not restore the damaged lives of the people on the Gulf, or restore wildlife destroyed, or more importantly restore the faith of seafood lovers in the safety of Gulf catches, or of vacationers trust in the purity of Gulf beaches and waters; that will drag on the economy of the region for years.

As noted above, estimates of tourism losses alone exceed the capacity of BP to pay for them.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Jul 10 - 05:42 PM

""As noted above, estimates of tourism losses alone exceed the capacity of BP to pay for them. ""

Or, in the interest of truth and accuracy, they exceed the sum so far set aside, which I believe was the amount demanded by your president.

BP, however did not suggest any limit, contenting themselves with stating on several occasions their intention to "Pay the total cost of the disaster".

You seem to have some inside knowledge of BP's finances which allows you to judge what they can, or cannot, afford. Perhaps you will provide some evidence to back that up?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jul 10 - 08:39 PM

There's this.......

..and then this......

Maybe its a new 'secret weapon'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jul 10 - 09:52 PM

$20 billion in escrow would require BP to suspend dividends, according to the Financial Post. As noted, this will be a fraction of the costs of the catastrophe.
BP and Shell account for 50% of dividends paid by UK companies every year. Many shares are held by small holders who live off their dividend income.
If dividends are suspended, these people must sell their shares to get income. With the depressed share price, this spells economic trouble.
One outcome is BP selling off holdings. Apache has acquired about $10 billion in Alaskan holdings, but that is small.
Takeover is possible, both Exxon-Mobil and Shell have the resources to acquire control of the stock. Neither seems willing to do so.

BP assets, on the other hand, are large. The company should weather the storm. Barclay's Bank estimates the value of the BP American Portfolio at $64 billion.
There are no estimates of total costs of the spill, but $40 billion is one bottom line figure, and a top figure is $100 billion (article in the Telegraph (UK), 24 July).

A bill will be debated next week that would prevent BP from getting any new offshore licenses, effectively ruining their plans for the Gulf and the Arctic.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 06:32 PM

""From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity - PM
Date: 24 Jul 10 - 08:39 PM

There's this.......

..and then this......

Maybe its a new 'secret weapon'!

GfS""

Of course the second link has exposed your total ignorance, Gone from Sanity.

You haven't noticed that Gordon Brown no longer has a brave new world, nor a cabinet position. In fact there's a new government over here.

Still, nice try I suppose, if totally ineffective.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 06:39 PM

""A bill will be debated next week that would prevent BP from getting any new offshore licenses, effectively ruining their plans for the Gulf and the Arctic.""

As I've said before, I don't expect American oil companies will be too upset at the removal of a major competitor. In fact I can name two companies who will be very relieved. The two that should be sharing the cost with BP, but have been given a "Get out of jail free" card by the US.

The time will come when there is another spill in the gulf, and BP's expertise in offshore drilling will be needed. I wonder whether they will feel inclined to assist when that happens.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 07:24 PM

"Or, in the interest of truth and accuracy, they exceed the sum so far set aside, which I believe was the amount demanded by your president".

I don't know if Q is an American. But, I gather from the posts, he lives in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 08:15 PM

Don T., did you listen to the "60 Minutes" interview that I linked to up-thread?    It's with Mike Williams, who was a member of the Deepwater Horizon crew, and he barely escaped with his life when the explosion occurred. He describes what happened over the weeks leading up to the blowout, and the sequence in which these things happened.

If not, I suggest that you do.

Here's a link to the YouTube breakout of the interview:      60 Minutes interview with Mike Williams

#####

Ignoring the biases of the various news services, but paying close attention to reports and commentaries in the British press as well as others, plus discussing the matter with my aforementioned friend, who has worked on oil drilling rigs and who has been following this matter with great interest. Incidentally, he is not an American, he is from Sri Lanka, and is currently living in the U. S. He no longer works on oil rigs, he is now an ecologist, and he takes these matters quite seriously. The following has emerged:

The sequence of events begins with the first bore hole that was drilled by the Deepwater Horizon drilling crew. Up to this point, it was the deepest well ever drilled. 35,000 feet. And also, up to this point, the Deepwater Horizon crew had had an excellent safety record.

The job was actually on schedule according to the Deepwater Horizon crew. BP's estimated drilling time was 21 days. But this estimate was far too low. At this point, it had actually taken six weeks—42 days. BP was not happy with the fact that it was not meeting their estimate. But to do the job safely, it takes as long as it takes.

They issued orders to—as Mike Williams said in the 60 Minute interview—"Bump it up." There was an argument. The BP manager threatened that if they didn't speed up the drilling job, they would replace them with a crew that would.

So with great reluctance and considerable apprehension, the crew obeyed the BP manager's demands. And what they were afraid might happen did. The hole split open, the drilling mud leaked out, and they lost their drilling tools in the hole.

But—their ultimate fear, a blow-out, did not happen.

If the Deepwater Horizon crew had been allowed to complete the job without interference, there is every indication that nothing untoward would have happened. But because of this, they had to back off and start again, thus precipitating a whole new sequence of events.

They had to drill a new hole. It should be noted that at this point, some $25,000,000 had been spent with nothing gained. All because of trying to push the job too fast.

Now—with the drilling of the new hole:

The timeline according to Reuters:

April 20, 2010 - Explosion and fire on Transocean Ltd's drilling rig Deepwater Horizon licensed to BP Plc; 11 workers are killed. The rig was drilling in BP's Macondo project 42 miles (68 km) southeast of Venice, Louisiana, in 5,000 feet (1,525 metres) of water and 13,000 feet (4 km) under the seabed.

April 22 - The Deepwater Horizon rig, valued at more than $560 million, sinks and a 5-mile (8-km) oil slick forms.

April 25 - The well's blowout preventer fails.

BP's position is that something went wrong with the blow-out preventer installed at Deepwater Horizon. Perhaps it jammed against a tube-joint that it couldn't cut though, or there was something inside the tube that blocked it, like a piece of cement or other obstruction.

According to Mike Williams, what happened was that they had been ordered to test the blow-out preventer when a crewman accidentally moved a joystick, applying hundreds of thousands of pounds of force, apparently damaging the "annular," a ring of rubber. Pieces of rubber were found in the drilling fluid, which he said indicated damage to a crucial seal.

But a supervisor declared the find to be "not a big deal," and to press on regardless.

All the focus on the blowout preventer is a distraction from figuring out what went wrong with the well in the first place. Why was gas able to surge up from the well onto the platform, where it ignited into a fireball?

Shortly before the explosion that ended in the sinking the Deepwater Horizon rig, a critical series of events took place.

The concrete plug, made by Halliburton, is designed to prevent gas from escaping up the pipe to the surface. Before such a plug is placed, the job of keeping underground gas from coming up the pipe is done by heavy drilling fluid inside the well, commonly known as "mud." The plug is normally put in before the mud is removed. But according to the account of Halliburton, Transocean, and the Deepwater Horizon crew, in this case, that was not done. The drilling mud was removed before a final cement plug was placed in the well.

So—why was the mud removed before the final plug was in place?

If a decision had been made to reverse the normal sequence of events, the order could only have come from BP.

A worker who was on the drilling rig testified that Halliburton was getting ready to set a final cement plug at 8,000 feet below the rig when workers received other instructions. "Usually we set the cement plug at that point and let it set for six hours, then 'displace the well,'" said the worker, meaning "take out the mud."

According to this worker, BP asked permission from the federal Minerals Management Service to displace the mud before the final plugging operation had begun. The mud in the well weighed 14.3 pounds per gallon; it was displaced by seawater that weighed nearly 50 percent less. Like BP, the MMS has declined to comment on this account when testifying before the Senate committee.

As the heavy mud was taken out and replaced with much lighter seawater, "that's when the well came at us," said the worker, who was involved in the cementing process.

Neither the MMS nor BP are willing to comment. Their silence raises a host of questions. Suppose BP did order Transocean to displace the mud before Halliburton set the final plug in place. What would be the reason for that? And why wasn't a current MMS official testifying before the Senate committee, to explain exactly what the role of the regulator had been on the day in question?

Disavowing any direct knowledge of operational details on Deepwater Horizon, BP's McKay kept trying to gloss over what had happened by stressing the unprecedented nature of the entire disaster: "We've not dealt with a situation like this before," he kept repeating.

My friend, experienced with drilling rig procedure, explained the following to me:

Drilling mud is not "mud" at all. It is a man-made heavy and viscous slurry. It's purpose is to lubricate the bore hole for the drill bit and to act as a plug to prevent oil and gas from seeping up around the bit.

"If you remove the mud before you place the concrete plug, it's like popping the top off a bottle of Coca Cola after shaking the bottle. The concrete plug must be placed first or you are risking exactly the kind of disaster that took place in the Gulf of Mexico!"

Why did they want to remove the mud? "Drilling mud is expensive in and of itself. Companies like to salvage as much of it as they can so they can clean it and reuse it. Drilling mud amounts to a good 10% of the total cost of drilling a well, and it requires 'mud engineers' who know what they're doing. And they don't come cheap."

In my friend's opinion, BP management was cost-conscious to the point of micro-managing the drilling operation when they should have left the job to the people they had hired who knew what they were doing.

There's an old English expression:    Penny wise and pound foolish.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:19 AM

It's with Mike Williams, who was a member of the Deepwater Horizon crew, and he barely escaped with his life when the explosion occurred.

Would that be in anyway due to the fact that Transocean employees had overriden and shut of the alarms that would have given Mike Williams a bit more notice of what was going on?

All the rest about the drilling actually reinforces what Don T, myself and others have been pointing out - The hole was drilled. it was completed therefore what subsequently happened had nothing to do with the speed at which drilling was done.

So with great reluctance and considerable apprehension, the crew obeyed the BP manager's demands. And what they were afraid might happen did. The hole split open, the drilling mud leaked out, and they lost their drilling tools in the hole.

But—their ultimate fear, a blow-out, did not happen.


I have a problem with the Reuters Timeline you detailed:

April 20, 2010 - Explosion and fire on Transocean Ltd's drilling rig Deepwater Horizon licensed to BP Plc; 11 workers are killed. The rig was drilling in BP's Macondo project 42 miles (68 km) southeast of Venice, Louisiana, in 5,000 feet (1,525 metres) of water and 13,000 feet (4 km) under the seabed.

April 22 - The Deepwater Horizon rig, valued at more than $560 million, sinks and a 5-mile (8-km) oil slick forms.

April 25 - The well's blowout preventer fails.

The Blow Out Preventer failed on April 20th that is why there was a fire and explosion on the rig.

How the hell could anybody have expected the BOP to work according to Reuter's timeline, your pal the SriLankan who has worked on rigs should have pointed that glaring obvious error to you.

Mud is pumped down through the drill string and through the bit whilst drilling to lubricate the drill bit and to balance the pressure. There are three cement plugs set, not just one, by the time the third is set the two previous ones are obviously in place, whether the last is set with counterbalancing mud or with seawater at pressure is irrelevant as after the third plug is set whatever mud is used is removed and replaced with - guess what - Yep you got it in one seawater under pressure.

According to Mike Williams, what happened was that they had been ordered to test the blow-out preventer when a crewman accidentally moved a joystick, applying hundreds of thousands of pounds of force, apparently damaging the "annular," a ring of rubber. Pieces of rubber were found in the drilling fluid, which he said indicated damage to a crucial seal.

But a supervisor declared the find to be "not a big deal," and to press on regardless.

Transocean employee fuck-up and it would be the Transocean Supervisor or the Cameron Supervisor who would declare it to be "no big deal". By the bye at this stage in the process they are beyond the point of no return, they can only proceed. Time to test BOP's is before you start not during drilling operations.

All the focus on the blowout preventer is a distraction from figuring out what went wrong with the well in the first place. Why was gas able to surge up from the well onto the platform, where it ignited into a fireball?

This is obviously based upon you buying into Reuters impossible timeline of events. Go and ask your Sri Lankan pal. The BOP operates automatically, or it should do, on a surge in pressure from below. Nobody has to operate it, but it does have to be connected to the surface, however if the driller on the drill floor notices a sharp and sudden rise in pressure he can in conjunction with the mud.man increase pressure on the column of mud in the hole or he can operate "Choke" lines which also seal the well.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 01:33 PM

"....BP's expertise in offshore drilling will be needed..." Hopefully, never again!

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Les from Hull
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 01:43 PM

Perhaps it might increase BP's popularity in the USA if they went back to their former name: Anglo-Iranian (heh-heh-heh).

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 02:58 PM

"Reuter's impossible timeline" has been verified by other sources.

And I might also remind you that Reuter's is a British news service. I knew that if I quoted an American news service, you and a few others of the British persuasion would be all over me like a tent.

You folks are doing back-flips trying to shift the blame from BP to an American company, and you're making yourselves a bit ridiculous in the process.

Look! Haliburton! Dick Cheney, the (thank God!) former Vice President of the United States, the man who was manipulating the hand puppet most people thought of as George W. Bush, and thus was, in effect, the real President of the United States during the Bush administration, had been the CEO of Haliburton. When he became Vice President, he was required by law to divest himself of his investments in Haliberton. He didn't. He had his investments put in trust, to be held for him until is term of office was over. In the meantime, those investments could continue to grow if Haliburton prospered. And those investments, plus the increases, would revert to Cheney when he was no longer in office!

For some strange reason (!!!), during the Bush administration, Haliburton was awarded an unprecedented number of no-bid government contracts. All government contracts are supposed to be open for bids from any company that wants the work, but this was not the case under Bush (Cheney). Haliburton got the lion's share.

So—if Haliburton was to be declared at fault for the Gulf blow-out (as some Brits here in this thread are trying to claim), I, personally, would not at all mind seeing Haliburton—and as a result, Dick Cheney—take it in the shorts!!!

But that's obviously not the way it happened. Unfortunately~

I'm surprised at you guys!!

NOW HEAR THIS!!

Apparently you missed the point of what I was saying in my post above.

The FIRST bore-hole was going well until the BP manager insisted that the Deepwater Horizon crew "bump up" the drilling—which the drilling crew knew to be unsafe. Yet, at BP's insistence (and threats of being sacked), they did speed up the drilling.

And what they feared, happened. But fortunately, no blow-out occured with THAT hole.

But they had to abandon that bore-hole and start another.

And that's the hole where everything went wrong and the blow-out occured!

If the crew had been allowed to complete the first bore-hole at a reasonable pace, and hence, safely, the second hole would not have been necessary.

BP's profit minded micro-managers and bean-counters should have kept their big noses out of the details of the drilling operation in the first place. Up to that point, the drilling had been routine. But it's when, under BP's orders, the drilling was speeded up that it got screwed up—as the crew was afraid it might. And that necessitated abandoning the first bore hole and starting another

And it was on the new bore hole that things went bad!

Get it? Got it? Good!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:22 PM

By the way, would you fellows' noses be this far out of joint if it were still a British-based company, but went by the name of "Acme Petroleum?"

I don't give a damn whether the company is British, American, Kuwaiti, Estonian, Indonesian, or Martian. According to all the evidence, they are the primary cause of the disaster and the ones ultimately responsible.

Turning this into a question of patriotism is just plain ridiculous.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:49 PM

"Reuter's impossible timeline" has been verified by other sources.

Other sources? Name them, if they are press sources then they as ill-informed as to the set up and operation of a BOP Stack as your Sri Lankan friend "who worked on rigs".

Just a logical question taking into account this "verified timeline". IF there was a fire and an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon on the 20th of April, and the Deepwater Horizon itself sank two days later on the 22nd of April, who and what determined that the BOP failed on the 25th of April? Who and what was there to monitor it?

NOW READ THIS

How A Blow Out Preventer Works For Dummies

Relevant piece of information from above:

During the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion incident on April 20, 2010, the blowout preventer should have been activated automatically, cutting the drillstring and sealing the well to preclude a blowout and subsequent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but it failed to fully engage. Underwater robots (ROVs) later were used to manually trigger the blind shear ram blind shear ram preventer, to no avail.

As of May 2010[update] it is unknown why the blowout preventer failed.

Now as to the situation at the time of the blow out:

At the time of the explosion, it was drilling an exploratory well at a water depth of approximately 5,000 feet (1,500 m) in the Macondo Prospect, located in the Mississippi Canyon Block 252 of the Gulf of Mexico in the United States exclusive economic zone about 41 miles (66 km) off the Louisiana coast.

Production casing was being installed and cemented by Halliburton Energy Services. Once the cementing was complete, the well would have been tested for integrity and a cement plug set, after which no further activities would take place until the well was later activated as a subsea producer

Then we have this from Don Firth who knows the square root of fuck all about offshore drilling:

The FIRST bore-hole was going well until the BP manager insisted that the Deepwater Horizon crew "bump up" the drilling—which the drilling crew knew to be unsafe. Yet, at BP's insistence (and threats of being sacked), they did speed up the drilling.

And what they feared, happened. But fortunately, no blow-out occured with THAT hole.

But they had to abandon that bore-hole and start another.

And that's the hole where everything went wrong and the blow-out occured!

If the crew had been allowed to complete the first bore-hole at a reasonable pace, and hence, safely, the second hole would not have been necessary.

Complete and utter load of crap. The rig was engaged in setting production casing every bloody report tells you that so drilling had been successfully completed, because you cannot set casing with the drill string still in the hole. They had actually started cementing so they had even completed running the casing. Drilling and the speed of drilling has, got and never did have any connection to the blow out.

The cement job failed (Haliburton responsible), the BOP failed (Cameron/Transocean responsible depending upon who owned the piece of equipment), THEN there was the fire and the explosion.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:53 PM

Turning this into a question of patriotism is just plain ridiculous. (Don Firth)

What is totally unjust is scapegoating a "foreign" Company that has stepped up to the plate and offered from day one to do the right thing an let two US Companies and the US regulatory body off the hook when it was their part of the operation that failed in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 07:28 PM

Do the right thing? The day BP pays the cost of the spill, will be the day heaven opens its gates to gamblers, sinners, hypocrites and Tony Hayward.
The Associated Press reports today that BP estimates $30 billion, Bloomberg est. $33 billion on July 7, and the cost eventualy will reach $40 to $100 billion when loss of tourist revenue, and failed businesses, are taken into account.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 08:33 PM

Don T: "Of course the second link has exposed your total ignorance, Gone from Sanity.

You haven't noticed that Gordon Brown no longer has a brave new world, nor a cabinet position. In fact there's a new government over here.

Still, nice try I suppose, if totally ineffective."

That just shows what a short, media fed mind you have....during Gordon Brown's position, and even to the one now, wasn't there supposed to be trade sanctions on Iraq?? I guess the game of media distraction works great on you, and others of your ilk. The question is, "Who is BP that they can circumnavigate the foreign policies, of both the U.S., and of Britain??????...and set their own policy, while thumbing their nose at their 'home' country?

Pretty cool trick, eh?..and why is nobody calling them on it??...Do you suppose they own the right politicians for the right price?

I'm surprised you didn't bring this up, already.......well, sorta surprised. The corruption machine has you looking in the wrong direction. Interesting that Obama, who is characterized as 'anti big corporations' hasn't swooped down on this one!....Probably because Fox news isn't reporting it, either, eh??????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:02 PM

Where the hell do you get your "facts," Teribus?

Are you a BP stockholder? That would explain a lot.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:15 PM

Just a point, Teribus. I live thousands of miles from the Gulf of Mexico, and I don't own any American oil company stock. And, frankly, with the way this country has been going of late, I can't really say that I'm very patriotic. I just follow the news and try to keep abreast of what's going on in the world.

Other than general concern for the state of the environment, I have no emotional (or financial) involvement in this matter. Obviously, you do.

So fuck you very much for the pleasant discussion. I'm through wasting my time arguing with ill-tempered fanatics like you.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 12:28 AM

Where do I get my facts Don? As far as BOP's and subsea hardware goes I have worked with them for long enough. And for the last ten years have worked for the people who got the first Remotely Operated Vehicle down to take a look at the Stack after the Deepwater Horizon sank. At present two of our ships are supporting the efforts to kill the well and clean up.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 01:27 AM

Okay, Teribus, acknowledged   But now let me cut to the chase here.

What I have already said a couple of times and which you keep ignoring—either not reading very carefully or studiously avoiding, is the following:

The Deepwater Horizon crew bored two holes. The first hole was well on it's way when the BP manager insisted that they "bump it up" and drill faster. Reluctantly obeying orders, and in preference to being fired, the DH crew obey the order. What they feared might happen, did. The hole shattered, the drilling mud leaked out, and they lost tools in the hole.

This necessitated abandoning the hole and starting all over again. And that's when everything started going wrong.

What I am saying is that if the BP manager, instead of whining about how much it was costing and ordering them to speed it up, had simply kept his nose out and let the DH crew do their job with the first hole, this whole mess would probably never have happened.

So you work for BP, then? Or a least for a company under contract to BP.

Ah, SO!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 01:41 PM

Watched a program on the 30-year-old Alyeska pipeline. Several fines have been levied against this BP- majority-owned (47%-51%) line. No real maintenance since it was built. At least one major spill, several others.
The line has become "dangerously corroded" according to news reports.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 03:50 PM

Tony Hayward, CEO of BP, upset by the "inconvenience" the Gulf oil spill has caused him, complained bitterly that he "wanted to get his life back," and showed the depth of his concern over the matter by participating in a yacht race (the "J.P. Morgan Asset Management Round the Island Race"--!!???) off the coast of England.

They've canned his ass and sent him to Russia. Siberia, perhaps?

But I wouldn't worry about Tony. He's departing with millions in pensions and severance pay.

[Man!! That's the way to do it!! If you can finagle a job as a CEO, when you figure you've had enough and would like to retire early and have a little fun, screw up bigtime, get 'em to sack you, and you walk off with enough money to whoop it up and live the rest of your life in luxury!!]

But here's the kicker:   they're replacing him with an American!!

Oh, HORRORS!!

Don (No, thanks! I don't want the job!) Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:16 PM

Better than that Don, Hayward has a claim in for compensation from the 20 Billion US$ Fund for loss of earnings and top up of his pension due to the Gulf Oil Spill.

Doubt if two separate holes were actually drilled. Most likely solution would be that they would have "kicked out" from the first one using a directional drill, judging by the drilling times, for them to have pulled out entirely re-spudded and started all over again would have taken months, but that is only my guess. The relief wells being drilled started in June and will not be completed until mid-August, they I believe are targeted at intersecting the existing hole again using directional drilling techniques. And in drilling those relief well holes they will be going flat out to get them drillied as quick as Christ will let them, to do that they will be using the drilling data from the Deepwater Horizon - Nothing wrong with the manner in which the operation you call "the second well" was drilled.

Do I work for BP, no I do not, I did once upon a time and during that time there was not a single accident that was before Lord John Browne's time, before BP took over US Oil Company AMOCO who ran those refineries that had all the safety issues. The two ships we have there were called in from other work although I do believe they did work for BP in the GOM on "Blind Faith" and "Thunder Horse" both deep water fields that have been put into production without incident.

What went wrong Don - 1) The cement job failed (Halliburton) and 2) The BOP failed (Transocean/Cameron). Only once the well has been secured and the items of equipment recovered from the seabed will there be any detailed reasons given for the cause of the BOP failure.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:21 PM

PS: The opening bit about Tony Hayward was a joke.

PPS: Tony Hayward took part in one sailing race during Cowes Week - How many games of golf did your President play? As both were only ever going to be kept informed and were not required to actually do anything - who gives a flying fuck what they do in their spare time.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 06:07 PM

Good to see Teribus taking over as head BP apologist now they'e got Hayward out of the way.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 06:57 PM

"How many games of golf did your President play?"

That depends on which President you're talking about. I don't know of any President who went golfing when there was a major emergency going on. With the possible exception within the past few years of George W. Bush. But as far as I know, he wasn't that much into golf. He did start a totally unnecessary and illegal war with Iraq, then hopped aboard Air Force One and flew (at the taxpayers' expense) down to his ranch in Crawford, Texas to cut brush (really essential to the good of the nation, of course. . . .).

'. . . who gives a flying fuck what they do in their spare time."

I believe that one of the emperor Nero's main niches in history is "fiddling while Rome burned." Whether they can do anything concrete or not, it's just plain bad PR to run out and play while something dire is going on. Shows a certain "What? Me worry?" attitude.

On the two bore-holes matter:   I've heard and read that from a number of sources. I'll try to find you some documentary proof—assuming you will actually accept an authoritative source or two.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 12:38 AM

I think the number of rounds of golf played by Barack Obama was seven.

BP apologist GregF? No not apologist, I have always said that BP are the responsible parties because of their position as the Operator. What you lot have done is to confuse responsibility for something with fault. Instead of concentrating on solving the problem of the leak which BP HAVE DONE, and DID DO, by the way, your Government went into hyperdrive on the blame game. Barack Obama's speciality "Grandstanding" to the electorate, he is a man of great show and no substance, who puts himself and his public image before everything else.

What failed onboard Deepwater Horizon was not the singular fault of BP. If you are aportioning blame then the net gets cast much wider and includes Halliburton, Transocean, posibly Cameron and definitely the US Regulatory Authorities. The legal wrangling over this will take years and make a lot of lawyers very wealthy.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 01:54 AM

There is a slight dirrerence here. Obama is not the CEO of BP. Tony Hayward is (was).

Obama and VP Joe Biden played golf for four hours on the afternoon of Sunday, June 15th. "Father's Day" in the U.S.

I know, I know, there are those who think that the poor, harried Tony Hayward needed a bit of relief from the general stress while Obama should have put on a wet suit, taken a cork in his teeth, and swam to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico and plugged the bloody hole personally.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 11:51 AM

Jeez...am I the one who needs to point out that it's gotten a bit petty in here?

While it is true, that Obama has spent a lot of his time in re-recreational activities, amid the national crisis we are in, I'd prefer he just take a permanent vacation, and play lots of golf! I mean, it sounds like, "They're out of bread?..Let them eat cake!"

Other than that, I don't want to engage in the 'wonders of Obama' rap. If your like him, you look the other way...if you hate him, or fear for what is happening, you'll point out every little thing. The left doesn't give a shit about what the right is saying, even when it's true, and vice-versa...
We have become so polarized in this country, and most of it stems from flat out ignorance and stupidity.......but those participating don't care, they love it that way...and they hope that the bad times are here to stay!

It's idiotic!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 12:02 PM

The history of the Macondo well is rather complex. It was spudded Oct. 7, 2009 from Transocean Marianas. The rig was damaged by Hurricane Ida in November, and had to leave.
The Transocean Horizon rig resumed drilling February 8, 2010 when they landed the BOP stack.
I am not clear of the details involved in the resumption; someone with the Oil and Gas Journal issues of that time may be able to post them.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 12:12 PM

BY THE WAY, Has anyone heard from Little Hawk? Are you O.K?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 06:06 AM

Drilling Operations started 7th October 2009 from Transocean Marianas. Operations halted when the Marianas was damaged by Hurricane Ida on 29th November 2009 by which time they had spudded in and succeeded in drilling to a depth below seabed of 4023 feet.

Drilling operation resumed by Transocean Deepwater Horizon on 8th February 2010. As production casing was being run and the well being prepared for temporary abandonment when the "Blow-Out" occurred it would be safe to assume that drilling operations had halted before 20th April 2010 but to get to a point where the well could be handed over for production it took 3 months.

BP ordered the drilling of two relief wells to kill the Macondo Well the first started 2nd May 2010 by Transocean Development Driller III and the second on 16th May 2010 by Transocean GSF Development Driller II. Estimated time to drill relief wells 3 months.

The timings reported above would lead to suggest that Deepwater Horizon DID NOT drill two separate holes. Timing suggests that they did in fact kick-out from the first to reach target depth. The drilling played no part at all in the blow-out, nor was it a factor in the accident or the spill.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 06:09 AM

PS: In case it hasn't escaped anybody's notice the relief wells are being drilled by the same players with the same equipment as drilled the well that blew.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Patsy Warren
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 07:40 AM

As I see it the folks in Louisianna and surrounding areas are understandably very angry as any one would be who's livelyhood depends on fishing and seasonal tourism etc. If Obama attacks a big business fatcat empire like BP then so be it. All BP cares about is the profits they make at the end of the day no matter who they walk on.

Having lived in an area here in the UK where tourism and fishing is the main source of income I can appreciate how devastating a disaster like that would be. As in most seaside towns the work available in the winter is minimal and generally not paid terribly well so they can't afford to lose money earnt during the summer. I remember an oil tanker spill back in the late 60's early 70's and although nowhere near as bad as the BP spill it was still devastating enough for some of the seaside towns around the Solent including the Isle of Wight. Although people assume the inhabitants are middle-class and well heeled the other-side to the island shows something completely different (that's another story). The effect on the wildlife was tragic and it had quite an effect on summer tourism for the ordinary folk who need this to make a reasonable living.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:56 PM

Guest Patsy, the attack on BP is based on evidence of short-cuts and hasty decisions, not on size. This has been discussed over and over, and whether believed or not has little to do with size (fat cats).

If one examines the balance sheets of BP, Shell, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron etc., after allotments for shareholders large and small (many of us), and expenses, the profit in good years is 10% or less; many smaller concerns do better than that.
The total take means no more for the books of big companies than it does for the small local store chain with 20 employees and 3-4 premises.

Of course, large concerns affecting the livelihoods of millions can yield political and legislative clout- that is another matter; better legislation is needed. This also is the subject of several threads.
Regulatory bodies should see that companies play by the rules and operate safely. No one disputes that the U.S. bodies were lax and the hope is that the reorganization will help.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 02:03 PM

10% of a hell of a lot is still a hell of a lot. Net profit is one of the poorest metrics for a business' performance

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 07:02 PM

Profit is necessary for a company to grow. No one will buy shares in a company that is profitless.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 09:07 AM

Well, there's profit; then there's a lot of profit, and then there's obscene profit.

Was a time folks were content with a reasonable return on their investments.

Now, unless they get an unreasonable return, they ain't satisfied.

Talk about the "Me Generation"

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 09:29 AM

Look like the shares are on the up again....maybe time to buy in!!

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 10:16 AM

Was Tony Hayward right after all?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 11:39 AM

What a downplay!!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 02:59 PM

Sterling example of biased press coverage.

Let your dog shit all over your neighbor's front yard, and then get snarky when the neighbor complains about it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 03:30 PM

New York Times, July 30.
The lawyers are meeting in Boise, Idaho, asking for decisions on which court ought to be asked for to hear the case for damages against BP. The federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation meets there this month- a different site is selected for each of these gatherings.
These suits will go on for years.
"Choosing the right venue for the cases, to avoid any potential conflicts of interest for the judges or jurors, is essential." E. J. Cabraser, the lawyer who represented plaintiffs in the Exxon-Valdez case.
Lawyers present their case to a panel of seven judges; they will issue decisions in August. BP prefers Houston; plaintiffs mostly have other choices.

"Lawyers, Far from Gulf, Skirmish on Spill Claims," John Swartz; NY Times, July 29, 2010.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 12:38 AM

"Choosing the right venue for the cases, to avoid any potential conflicts of interest for the judges or jurors, is essential."

Pity the SCOTUS didn't think of that in Bush v Gore 2000.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 05:12 PM

Q: ""Lawyers, Far from Gulf, Skirmish on Spill Claims," John Swartz; NY Times, July 29, 2010."

Today's lawyers..tomorrow's politicians....can't trust any of them!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 08:14 PM

Who should one trust? Musicians? Bartenders? Grocers?

Duhhhh

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 03:49 AM

Q: "Who should one trust? Musicians? Bartenders? Grocers?"




Illegal alien, homosexual, drug runners!...At least their shit is up front!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 01:08 PM

I don't trust anyone in a business relationship. If they are doing it for money then money is the goal. Everything else is a means to that end. That is the strength of Capitalism.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 01:08 PM

No problem with the first two, but have doubts about drug runners.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 01:31 PM

Even if--and I honestly doubt that---Hayward was right in his assessment of the environmental damage of the thee-month spill, he had no way of knowing this. How much gambling with the environment are we willing to risk?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 02:40 PM

Well, I for one, am happy that he got his life back. :)

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 03:32 PM

Oil Spill damage exaggerated

And

Evapourating oil slick leaves America without a villain

Another actor in the drama "Transocean" otherwise "Global Santa Fe" (Where the GSF comes from in the names of their rigs) Remember these paragons who Q and others tried to claim were so mercilessly bullied by big bad BP. that's right the ones whose employees by-passed, switched off and rendered useless alarms and onboard safety systems that might have saved life onboard the Deepwater Horizon. Well I received this today from someone I used to work with an offshore crane operator. The rig they are talking about is Tranocean's "GSF Jack Ryan":

Subject: disaster
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:51:33 +0000

Hay lads

the rig i am on in Nigeria the Jack Ryan today just had a major disaster i was watching as it happened, they were load testing the port aft crane when the fu..... crane boom snapped!!!!!!! also ripping the crane cab to bits throwing the crane op and the ET around a 100ft to the sea below seen the poor buggers falling they were lucky it wasnt the deck cause it was close............also the lad who was supervising the load testing is missing i.e dead, the ET is in a serious state the crane op is hurt but looks like he will make it.    IT TOOK Transocean FANNIES 15 MIN TO LAUNCH THE FRC BOAT THE SMALL CRANE/HOIST WAS SPEWING OIL AND WOULDNT LOWER!!!!!!WTF!!!! AND OVER AN HOUR TO GET A FULL MUSTER....................... be safe lads 'cause disaster is never far away offshore especialy down here

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 04:32 PM

I don't know why a few Brits have such a massive bug up their butts that they have to turn this into a nationalistic issue. As I said above, the idea that "BP" stands for "British Petroleum" is incidental and irrelevant to this incident. BP is a member of the oil industry in general which is notorious for following a policy of cutting corners and putting profits over safety. It's that policy that caused this disaster, not the fact that BP is a British-based multinational company.

People like Teribus seem to be accusing Americans of trying to claim that this f**k-up was caused by an inherent flaw in the British character rather than the kind of reckless cost-cutting that is pandemic among oil companies in general, and then doing back-flips in an effort to try to minimize the nature and extent of the disaster.

Going back to the Torrey Canyon oil spill, a lot of folks on that side of the pond were not to happy when vast quantities of oil started washing up on the beaches in the south of England, the Channel Islands, and the north of France. And who got blamed and sued? The American company that owned the ship and had chartered it to BP, and thereby had no control over the operation, especially the incompetence of the Italian captain.

And if there is any connection betweent the two incidents, it is that those most responsible are trying to lay the blame on anyone and everyone but themselves.

As I also mentioned earlier, I don't have a dog in this fight. As far as any kind of animosity toward Britain, none here. My ancestry is Scottish, and a number of times I have seriously considered moving to England. I love the history, the high quality of arts, music, and drama, and the people in general, and if I were to suggest moving to the British Isles, I doubt that I would get any argument from my wife.

The problem is that BP is responsible for the spill, not that the company is British.

What the hell is the matter with you people*?

Don Firth

* "You people." Not the British people in general, but the handful of people who are pissing and moaning on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 05:15 PM

The more Terribus posts, the more I think there IS an inherent flaw in British character- or at least in some of the island's denizens- but that would take another dozen threads.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 12:43 PM

Q and Don Firth - Go back and read the opening posts on this thread and take a good look at the positions that you adopted at the outset.

Q I believe that you were all for tar-and-feathering people, according to Don it was all BP's fault.

Me? I merely pointed out that while BP was responsible it was not necessarily BP's FAULT.

Correction Don it has been a long time since BP stood for British Petroleum, yet your President persistently called them that. I think I can remember you arguing about the significance of your former President mentioning the name Saddam Hussein in sentences with references to 9/11 and the impression that created in the minds of the American public.

Q according to you BP were doing the drilling, not Transocean, it took me long enough but at least in the end I got an acknowledgement from you that you were in error and that it was Transocean who were doing the drilling. What failed was the cement job and the BOP both things controlled by American contracting service companies and they as far as can be seen have got off "Scot Free".

I do not believe Q that any of my posts have led you to believe about inherent British flaws, you have demonstrated that point of view from the outset. What I have done is to point out to both of you where you have been in error. Unlike the pair of you I have had the experience of working for the players in this drama and my personal experience of them has been that BP were by far the best of them, both Halliburton and Transocean were cowboy outfits in comparison. And please before you start wittering on about refineries and BP's safety record in the USA, remember that those operations were all former AMOCO assets, American run with American work, maintenance and safety practices, run by the same people that ran them before the take-over. Also remember companies do not cause accidents people do, in the case of the Texas Refinery the roots of the accident that happened there go back to actions taken by personnel at the plant seven years before BP took it over.

If you are going to discuss something at least get your facts right from the start.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 01:00 PM

I called for tar-and-feathering of Tony Hayward. If Transocean people also were at fault, I'll add them to the list.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 01:44 PM

Teribus, Self avowed liberal 'activists' tend to go which ever way the wind blows.....themselves, being as windbags, 'Birds of a feather flock together'. Wait till hurricane season!!...Then they march in demonstrations!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 02:02 PM

BP's environmental record is pretty appalling. In 2000, British Petroleum changed its name to BP (Beyond Petroleum) and chose a yellow and green sunflower-like as its logo in a bid to highlight its interest in alternative and environmentally friendly fuels. Nevertheless BP was named one of the "ten worst corporations" in both 2001 and 2005 based on its environmental and human rights records. www.we-make-money-not-art.com

Question: Is it not likely that BP changed its name because of its record?

Question: If the Brits are so intent on not having BP called 'British Petroleum', why do they claim it as a British company? You are the guys primarily doing it, not us.

Question: Since 'Kentucky Fried Chicken' changed its name to 'KFC', does that mean you Brits would not dream of identifying it with its former name?

Question: Since when is 2000 so "long ago"? KFC changed its name in 1991.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 03:02 PM

What failed was the cement job and the BOP both things controlled by American contracting service companies and they as far as can be seen have got off "Scot Free".

I'm not sure how you can say they got off "Scot Free" when the lawsuits are just now starting to trickle in. I very much remains to be seen who gets off scot free.

If BP are not to blame, why did they take responsibility so soon and so publicly? I think they know they're on the shit list. You seem doggedly determined to ignore all the evidence that the blowout was due to BP's insisting on certain procedures that the actual drillers cautioned against. Guess it doesn't fit your pet theory.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 03:26 PM

Teribus, if the sobriquet "British Petroleum" were not the operative concept here, then tell me why Richard Bridge went up in flames in the opening post? And you are weighing in so heavily?

As I have said a couple of times now, it makes no difference if the company is British, Swahili, or from Arcturus 12, they are ultimately responsible for what happened. If BP had not formerly been called "British Petroleum," then why are you folks having such a hissy-fit and trying to pin the blame on anybody but BP?

Also, you are ignoring (trying to minimize) salient facts here. The Deepwater Horizon crew was reluctantly (due to safety concerns) following BP management's order to speed up the drilling. The blowout would probably not have happened in the first place had it not been for BP's insistence on ignoring safety margins. A blow-out preventer (functional or non-functional) is hardly necessary if there is no blowout in the first place.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:49 AM

mousethief and Don for the umpteenth time

1. Drilling had nothing to do with the what happened, my guess is that they would have been finished drilling for about four or five days before the "Blow-Out" occurred.

2. Even if it did the "drilling" experts and specialists on the Deepwater Horizon were Transocean, NOT BP. Professionally if I am "ordered" to do something that I believe to be unsafe or unprofessional I will tell whoever gives that "order" to take a hike.

3. Don you know absolutely damn all about what you are talking about, evidenced by:

A blow-out preventer (functional or non-functional) is hardly necessary if there is no blowout in the first place.

Hardly necessary!!! It and its associated "Marine Riser" are absolutely vital, you cannot drill without them.

Named in 2001 and 2005 eh! WOW must have had a great crystal ball if they changed their name in 2000 because of that record. Something that happened a decade ago is not something I would describe as a recent event. Safety issues in the US of A relate to assets that were formerly AMOCO facilities and businesses, same people stayed on to run them the same way as they did before that I believe was around 1997, US oil-field culture = Hire 'em, fire 'em, run their Goddam assess off to save us from havin' to pay them their completion bonuses, safety hell we'll be twice as safe on the next job to make up for it! - I've worked for them and Ebbie it wasn't BP who switched the alarms and safety systems off on the Deepwater Horizon.

BP takes the responsibility because it HAS TO legally it automatically takes that responsibility when it gets the lease. But as I have tried to din into a few on this forum being RESPONSIBLE is NOT the same as being at FAULT or being to BLAME.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 01:03 AM

1. Drilling had nothing to do with the what happened, my guess is that they would have been finished drilling for about four or five days before the "Blow-Out" occurred.

2. Even if it did the "drilling" experts and specialists on the Deepwater Horizon were Transocean, NOT BP. Professionally if I am "ordered" to do something that I believe to be unsafe or unprofessional I will tell whoever gives that "order" to take a hike.

1. It was the mud.

2. Yeah, sure, you'd give up your job in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. You macho dude.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 01:14 AM

It's due to his cojones, MT. :)

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 11:34 AM

What was the mud?

The mud or the absence thereof did not cause the blow-out, cement plugs had already been set when the well kicked. The blow-out preventer did not operate as it should have done automatically, i.e. it failed. Gas under tremendous pressure burst up the marine riser to the drill floor caught fire and then exploded - Note the bloody sequence.

Yeah, sure, you'd give up your job in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. You macho dude.

If it meant me staying alive bloody right I would, Nothing macho in that "Dude" it is called being sensible and standing by what you believe to be correct. If your dead it doesn't make a toss how bad the recession - TRUE??

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 04:18 PM

Hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure none of the drillers were thinking about death as the likely outcome of their bowing to BP pressure to cut corners.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 08:25 PM

They either know what they are doing or they shouldn't be there.

As far as the drillers were concerned their job was over about five days before the well blew. If it was anything to do with what they were concerned with it would have blown at the time THEY were doing it - BUT GUESS WHAT it didn't.

Sorry folks but I am tired of agruing the point with people who haven't got a clue about what they are talking about, purely because they are looking for someone to blame, and basically that someone must not be American, because that suits the script according to St Barack Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 08:52 PM

"Sorry folks but I am tired of agruing the point with people who haven't got a clue about what they are talking about, purely because they are looking for someone to blame, and basically that someone must not be American, because that suits the script according to St Barack Obama."

In addition to being sheer B.S., that pretty well illustrates what Teribus's whine is all about—in addition to ignoring the fact that some of us know exactly what we're talking about.

Frankly, I don't believe he has the expertise he claims he has. Either that, or he is trying to shine everybody on.

From MSNBC:

HOUSTON — Before rig workers aboard the doomed Deepwater Horizion drilling platform performed a procedure that BP says may have been a "fundamental mistake," there was a "skirmish" between BP and Transocean staff about whether to proceed, the rig's chief mechanic told federal investigators on Wednesday.

The testimony corroborated other witness statements obtained by The Associated Press that show Transocean managers complained BP was "taking shortcuts" the day of the explosion by replacing heavy drilling fluid with saltwater in the well that blew out.

(Drilling "mud" is a man-made product, a sort of viscous slurry designed to control the up-rush of oil. It is about twice as heavy and dense as sea-water. "Mud" is 1) expensive, and 2) it can be recycled and reused. BP, maintaining that the mud was no longer necessary to control the flow of oil, wanted to salvage it for re-use, so they ordered that it be withdrawn for recycling and replaced with sea water.)

Speaking to a federal board of investigators in Kenner, Louisiana, mechanic Douglas Brown said that around noon on April 20, the day of the explosion, rig workers met in a room adjacent to the rig's galley and "there was an argument that took place and a difference of opinions."

Brown said "a skirmish" took place between "the company man" from BP — whose name he said he did not know — and three Transocean employees.

"The company man was basically saying, 'Well this is how it's going to be,'" and Transocean rig workers "reluctantly agreed," Brown said.

Brown said the top Transocean official on the rig grumbled, "Well, I guess that's what we have those pinchers for" — which he took to be a reference to devices on the blowout preventer, the five-story piece of equipment that can slam a well shut in an emergency.

Blowout preventers are installed as a routine precaution. They are a bit analagous to a parachute. As long as the airplane is well-maintained and flown with competence, the parachute will not be necessary.

Had the drilling procedure not been interfered with by bean-counters more concerned with cost-cutting than safety, they never would have found out that the BOP was defective.

####

This came in a newsletter I received in this morning's e-mail:

BP is at it again!

Despite the catastrophe in the Gulf, BP is moving forward with a controversial project to drill in the Arctic. In order to get around the Obama Administration's moratorium on off-shore drilling, BP has built "Liberty Island" three miles off the Alaskan Coast and plans to drill two miles under the sea and then six to eight miles horizontally to tap an underwater reserve.

An oil spill in the Arctic would be far worse than what continues to unfold in the Gulf. There is no proven technology for cleaning up oil in icy water and the nearest emergency and relief supports are thousands of miles away.

Ignoring the lessons of this most recent disaster, Federal regulators even allowed BP to write its own environmental review for the project! We cannot allow for history to repeat itself.

Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, has the ability to STOP this catastrophe before it happens and YOU have the ability to influence Secretary Salazar.

Button to click to sign a petition to Ken Salazar.

I did.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 05:50 AM

Coming out of the hole you withdraw the drill string stand-by-stand, drill collar and drill-bit. The mud you have been pumping down through the drill string to lubricate the drill bit continues to be pumped down to balance the pressure. By the time there is sufficient mud in the drilled hole cement is pumped down to form the first of three cement plugs. Once the first cement plug has been set mud once again is pumped down to fill a predetermined length of casing. Pressure is kept on this mud for a predetermined time to allow the cement to "go-off" (i.e. set). Once you think it has you then repeat the process to set the second and third cement plugs. Once the third plug has been set you ease off the pressure on the mud pumps and monitor the pressure between the top of the last cement plug and the drill floor. If that pressure falls as you take off the pressure you know that the cement job has been successful and you can recover what drilling mud remains flushing it out with salt water. If on the other hand you ease off on the pressure on the surface but the pressure down the hole does not drop it means that the reservoir pressure is pushing the cement plugs up the casing from down below and that additional plugs will be required.

Now what stage had they reached onboard the Deepwater Horizon when the well kicked? First plug set? Second plug set? Third plug set? Were they in the process of flushing the system through?

Particularly liked this bit, penned no doubt by some enthusiastic reporter at MSNBC, who has sort of half listened to what someone who may or may not have had any real knowledge told him:

Blowout preventers are installed as a routine precaution. They are a bit analagous to a parachute. As long as the airplane is well-maintained and flown with competence, the parachute will not be necessary.

Had the drilling procedure not been interfered with by bean-counters more concerned with cost-cutting than safety, they never would have found out that the BOP was defective.

Well Don I linked you to a site that told you exactly what a BOP Stack does. You obviously did not take the trouble to read it, now why am I not surprised at that?

So a BOP only serves a precautionary purpose does it? You are trying to tell me that it along with the Casing, Guide-Base, Well Conductor and Marine Riser does not form part of the integral closed circuit pressure system that allows drilling to take place? The part of the BOP that is analagous to a parachute are the things called the "Kill Rams" which are a tiny but vital part of the BOP if things go wrong.

The first paragraph of the MSNBC quote is a massive over-simplification that misleads more than it informs.

Move onto the second paragraph. Drilling had been completed days before the 20th April, so what drilling procedure had been interfered with? The "Bean-Counters referred to, where were they? I don't know if you realise this Don but the hole that was drilled still remains perfect to this day, nothing wrong with it, the casing, the guide-base, the well conductor and wait for it the BOP in its normal every day function are all perfectly OK. After all that is what the cap, that has successfully temporarily sealed the leak for the last two weeks, is locked onto.

It was the "Kill Rams" that failed to work on the BOP. They failed to activate, or they failed to shear and seal the well. So much as MSNBC prattles on about drilling procedures and "bean counters" (Oooh don't you just hate those bean counters) to spice up the story. To anyone who has actually set foot on an offshore drilling rig and seen what goes on on a drill floor the guy who wrote that piece is talking out of his arse.

Land drilling and horizontal drilling are BP pioneered proven techniques that have been in use for at least two decades as far as I am aware. What does Don Firth, "Champion of the Earth", aim to achieve in signing up to get "Liberty Island" stopped? Total shut down of Alaskan oil production? I doubt that that would be all that popular, but WTF it won't affect me so fill your boots, 'cos the SUV's are going to have to stay parked and the price of "gas" is going to rocket - And when it does write and thank Don.

Comparative Safety/Performance Ratings:

US Regulatory Authorities:
The Minerals Management Service (renamed on 18 June 2010 to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or Bureau of Ocean Energy (BOE)) is the regulatory and inspecting body for offshore oil drilling and rigs. According to an Associated Press investigation such examination as was performed was for the most part brief, perfunctory, extremely lax, and with "poor recordkeeping". Crucial safety documentation and emergency procedure information, including documentation for the exact incident that later occurred, was absent. The exact number of required monthly inspections varied over time, with the required monthly inspection for the first 40 months but after that around 25% of inspections were omitted, although the investigation notes this is partly expected, since there are circumstances such as weather and movement which preclude an inspection. Reports of the last three inspections for 2010 were provided under Freedom of Information laws. Each of these inspections had taken two hours or less.

Hey Don that bad they had to change their name mid-disaster.

BP:
Following the incident, BP was criticised in the media as having a flawed culture which did not attend to safety issues as it might, and corporate ratings group RiskMetrics described BP's as having "worse health, environment and safety record than many other major oil companies".

Note: Neither the media OR RiskMetrics who made these judgements have anything to do with the oil industry or any oil industry regulatory body - bare that in mind

BPs recordable injury frequency rate at OSHA was 1.42 injuries for every 200,000 hours in 1999; by 2009 it was 0.34, having declined steadily year-on-year.[Within ten years the Company is four times safer] The total number of reportable incidents per 200,000 hours fell by 10% in both 2006 and 2008, was unchanged in 2007, and fell by 21% in 2009 (the last year for which figures are available). BP chief executive Tony Hayward commented that "You can't change an organisation of 100,000 people overnight, but we have made extraordinary strides in three years." The head of energy research at RiskMetrics agreed that "the company has made improvements during that time". That was big of him

Constant steady improvement, acknowledged by a company that seems to be their greatest detractor (part of Investment Bank J.P.Morgan - no attempt to drive share prices down in order to make a killing later dimension to those comments eh?)

Transocean:
The rig owner, Transocean, also had a "strong overall" safety record with no major incidents for 7 years. However an analysts' review "painted a more equivocal picture" with Transocean rigs being disproportionately responsible for safety related incidents in the Gulf and industry surveys reporting concerns over falling quality and performance. In the 3 years 2005 to 2007 Transocean was the owner of 30% of oilrigs active in the Gulf and 33% of incidents that triggered an MMS investigation were on Transocean rigs, but in the 3 years from 2008 to 15 February 2010 it owned 42% of rigs but was the owner for nearly 3/4 (73%) of incidents. Industry surveys saw this as an effect of its November 2007 merger with rival GlobalSantaFe. Transocean "has had problems" with both cement seals (2005) and blowout preventers (2006), which are the suspected cause of the Deepwater Horizon loss,[47] although Transocean states cementing is a third party task and it has "a strong maintenance program to keep blowout preventers working".

Declining safety record occasioned by a merger with another drilling Company. Hey Don does that sound familiar to you - BP merger with AMOCO??

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 05:00 PM

Man, you are really EGO INVOLVED in this!

I ignore your snotty remarks because I have read the whole thing, I know what a BOP is and how at least two types of BOPs work, and what drilling mud is used for and how it is used. I read and listen to reports from people who were there at the time, and from people who have worked in and around the field (such as my Sri Lankan acquaintance, and an oceanographer friend whom I have known since college and who has been following this very closely, it being very much in his area of both expertise and academic interest—plus another oceanographer friend who currently lives in the Florida Keys and who has followed this whole thing very closely), and who have no direct, personal interest (or ego invovlement) in the matter, and whose knowledge and opinions I can trust.

You did say one thing with which I agree: there is indeed plenty of blame to go around. This incident begins to exhibit the characteristics of a Three Stooges routine for sheer ineptitude. But the ultimate responsibility lies with BP, especially since this whole operation has been affected by their insisting on taking short-cuts and putting profits over safety.

And as far as things like nationalism and your ego involvement are concerned, what Ebbie said up-thread is much to the point. When BP gas stations started appearing in the United States, their advertising made it quite plain that BP stood for "British Petroleum." They may have changed that later, in the same way that the heavily promoted "Colonel Sanders' Kentucky Fried Chicken" later became simply "KFC."

The advertising for both "British Petroleum" and "Kentucky Fried Chicken" was sufficiently effective that these two appellations are what most people think of when the see "BP" or "KFC."

I doubt very much that if, say, a whole bunch of people were to get food poisoning from eating an order to go of KFC ("Kentucky Fried Chicken"), that the the people of the State of Kentucky would be blamed or thought less of because of it.

Likewise, "Esso," an international trade name for Exxon Mobile. The company used to be "Standard Oil of New Jersey." You might note that following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, nobody blamed the people of the State of New Jersey.

Despite the fact that BP used to be called "British Petroleum," NO ONE is blaming the British people for the Gulf oil spill..

Jeez, man! Get a life!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 06:26 PM

Excellent dissertation, Don. You will find, however, that Teribus will not acknowledge the facts or respond in any way.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 07:21 PM

Hiking last week, my chocolate bar melted in my backpack and made a gawdawful mess. I hold personally responsible the people of Hershey, Pennsylvania. The stupid, careless bastards.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 07:37 PM

Your chocolate melted? Terrible!

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 08:45 PM

Hershey's is chocolate?

It was the "Kill Rams" that failed to work on the BOP.

Then it wasn't "perfectly OK" was it? Good grief. Brit man speakum with forked tongue.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 11:31 PM

No. Hershey's is not chocolate, and not a corporation. It is a people! If you got a beef with Hersheys, you are dissing the good people of Hershey PA. Fookin bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 11:56 PM

Fookin bigot.

You need a new dictionary. Somebody is not a bigot because they don't like a particular brand of chocolate. I suggest Merriam Webster's.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 12:14 AM

You know it occurs to me that maybe you really think the people who make Hershey's chocolate are a separate race or class or ethnicity of people? You do know, don't you, that Oompa Loompas are fictional?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Aug 10 - 05:42 PM

Sorry to resurrect this thread after it has slid off the bottom of the page, but there are a few things that really need to be said regarding oil drilling and fossil fuels in general. Some food for thought.

"Total shut down of Alaskan oil production? I doubt that that would be all that popular, but WTF it won't affect me so fill your boots, 'cos the SUV's are going to have to stay parked and the price of "gas" is going to rocket - And when it does write and thank Don."   

This is Teribus, taking me to task for signing a petition opposing BP's attempting to do an end-run around President Obama's temporary ban on off-shore drilling by putting their drilling rig in the Arctic Ocean far enough off-shore to be outside the U.S.'s jurisdiction, going down two miles, and then drilling horizontally.

Well, Teribus, there are a number of aspects to this. First of all, if the SUVs and the Humvees and the Ford Expeditions and other such gas-guzzling behemoths cease to be popular because of the cost of fuel, that most certain isn't the end of the world. Among other things, I am a strong advocate of efficient public transportation. Much of Europe and Japan have very fast, efficient, and relatively inexpensive public transportation systems. Rick Steves, travel advisor and writer, says that he is easily able to get anywhere he wants in Europe on public transportation, occasionally supplementing for side-trips by renting a bicycle. With the exception of a very few cities, the United States is way behind Europe for in-city public transportation, and as for national transportation, Amtrak leaves a lot to be desired compared to European rail systems. Perhaps a steep rise in gasoline prices would be the incentive necessary to get the population out of their gas guzzlers and try walking the three blocks to the grocery store. And for longer trips, get them to insist that the Powers That Be get up off their lazy butts and do something about more efficient public transportation.

As to personal transportation, one hardly needs an SUV. My wife and I currently have a Toyota Corolla, purchased new in 1999. It now has about 25,000 miles on it. Contrast this with the nationwide average accumulated mileage of 10,000 to 15,000 miles per year. Before that, we drove a Honda Civic. We walk, despite the fact that I'm pushing a wheelchair, and use public transportation as much as possible (Seattle's buses are all equipped with wheelchair lifts and tie-downs).

In addition to public transportation such as buses and light-rail, Seattle has a system that they call "ZipCar.' Cars parked somewhere nearby, in neighborhoods all over the city, that you can rent by the hour or by the day. One just accesses the above web site and signs up to take advantage of the system.

Particularly for city-dwellers, one does not need to own an automobile! I know many people who get along perfectly well without. Think of the money you save on such things as buying a car in the first place, insurance, maintenance and upkeep, and sometimes (as in our situation) garage rental. In the light of total expenses, gasoline is a relatively small part of the cost of owning an automobile. And health statistics report that about one in three Americans is unhealthily overweight if not downright obese (and I heard on this morning's news that recent British health figures show similar statistics for the citizens of Britain), so spending less time being a couch-potato or sitting behind the wheel of an automobile and getting off one's behind and walking would be very beneficial. Simply walking is a very good exercise for general health and for burning off excess lard.

If one does need a personal automobile, there are a number of hybrids with more coming out every year. There are small all-electric cars on the market, such as the Zenn. True, their speed (up to 30-40 mph) and range (25-30 miles) is limited, but for most people, this is more than enough to commute to and from work or to the local shopping center.

And if you must have a gasoline-powered car, I've seen several "Smart Cars" running around. Accommodates two people (the vast majority of automobiles on the freeways and motorways carry the driver only!). The Smart Car has a top speed of 90 mph. But not as good mileage as one would probably expect for such a small car (35 to 45 mpg). But—the Smart Car also comes in an electric model CLICKY. I've seen a number of them running around town. Cute! And the driver invariably looks smug!

And as far as the safety of these little cars is concerned, a Smart Car was test-crashed into a concrete barrier at 70 mph., and the passenger compartment emerged intact. But the fact that it remained undamaged is academic, because no one would have survived that rate of deceleration, even if they were in a semi-truck.

####

Non-fossil fuel energy sources:

Solar panels are getting cheaper to make all the time. I see rooftops here and there around town town festooned with solar panels, even in this city that has a reputation (not always earned) for cloudy skies and rain. Some people get all the electrical power their houses need from solar panels. A bit of an initial investment, but they manage to pay for themselves many times over.

Wind farms. The only complaints people have about them is a matter of aesthetics. Blocking a view, and all that. But there are aesthetics and aesthetics. If you think about all the electrical power they produce without pouring carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the air, that they do not block rivers that fish such as salmon need for spawning, nor do they create a lot of radioactive waste that no one seems to know what to do with, those stately rotating turbines suddenly become quite attractive.

Well, there is another complaint about wind farms:   the possibility of killing migratory birds if the wind farm happens to be on a migratory bird route. Well—first, I've seen a lot of Canada geese flying either north or south, depending on the season. Classic "V" formations. But they are always at such an altitude that the idea of a bunch of them getting smacked by the slow-turning rotor blades in a wind farm seems downright ludicrous. Unless the wind farm is located in or near marshes and wetlands that the birds might use for rest and feeding stops. But that's simply solved. Don't build wind farms in swamps!! Not a good idea for several reasons.

Some years back, I had an acquaintance (a co-worker) who put a wind turbine in his back yard. It supplied all his household electricity needs. In fact, Seattle City Light thought something was malfunctioning because his meter was running backwards! He wasn't taking power out of the system, he was putting it in! And it seems that, legally, Seattle City Light owed him money!

City Light had a wall-eyed fit! They tried everything they could think of to have the wind turbine declared illegal. Among other things, they tried to get his neighbors to file complaints. But what he got instead were neighbors dropping by, say, "Cool! How do I go about setting up a wind turbine like yours!??" So City Light called in the Federal Aviation Administration and the Civil Aeronautics Board. Randy lived near the north end of the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. And he had a tower!! The Feds came out, looked things over, and told Randy to put a flashing red light on the wind turbine. Just a precaution, and, they admitted, essentially unnecessary. If any airliner, on its landing approach, was coming in so low that they might clip Randy's wind turbine, they were already in very serious trouble!!

So—Randy gets all his household electricity, running all his light, heat, kitchen appliances, stereo system, and big-screen television for free, and Seattle City Light has to send him a small check every month for the electricity he puts back into the system.

[Moral of Randy's story:    the idea that "You can't beat City Hall" is propaganda put forth by—City Hall!]

Tidal power. There are various ways that this can be harnessed to produce power. The regular raising and lowering of the sea level. Slow, but regular, and the effect can be greatly speeded up with a system of gears to turn turbines. And the much swifter ebb and flow of vast quantities of water through straits and channels (fifty-foot tides in the Bay of Fundy).

Carrying the power of the oceans much further, I read a series of articles in the now-defunct science magazine, Omni a couple of decades ago. The article advocated placing turbines—very large turbines—in various selected places, such as the Gulf Stream, and anchoring them to the sea floor. These would be like ducted fans, and there could be a whole string of them in series, or several such strings. They would be deep enough so that they would not interfere with shipping in any way (and submarine services and other submersibles would be notified of their locations). A series of these turbines in the Gulf Stream, the article said, could easily supply electrical power to the entire Eastern Seaboard of the United States, and perhaps even further.

The only complaints voiced were similar to the ones about wind farms and migratory birds:   but the idea of whales, porpoises, and other pelagic creatures getting caught in, being injured by, or damaging the turbines could be easily solved by equipping them with coverings of mesh fine enough so that it doesn't impede the flow of the current, but blocks anything much larger that plankton. Not a problem.

I've not heard anything about the implementation of this scheme, but considering the inexorable power of ocean currents and the fact that they are all over the earth's oceans, it would seem to be a rich and as yet totally untapped energy source.

Another friend of mine came up with a scheme that sounds like it has a great deal of promise. He was thinking in terms of supplying electrical power for a base on the moon.

Bury pipes under a large, flat area. This could be very large, even, say, a mile square. The pipes would be filled with fluid, and they would zig-zag back and fourth through a row of turbines. Then, place a large sheet of insulating material over half of the area, placing it on rails. The rails would allow you to periodically roll the sheet of insulation from one half of the area to the other half. Okay. Got that?

Now. When the sun is shining on the area (on the moon, for a period of about two weeks), one half is absorbing heat while the other half is insulated from the heat, Then, as the sun moves to the other side of the moon, you roll the insulating sheet to the other half. Do this back and forth dance a couple of times and you have a large patch of ground growing very hot (absorbing the sun's heat), then being prevented from radiating it back out when the insulation is rolled back over it;   this, while the patch adjacent to it is insulated from the sun's heat and radiates any residual heat when the sun is not shining on it. One patch grows very hot, the other patch grows very cold. Got it?

The fluid, heated under one patch and cooled under the other, races back and forth through the row of turbines.

Voila!! Electicity. More that enough to power the moon base.

If placed in a desert area here on earth, this would not be as efficient as it would be on the moon, it would still work quite well.

####

Speaking of the moon, an old friend and drinking buddy of mine is science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle. We met in the late 1950s, saw each other frequently in our favorite watering-hole (beer joint) near the University of Washington campus, the the legendary and infamous Blue Moon Tavern. Jerry moved to California in the mid-1960s, and it was there that he began writing science fiction, often collaborating with Larry Niven (The Mote in God's Eye Lucifer's Hammer, Footfall, others). But science fiction notwithstanding, Jerry is a solidly grounded scientist, has worked in the space program, has written articles in scientific journals, had a regular column on computers in Byte magazine, and during the Reagan administration, he was a science advisor to Reagan, both advocating for and supplying technical information on the projected "Star Wars" program. What all he is doing currently, I'm not sure. I last saw him in 1985 when he and Larry Niven were in Seattle promoting their latest book.

Jerry's viewpoint was, and is, strongly conservative, whereas some here have accused me of being a member of the dreaded "Liberal Mafia," so Jerry and I had some fairly intense discussions (while remaining fast friends). But there are a number of points upon which Jerry and I are in agreement.

One point is that he said, "Considering that there is a wide variety of relatively easy sources of energy, and considering all the essential products that are made from petroleum" (he enumerated such things as pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, plastics) "that simply burning it to provide energy is a crime against the future! Because it's not going to last forever. The remaining reserves get scarcer and more difficult to get at with each passing year."

And he also opposed both Gulf Wars, on the basis that they were really all about who controls the oil reserves, and said that "We should develop some of the other readily available sources of energy and let the Arabs drink their oil!" And he was NOT talking about drilling for oil in the U. S., off-shore or otherwise.

So, if anyone has the bad judgment to buy a gas-hog these days, that's his problem, not mine.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Aug 10 - 07:58 PM

Hershey's makes damn good chocolate. Feeling sorry for the unfortunate English, they have consented to take over Cadbury's, the BP of chocolate, and make it into a product worth eating.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 03:30 AM

Hershey's makes damn good chocolate.

Oh you poor soul.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 12:35 PM

There is a Dilettante Chocolate shop and café just a few blocks from where I live. I have to go past the place very swiftly and resolutely or I run the danger of going through the shop like Pac-Man gone mad!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 03:22 PM

Gets even better and better Don.

Reported in the UK press today is the fact that pressure tests on the cement plugs introduced through the temporary cap and BOP have shown that the Macondo Well has been sealed off by what they call a "Top Kill" operation.

I certainly hope that the White House and this absolute "army" of US litigation specialists take note and fully understand the implications of this fact. I will detail them

1) The pressure cap that was used to finally seal-off the oil and gas leak was fitted over the Transocean Deepwater Horizon's BOP (The one whose "Kill Rams" failed on 20th April, 2010 and caused the blow-out, fire and explosion on the rig)

2) The BOP is connected to the Well Conductor that was originally put in place by Transocean Mariana's in Autumn of 2009

3) The Well Conductor is supported by the Guide-Base and is the one also put in place at the start of the Macondo Well drilling operation by Transocean Mariana's

4) Inside the Well the casing is the casing originally specified and approved for the job

5) The blow-out occurred on 20th April, 2010 when operations to abandon the well to hand it over for production were in their final stages, which means that drilling had long since stopped and that cementing the three plugs to temporarily seal the well were in full swing or nearing completion.

What can be drawn from the above:

If they are introducing cement through the same BOP, if they are pumping that cement down through the same Conductor, Guide-Base and Casing, AND IT HAS NOW BEEN SUCCESSFUL, why was it not successful the first time round.

BP did not run or operate Deepwater Horizon - Transocean Drilling did

BP did not shut-off and by-pass rig safety systems and alarms - Transocean Drilling employees on the rig did.

BP were not responsible for the operation and maintenance of the BOP - Transocean Drilling employees onboard the Deepwater Horizon were.

BP were not responsible for the cementing operation ongoing on 20th April, 2010 - A specialist crew from American oil service company Halliburton were.

Two things failed - First the cement job done by American specialist sub-contractors (Halliburton) - Second the "Kill-Rams" on the BOP owned, operated and supposedly maintained by American Drilling Company (Transocean)

What of course will be found is that anyone pursuing either of those Contractors is that in recent years they have shifted their corporate HQ's to "optimise" their tax status (Halliburton you will find in Dubai and Transocean you will find in Geneva). Let's see Obama "keeping his boot on their necks" shall we?? But let me say I for one will not be holding my breath waiting for it, as they, like the supposed US Regulatory Bodies will walk away from this "Scot Free" and Barak Obama will be only too pleased to allow it to happen.

As to the "environmental" disaster:

The Gulf of Mexico is a large water body, it contains 660 quadrillion gallons of water. Using the worst case estimate for the spill, say 252 million gallons of oil.

So actually in real terms you are eventually looking at a oil/water concentration of 1part per 2.6 billion. This is what Hayward meant by "modest impact". This was estimated at the time of the disaster yet Barack Obama still managed to extort 20bn from BP and its shareholders.

Now, since then we know approx one third of the oil has evaporated because the Gulf is a warm water body and approximately one third has been skimmed or recovered.

US scientists now have estimated that the spill is around 5 million gallons.

What is interesting is that a large number of investment houses were advised by private sector scientists and ecologists that the spill would have practically no impact on the Gulf and to hold and buy BP shares at 300p.

The misinformation came from the fawning green media, blood thirsty US politicians seeking support for mid term elections by beating up big oil and vacuous celebrities. Of course the top government scientists are now "surprised" that the oil has dissappeared.

When the army of litigation specialists line up and start talking about Class Actions, there could a beaut headed in the direction of the US Government and large media organisations for their handling and reporting of this incident.

Don't hear so much from all these "expert" eye-witnesses now. My guess is that they, quite rightly have been told the STFU as they were only digging themselves and the companies they worked for into holes more efficiently than Prairie Dogs.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 05:17 PM

I have spent many days in Hershey. The air is sweet with chocolate. Enormous silos of chocolate beans stand vigil over the town and amusment park. Compared to Dove chocolate however, Hershey is virtually wasting good beans.

Don there are new internal combustion machines that are greener and more efficient than all electric cars but they are years awayfrom production. The person in a Smart car can look smug if they want but I only see a potentially squished victim in a coke can.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 05:55 PM

History of the Macondo well is clouded because of the restriction of data by all concerned. It will be filled in as civil and criminal cases proceed

The latter events are fairly well publicized through testimony of those on the rig.
Cement job: "A meeting was held at 1:00pm on April 20, between the BP head drilling engineer and the lead transocean engineer. It is not known what they were arguing about, but it is likely they were arguing over the results of the pressure tests. Apparently the Transocean engineers thought the results showed that formation fluids were entering the wellbore due to a failed cemebt job, but they were overruled by the head BP drilling engineer who made the decision to continue. (One of the Transocean people was heard saying "well at least we have the BOP's", after leaving the meeting.)
At 7:50pm a pressure test was performed after which BP incorrectly concluded that formation fluids were not entering the wellbore. However, right after that, personnel on the rig floor reportee that the fluid rate exiting the well was greater than the fluid rate entering the well. At 9:00pm, gas began coming out of the riser. Despite this, the pumping of seawater did not stop until 9:31pm. The gas ignited at 9:49 and the entire rig was engulfed in flames.
The blind shear rams on the blowout preventers were not closed until after this." ..........

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33936462/Macondo-History-Before-the-Blowout

At all stages of the drilling operation, BP personnel were in charge of procedures, regardless of who were performing them. As operator of the well, this was their duty and responsibility.
As noted above, it will be some months before the story is filled in; perhaps longer than that as legal wrangling over release of documents, invoking of Fifth Amendment by participants, and court procedures dictate.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 06:50 PM

BP took shortcuts which may have compromised the integrity of the well.
"1. A cement bond log was not run......to evaluate the effectiveness of the cement job. Slumberger was on site to run the cement bond log but BP decided not to run one, presumably to save the 12 hours it would take to run it. Pressure tests were run instead, but were inconclusive.
2. A lockdown sleeve was not used in the wellhead seal assembly for the production casing. This could cause the seal to unseat if there is upward movement of the casing, allowing fluid to enter the riser.
3. Only 261 bbl of mud was circulated prior to the cement job, which is far short of the usual 1.5 times the hole volume that is recommended by API........This also saved 12 hours of time.
4. BP has been criticized for running production casing instead of a liner. The liner would have been sealed inside the next higher liner which would have given an additional seal to prevent migration of formation fluids. ...............
5. There was testimony that BP only used 6 centralizers instead of the recommended 21 on the production casing. ......Centralizers keep the casing in the middle of the hole to improve the cement bond."

The writer of the article, however, thinks the "key cause of the blowout is simple human error on the part of the BP head drilling engineer, who did not notice that the well was kicking. The well was likely kicking all afternoon and evening, and no one noticed until gas was coming out of the riser. It is inexcusable to allow this to go unnoticed for such a long time."

(Continuation of article referenced in previous post.)

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 07:46 PM

Teribus would make excuses for the Mephistopheles if he were British. Blind patriotism warps one's thinking processes.

And lest Teribus resort to playing the schoolyard game of "Same to you, smarty-pants!" I have already gone on record as saying that I'm not all that patriotic. I know the deficiencies of the American political system pretty well, and am fully aware of and thoroughly deplore the predatory business practices of American corporations.

Or any corporations, for that matter.

And when I agreed with Teribus that "there is plenty of blame to go around," I was not, as he seems to be trying to do, excluding BP.

Grow up, Teribus.

####

By the way, about that link to Dilletante Chocolate that I posted above. Be warned that if you spend too much time drooling at the picture, you could gain as much as fifteen pounds!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 09:57 PM

""And when I agreed with Teribus that "there is plenty of blame to go around," I was not, as he seems to be trying to do, excluding BP.""

Nobody is trying to exclude BP from responsibility. I for one am simply asking why all American Companies involved seem to have been handed a "get out of jail free card", while the foreign company takes a constant bloody shellacking, both from the president, and from the American people.

Transocean and Halliburton have vanished beyond the horizon, leaving your President threatening the direst penalties for BP, and, please note, since the day of the disaster he has emphasised the "BRITISH" PETROLEUM in every comment he has made on the spill.

Maybe he HAS mentioned Transocean and Halliburton, but if so those mentions have been largely ignored by your press, which is naturally baying for BP blood because that is what will sell copy.

There is a total imbalance in this whole reaction, and you don't seem able to see it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 10:40 PM

Some members of the Transocean crew invoked the Fifth Amendment, probably on order from management because of the liability ramifications.
BP, Transocean and Haliburton have been ordered by the Justice Department to preserve their records. Attorney General Holder announced both a criminal and civil investigation.

Investigators will look for violations of the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Species Treaty Act and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, among others. Responsibility for the killing of 11 workers and injury to 17 others will be determined.

This will be a complex and extended series of actions.

Oil and Gas International Report, June 2, 2010.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 11:00 PM

Fret not, Don T. Transocean and Haliburton are a long way from being off the hook.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 12:48 AM

From: Q - PM
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 06:50 PM

&

From: Q - PM
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 05:55 PM

The cement job obviously failed on 20th April. Using exactly the same equipment the "Top Kill" cement job of the previous days has succeeded making the points raised by Q irrelevant:

How many centralisers are in place now? Same as before.

Has a liner been used? No same as before there is no way of running a liner into the hole

It is damn sure Halliburton and transocean will not get away BP will pursue them or their insurers. Saint Obama won't as he and his administration have got egg all over their faces on this so they will wish to avoid additional embarassment. But Pension funds and investors who lost heavily because of the rhetoric and grandstanding of the President and his administration may yet have their day. Biggest loser however will be the IRS as all costs will effectively be written off and will reduce BP's tax bill to zero in the US.

BP still remains the industry leader when it comes to deep drilling and no other oil company in the world is better at finding the stuff than BP.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:25 PM

Saint Obama won't as he and his administration have got egg all over their faces on this so they will wish to avoid additional embarassment.

What egg is that? Only to the far right.

BP still remains the industry leader when it comes to deep drilling and no other oil company in the world is better at finding the stuff than BP.

Sadly BP is also the undisputed world leader in egregious safety violations.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 03:06 PM

A group of companies drill in the deep water Gulf of Mexico, all using more of less the same rigs and equipment (Transocean, etc.).
Shell is far from alone with deepwater finds in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Exxon-Mobil Hoover-Diana field. May 2000, was a discovery; in 2001 Union Oil drilled in 9700 feet of water, and Marathon to 7700 feet. Shell drilled in 5300 feet of water in 1997.
Chevron and BP both drilled to total depths 30,000 feet and more.
In 2004, 16 wells were drilled in water depths of 7500 feet or more.

The art is in selection of lease blocks. This depends upon interpretation of deep seismic data (a group of university trained engineers and geologists, backed by a cadre of computer wizards, market analysts (will a discovery yield a good return on investment?), etc., and the amount of money the company wishes to bid for the rights.
A new prospect is a gamble, because the presence of a likely structure on seismic sections is not enough to guarantee production success; incomplete porosity and poor relationships to source material may limit the amount of hydrocarbons pooled in the structure.
MMS is responsible for overseeing the drilling activity, but has been lax in enforcing rules on drilling, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 04:20 PM

In the above, should be- BP is far from alone.....

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 04:23 PM

MMS is responsible for overseeing the drilling activity, but has been lax in enforcing rules on drilling, etc.

True and heads should definitely roll. The anti-oversight atmosphere created by the Republican Party in this country over the last 30 years has a lot to answer for.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 08:24 PM

A head did roll, but it's wait and see if improvements occur. Regional heads (i. e. Alaska, John Goll) still in place.
New rules, etc. yet to be finalized.
Accidents in the Alaskan portion of the Beaufort Sea could cause spillover to the Canadian portion.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 10:33 AM

Bet this comes as no surprise to anybody:

"Fake Fishermen" Compensation Claims

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 12:54 PM

The TV news showed a couple of them being arrested and hauled off to the hoosegow.
Their fraud is despicable; sorting out false from legitimate claims delays compensation to those who deserve it.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 12 Aug 10 - 01:24 PM

Well done BP, after a long struggle you succeded in blocking it. I don't suppose anybody in America will agree, but there you go.

Maybe the yanks will calm down a bit now and maybe Obama will ofer an apology for being such a twat.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Aug 10 - 12:20 AM

Bet this comes as no surprise to anybody:

"Fake Fishermen" Compensation Claims

Linkee no workee. Unless you wanted to direct us to the Torygraph 404 page.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Aug 10 - 10:13 AM

""The TV news showed a couple of them being arrested and hauled off to the hoosegow.
Their fraud is despicable; sorting out false from legitimate claims delays compensation to those who deserve it.""

That news item also confirmed (at least the BBC ran it) that I was right when I said that BP had been paying compensation on claims from the start.

According to the news item, they've been forced by the fraudsters to stop doing so, and investigate every claim before paying.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Aug 10 - 01:11 PM

As of August 9, Bp had paid out only $319 million of the $20 billion supposedly available. Payments to the administration fund are quarterly, and could be stopped at any time.

Look for BP to hold back on payments and encourage court actions on the part of claimants, dragging out the process and trying to limit actual compensation.

Americans may be relieved that the oil flow has stopped, but don't expect applause.
Lost fishing, loss of tourism, spending except for necessities limited, and everyone holding their breath about damage to the lower food chain and the future of the ecosystem.
It may be years before trust in the safety of Gulf seafood and Gulf waters is rebuilt.

Surface oil is being cleaned up, but the majority of the flow is still in deeper waters, along with toxic dispersants.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 13 Aug 10 - 01:27 PM

Q without wanting to get into a slagging match, I would like to comment on this

Quote
As of August 9, Bp had paid out only $319 million of the $20 billion supposedly available. Payments to the administration fund are quarterly, and could be stopped at any time.

Look for BP to hold back on payments and encourage court actions on the part of claimants, dragging out the process and trying to limit actual compensation.

Americans may be relieved that the oil flow has stopped, but don't expect applause.
Unquote

Do all Americans ever question what they did in Iraq and what it has done to many many innocent civilians in that country. Are they being compensated for loss of life/houses/business etc etc?

Peace

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Aug 10 - 02:17 PM

Sheesh, Arthur- bad as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan, that cannot fairly be equated with the Gulf of Mexico situation.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 13 Aug 10 - 02:58 PM

You must be joking.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Aug 10 - 03:25 PM

No joke, Arthur_itis. You're taking a cheap shot by trying to drag something extraneous into the discussion. If I wanted to dig back into Britain's recent history, I could come up with a number of similar items. But the whole discussion would degenerate into a pointless slagging match.

It's not far from that now, as a matter of fact.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Aug 10 - 04:17 PM

The State of Alabama has filed suit against BP, Transocean, Cameron and Haliburton for the catastrophic oil spill. Anadarko and others also named.
The state attorney general is suing them "for the amount it will take to make Alabama whole." The state seeks to recover lost tax revenues (a considerable amount for Alabama and Louisiana).
The decision stems from fear that victims will not be adequately compensated.
The timing was questioned by the governor, as well as the possible cost of outside counsel.
Toronto Globe and Mail, Irish Times, Reuters.

Adm. Allen says it is a time to "wait and see" if more work is needed to completely close the well.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Aug 10 - 02:55 AM

The state attorney general is suing them "for the amount it will take to make Alabama whole." The state seeks to recover lost tax revenues

Such an action will fail.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Aug 10 - 01:37 PM

Knowing juries in that area, they will convict and name a large amount, but it will be appealed through the courts for a few years before closure is reached for a fraction of the amount originally named in the suit.
The action is partly political, not supported by the governor (an oil company supporter) and his wing of the party, and may get lost when the next batch of politicians is voted in.

Its importance is in focus(s)ing the anger of Alabamans and its influence on future regulations controlling offshore Alabama industries.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Les from Hull
Date: 14 Aug 10 - 01:43 PM

The only winners here will be lawyers, right?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Aug 10 - 08:09 PM

Yes, business will be good for the legal clans for years to come.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Aug 10 - 09:01 PM

The state attorney general is suing them "for the amount it will take to make Alabama whole." The state seeks to recover lost tax revenues

That action will fail

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Aug 10 - 11:40 PM

The state attorney general is suing them "for the amount it will take to make Alabama whole." The state seeks to recover lost tax revenues

That action will fail

Say it again, Teribus. Nobody read it the first 2 times.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Aug 10 - 02:28 PM

Numerous other suits have been filed, some on the part of fisheries and shrimpers. Cost of public services is subject of another. Loss of government revenue, loss of business revenue, loss of earning capacity, damage to real and personal property, loss of natural resources, environmental damage, are all subject to legal actions and determination by the courts.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: chazkratz
Date: 15 Aug 10 - 07:32 PM

Q! You win! You kept trying and got the devil's number. Good on yer.

Charles

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 09:05 AM

Alabama whole? is the "w" a typo?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Aug 10 - 10:48 AM

A Company Press Release

Eyewitness Macondo
This spring and summer, the world's eyes have been focused on the Gulf of Mexico, where the Deepwater Horizon tragedy and subsequent oil spill from the Macondo well took place. Under BP's direction, several teams from Aker Solutions have been playing important parts during this period.

Here you can read eyewitness accounts of how Aker Solutions employees have supported BP throughout these challenging days.

http://www.akersolutions.com/Internet/MediaCentre/Featurestories/OilandGas/EyewitnessMacondo.htm

A joint industry response
Personnel onshore and offshore felt that the working relationship with BP and other contractors involved during these challenging months was a productive one.

In the media BP has been criticised for not doing enough, or not doing things quickly enough. "Having worked closely with BP over these months, our impression was quite the opposite. We were impressed that we always got everything we asked for, usually faster than expected," says Holthe. "All resources were made available at any given time".

BP was overall responsible for the operations, and in turn answered to the US Coast Guard. Many contractors and suppliers were involved both at the spill site and onshore. The feedback from Aker Solutions personnel is that BP was receptive towards advice and all suggestions were listened to, discussed properly and decisions were well founded and communicated. "That is how we in the field experienced it," adds Holthe.

"It really was a team effort, where the entire Gulf coast oil and gas community pulled together," adds Erik Wiik. "I am pleased that our company could contribute to managing this emergency. Our specialist knowledge of subsea equipment and our experience in performing operations on the seabed in deep waters are at the very core of our business".

Although Erik Wiik describes the last few months as "interesting and an incredible learning experience", he is not keen on repeating it.

"The oil industry has learned a lot from this incident. We will learn even more from it in the aftermath, utilise this knowledge, improve and ensure such an incident like this never happens again," concludes Wiik.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:05 AM

Now here is something interesting:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7964890/Oil-spill-safety-valve-was-wrongly-plumbed-on-rig-says-

Harry Thierens, BP's vice president for drilling and completions, told a US political hearing that the blowout preventer was connected to a test pipe, rather than the correct one.

"It would mean that the pipe rams could not be closed," Mr Thierens said in evidence to a federal panel on Wednesday. "I was frankly astonished that this could have happened."

On Tuesday, one of the survivors of BP's Deepwater Horizon explosion admitted to the hearing that his bonus was in part based on how quickly repairs were carried out.

That now explains how our guys could not shut the bloody thing off on the 22nd April.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Alice
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:15 AM

"our guys"?

Ah, so you ARE seeing this as Britain vs US. Pitiful.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:45 AM

"our guys"?

Ah, so you ARE seeing this as Britain vs US. Pitiful.

Ehmm No actually Alice dear, by stating "our guys" I was referring to the crew onboard the BOA Sub C who arrived on the scene of the explosion at 02:00hrs on the morning of the 21st April, who after the initial search for survivors was called off were tasked with trying to operate the "Kill Rams" of the BOP using the Work Class ROV's onboard.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:58 AM

"Oil Industry's answers frustrate federal panel"
"The lead investigator examining the Deepwater Horizon disaster appears to be losing patience with vague or nonresponsive responses from oficials including a BP vice president.
"Since the hearings began in May, three BP officials with intimate knowledge of events leading up to the April 20 explosion ....have declined to trestify before a joint Coast Guard and Interior Department panel, which convened again Wednesday. .....Two invoked their constitutional right not to produce testimony that could incriminate themselves."...........
Coast Guard lead inestigator expressed particular agitation at answers given by BP vice president for drilling Harry Thierens, ......" Thierens could not recall any details about past accidents at Thunderhorse (Gulf area).
"Investigators were also dissatisfied about the confusing chain of command aboard the rig.
"Thierens said he lacked a "thorough understanding" of the command structure, a response that left Nguyen unhappy.
"Someone has got to be in charge," Nguyen said about the three-legged stool command aboard the rig.
Thierens testified that he was not notified of changes made in the blowout preventer.... "the changes hampered efforts to take control of the well, he said."

In other testimony, a Transocean supervisor denied testimony by rig electronics technician Mike Williams.
Los Angeles Times, August 26, 2010.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:18 PM

Wall Street Journal- Aug. 26, 2010
"BP Casts Blame for Failure of Device"
"Undocumented changes to the blowout preventer that should have shut down BP PLC's runaway Gulf well slowed efforts to stop the flow of oil, a BP official [Thierens] testified Wednesday.
After spending days trying to use underwater robots to trigger the blowout preventer, ...... workers discovered that it had been modified........
"The controls that the robots were trying to use that were supposed to close the valves were actually connected to a testing device that couldn't shut off the well, he said,"
......."Even after they learned of the modifications, workers still couldn't make the blowout preventer work.
"BP has said that Transocean bears at least partial responsibility .....because of the equipment's failure, and the companies have been casting blame on each other."
"...Transocean said that the blowout preventer had passed numerous tests.......and the modifications had no impact on efforts to shut down the well afterward."

I am quoting excerpts, because reports can be withdrawn. The report in the Telegraph linked by Teribus can't be accessed now.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:06 PM

The State of Florida has thanked BP for their contributions 26 million US$ for advertising that they say has "Saved their Summer", resulting in bookings and visitor figures up 6% on last year. Now what did Obama, or any member of his administration do?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: gnu
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:33 PM

Barry swam in the gulf. Worth a lot more than $26M advertising.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: gnu
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:35 PM

BTW... I haven't been following the story. Am I to understand the vast majority of the spilled oil just vanished?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 03:51 PM

It doesn't seem to be making that many oil slicks on the surface anymore, but that was one helluva lot of oil that came gushing out of that hole. It's still drifting around down there doing all kinds of unpleasant stuff to the ecosystem of the Gulf.

That much oil doesn't just disappear!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: gnu
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 03:57 PM

But, Don... I thought I read a while back that "they" were baffled as the ecosystem just seemed to take care of it. I was wondering if that kinda bullshit was still being proffered. There just might be a giant oil eating clam in the deep blue, but I am sure it would take at least several to digest all that oil.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:03 PM

As previously pointed out, marine scientists at the University of Georgia Univ, South Florida, and others are worried about the effect on microplankton and bottom of the food chain organisms of the oil in plumes at depth in the Gulf. The oil didn't just go away, much is in deep water and thus unseen.
BP and the government don't mention or assign little attention to these concerns.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: gnu
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:42 PM

That's my point Q. It didn't just disappear or was "taken care of" as stated in a few articles I read a while back. That is the time I stopped following the media reports. I found it too disturbing... as if there was a conspiracy to distance BP from future responsibility and liablility for the oil... to bolster up stocks and give the rich more time to get out while the getting was good.

I could be all wet about it but I don't believe in magic.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:43 PM

It ain't over yet!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:53 PM

It is being munched away at by microbes even as we speak, according to reports from the US.

Oh dear not quite the disaster everybody was predicting.

And GfS is right it ain't over yet we still have all those law suits to get through, you know the ones where people have actually got to prove they lost something.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:29 PM

Does BP have some special blessing when they screw up, Teribus?

I'm quite sure they just wish it would all go away, and they seem to be trying to simply pull a bag over their head and blythly walk away, whistling a merry little tune. But there are a few itty-bitty questions that remain. Such as:

How come Prince William Sound is still an ecological disaster area some twenty-two years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill?

Almost 20 years after the spill, a team of scientists at the University of North Carolina found that the effects are lasting far longer than expected. The team estimates some shoreline Arctic habitats may take up to 30 years to recover. Exxon Mobil denies any concerns over this, stating that they anticipated a remaining fraction that they assert will not cause any long-term ecological impacts, according to the conclusions of 350 peer-reviewed studies. However, a study from scientists from the NOAA concluded that this contamination can produce chronic low-level exposure, discourage subsistence where the contamination is heavy, and decrease the "wilderness character" of the area.

And there was one helluva lot more oil that gushed into the Gulf than was spilled in Prince William Sound.

We haven't seen the end of this. And we won't for some time to come.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 05:00 AM

OK Don answer the question yourself.

What are the points of difference between Prince William Sound and the waters of the Gulf of Mexico?

In the two instances you wish compare how did the oil get there?

In the two instances you wish to compare is it true that oil occurs naturally through seabed seepage in one location but not at the other?

In the two instances you wish to compare is it true that in one location because of millenia of crude oil seepage microbes naturally exist and evolve that literally eat and break down the oil, and that such microbes are totally absent at the other location?

What are the points of difference in the characteristics of the oil being transported through Prince Edward Sound and that escaping from the Macondo Well?

Does BP have some special blessing when they screw up, Teribus?

I'm quite sure they just wish it would all go away, and they seem to be trying to simply pull a bag over their head and blythly walk away, whistling a merry little tune.

You are talking here I presume Don about the Major International Oil Company who:

1) IMMEDIATELY faced up to their responsibilities from the outset;

2) Voluntarily declared that they WOULD NOT hide behind the US$75 million ceiling on liability from the outset;

3) Who then proceeded to do everything in their power to mitigate the damage caused and seal off the well.

Now if you want comparisons Don shall I go into how Exxon behaved after the Valdez incident dropped off the radar, how Dow Chemicals (Union Carbide) has behaved after Bhopal; or Occidental Oil behaved after the Piper Alpha.

By fresh revelations each day it becomes clearer and clearer that this accident was caused not by BP but by the actions of the specialist contractors that they employed, both predominantly US Companies - OK now let us see President Barack Obama hold their feet to the fire, lets see that political "light-weight" keep his boot on their necks.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spil
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 04:04 PM

Arthur, the American people have not had the influence in Washington that a true democracy requires. It's true that BP has been given carte blanche by the regulatory agencies and this is one of the big deceptions of the Obama Administration. Still, to blame American citizens who may wind up paying taxes and job losses for BP's malfeasance is the height of lack of charity. If it happened in Britain, I doubt the reaction on the part of the citizenry would be
much different than here in the US.

BP screwed up and wrecked the Gulf of Mexico and put fishermen and other tradespeople
out of business. And you want to blame them for it?

BTW they are not honoring their debts to the working people of the Gulf as we knew they wouldn't. They are chiseling out by perverting the regulatory system and unfortunately
they are allowed to get away with it. The American people are being short-changed by this crooked goliath.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: toadfrog
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 04:27 PM

Teribus:
1. BP was in control of the rig, and made the decisions. The people from Transocean were ignored.
2. It is not as if this were the first time BP cut corners on safety, with disastrous effects. Cutting corners on safety is its modus operandi. This has been notoriously so for years, BP unquestionably has the worst corporate culture of any of the oil majors. Exxon had a big oil spill, cleaned up its act, and has little trouble since. It has become the best run of the major oil companies.
3. Brown, the old CEO of BP, expanded by buying up competitors and cutting costs--notably safety, relentlessly. Then came the Texas City explosion. Tony Hayward, when he took over, said words to the effect safety would be his number one priority. He didn't. There were additional, ongoing spills in Alaska.
4. I do not know which, if any, American companies have rigs in the North Sea, but would think that if Americans had a really bad oil spill there and destroyed the coast of Scotland, the Brits would have harsh things to say about that firm. And I would not necessarily attribute that to bigotry,

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: gnu
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 04:41 PM

Just a comment... it does NOT matter ONE IOTA about anything BP may or may not have done re costs or safety or ANYTHING else. They owned the rig. They drilled. They spilled.

They have to pay. Period.

This bullshit about the oil disappearing is an attempt to NOT PAY in future and it is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: pdq
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 04:49 PM

The oil spill in Alaska fouled beeches and wound up between and under rocks. The Gulf oil spill was kept off beeches for the most part so it was not trapped.

The main reason that the oil spilled in the Gulf is dissapearing is the water temperature, which is (just a guess) about 20 degrees F warmer than the cold Pacific Ocean waters of Alaska. The important microbes don't thrive in cold water.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 05:41 PM

""And there was one helluva lot more oil that gushed into the Gulf than was spilled in Prince William Sound.""

OK Don F, granting you that one, would you like maybe to give us the comparative water volumes of Prince William Sound, and the Gulf, and how the oil volumes compare when the difference is accounted for?

You know! How many gallons per cubic kilometre, or how many tonnes per million tonnes of seawater.

It seems to me both facile and probably inaccurate to compare the quantity of oil without taking into account the water volumes involved.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Alice
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 05:57 PM

The Gulf oil went into the marshes, not just onto beaches. The marshes are nursery habitat for the marine animals and birds. It has been devastating. The oyster beds were devastated by the gulf oil disaster.
100% mortality reported in some oyster beds

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 06:09 PM

Oysters, prawns, crabs and other bottom organisms are limited in distribution by depth/oxygen content of water/food availability/water temperature and other factors. They are not spread across the Gulf but are in a zone nearshore; many fish are limited by food supply/ oxygen content of water, temperature, etc. as well.
Marine scientists are worried that the oil plumes might affect the zones with valuable food supplies, reducing oxygen content, micro-organisms on which seafood species depend, and other needs of species harvested in the Gulf.

The total area and volume of the Gulf is not pertinent.
The area concerned is near-offshore Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and perhaps Cuba. Mexico seems to be well away from plume projections.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: pdq
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 07:51 PM

I hope this link works. It is a...

                                                                                     NASA satellite photo of oil plume

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 03:19 AM

gnu:

Just a comment... it does NOT matter ONE IOTA about anything BP may or may not have done re costs or safety or ANYTHING else. They owned the rig. They drilled. They spilled.

They have to pay. Period.

This bullshit about the oil disappearing is an attempt to NOT PAY in future and it is wrong.

Already had much of this discussion with Q and eventually in the end he had to concede that I was correct.

Point 1: "They (BP) owned the rig" - Completely wrong the Deepwater Horizon was owned by a Company called Transocean Drilling - That is a matter of fact.

Point 2: "They (BP) drilled" - Again completely wrong those responsible for drilling on the Transocean Deepwaer Drilling Rig Deepwater Horizon were all Transocean employees. These were the personnel responsible for operating and maintaining the BOP which failed (It now looks as though the BOP was subject to unauthorised modifications and that it had been connected in such a way as to prevent it working by Transocean employees). These were the personnel responsible for by-passing safety systems and shutting off alarms onboard the Deepwater Horizon.

Point 3: "They (BP) spilled" - Most certainly they did, then made every effort possible to mitigate the effects of the leak - accomplishing that inside three months operating in waters and drilling depths right at the forefront on technology (XTOC 1 - another "Transocean" drilled well in the Gulf of Mexico - in far shallower water took nine months)

Point 4: "They (BP) have to pay" - No doubt and that is what they have stated all along so what is your comment? They could have hid behind the 75 million ceiling but did not voluntarily, they have always stated from the outset that they would pay all legitimate claims (and they have already been inundated by many fraudulant claims). I have seen nothing on this thread or in any publication where anybody has said that they should not pay.

BTW they are not honoring their debts to the working people of the Gulf as we knew they wouldn't. They are chiseling out by perverting the regulatory system and unfortunately
they are allowed to get away with it. The American people are being short-changed by this crooked goliath. Stringsinger

Examples please? Or is this just something else you fling about without substantiation and expect people to accept it because it is what they want to hear?

The Gulf oil went into the marshes, not just onto beaches. The marshes are nursery habitat for the marine animals and birds. It has been devastating. Alice

Very little of the oil from the Macondo Well actually made it to shore, lost of marine life was minute compared to the Exxon Valdez incident. By the way Alice did you accept who I meant when I said "our guys" in the previous post of mine that you commented on, or are you above owning up to your own mistakes?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 03:24 AM

Marine scientists are worried that the oil plumes might affect the zones with valuable food supplies, reducing oxygen content, micro-organisms on which seafood species depend, and other needs of species harvested in the Gulf.

Oxygen content of the water within the subsea plumes has been measured and found to be non-critical - outside the plume 67% oxgenated within the plume 57% - no effect on marine life.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:40 AM

""The total area and volume of the Gulf is not pertinent.""

True to form, ducking a pertinent point with a personal opinion presented as fact.

I was not one of those who initiated comparisons with other spills, but, since those comparisons are being used to blacken BP with accusations of causing greater damage than any others, a comparison of the water volumes in proportion to the volume of the spill is not only pertinent, it is necessary in order to make your case stand up.

The size of the Gulf is not pertinent, nor is the size of Prince William sound. What is pertinent is the volume of water in each case which was polluted, and the volume of pollutant in each case.

I started out my working life as an analytical chemist, and am fully conversant with the concept of dilution, for which the two parameters are required. By the tone of your response, You are not.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:36 AM

From New Scientist this week
Terry Hazen, a microbial ecologist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, says that he has studied the same plume as the Woods Hole team. His results show that microbes were eating up the plumes rapidly - so fast, he says, that the oil must already have vanished (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1195979). He is adamant: "The plume is no longer there. It's gone."

Other microbial biologists, including Gary King of Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge and Jay Grimes of the University of Southern Mississippi in Ocean Springs, agree with Hazen's rates of degradation.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 03:17 PM

Dr. Jay Grimes discussed the NOAA report, saying it is the best available so far, but also said the most inconclusive variable is the amount of oil that decomposed at sea. He has said nothing about plume analysis.

Many scientists suspect "the figure for oil remaining in the water is much higher than the report's estimates, and complain that federal officials have refused to reveal the algorithms used to derive the calculations that relied on measurement and estimates provided by Gulf response teams in daily operational reports."
The Times-Picayune, August 17, 2010.

Charles Hopkinson and researchers, Univ. Georgia and Georgia Sea Grant, said "Almost 80 per cent of the oil has not been recovered, they say. They took particular issue with the NIC's dismissal of dispersed oil hidden below the surface. "one major conception is that oil that has dissolved into water is gone and, therefore harmless," says Charles Hopkinson.
At stake here is the toxicity of dissolved oil in water.
Several teams [including Univ. Georgia] have plans to travel to the Gulf and look for oil trapped in deeper waters.
New Scientist, August 21, 2010, article by Sujata Gupta, "Gulf Spill: Is the Oil Lurking Underwater?".

Early on, I made a mistake about the drilling crew on the floor (Transocean, not BP) when the gusher destroyed the rig. Terribus greatly expands on this.

Nothing, however, changes the fact that BP, as principal, had charge of operations and was either complicit in or failed to direct the rig operator and others in the conduct of the operation. This was the thrust of my posts.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: gnu
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 03:31 PM

Teribus. My apologies. I stand corrected.

But, are they still liable as they were the ones who paid to have the rig drill and stood to profit from it?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 04:36 PM

700 Up

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 04:43 PM

are they still liable as they were the ones who paid to have the rig drill and stood to profit from it?

They are liable gnu because they are the Operating Company who hold the exploration licence for that concession, nothing whatsoever to do with who paid for what or who stood to gain or lose. As they are the Operator they are liable, that does not necessarily mean that they (BP) were at fault or to blame and that is becoming clearer and clearer by the day that they were not.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: gnu
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:40 PM

That is a matter for the courts. Liability is responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 05:48 PM

Gnu, it is something like the Captain (Commanding Officer) of a ship that runs aground or is involved in a collision at sea. He may have been fast asleep through out the run up to the incident and right the way through it. However it will be the Captain who will be held responsible, it will be the Captain of the ship who is Court Martialed, alongside the Officer of the Watch whose fault it was.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:02 PM

Part 1:
"The saddest sight this week has been of America's first family taking a quick one-day holiday in Florida. Crashing visitor numbers and plummeting fish sales have devastated the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. There is talk of an 80% drop in revenues in some resorts. Yet figures show just 16 of the state's 180 holiday beaches are at all polluted, while the bulk of the spill appears to have dispersed, or be dispersing out at sea. Having hyped the disaster for political purposes, the president is now frantically trying to play it down.

The spill has been another classic of state terror in which incident and response are wholly out of proportion to one another. As the oil leak began back in April, Obama declared a disaster, banned fishing in 37% of the Gulf and ordered a halt to underwater oil exploration, putting some 27,000 jobs at risk. Columnists screamed it was "Obama's 9/11" and demanded he "harness the nation's outrage". He was attacked for playing golf within 58 days of the disaster. With dial-a-quote scientists howling blue murder, any who might have looked at previous spills and thought it might not be so bad would have been unpatriotic disaster-deniers.

Hardly a day passed without the president castigating BP, the hated "British Petroleum" – never its American site operators, Transocean and Halliburton, or his own regulators. It was a field day for xenophobes. The president used the sort of language normally visited on global terrorists. He was going to "get BP" and make them "pay for this". It was another Hurricane Katrina, but one that could thankfully be blamed on foreigners. A Louisiana seafood supplier declared: "If I had a bomb, I would put it on London" – which would have him in Guantánamo Bay if he were Muslim and speaking of New York. Foreigners had raped America. It was they, they, they …

Now, mysteriously, Obama speaks of we, we, we … who "have this thing under control". His environment adviser, Carol Browner, says "the vast majority of the oil appears to have gone". Less than 10% of coastline saw any oil at all. There have been no sightings of dead fish floating in the sea and most fishing will soon be "back to normal". The Gulf is apparently "clean, safe and open for business", and a lovely place to take the kids. It is OK, everyone. Disaster has turned to triumph, so let us all think about the midterm elections.

So whose fault really was the collapse in the local economy? It began with a failed oil well, responsibility resting with BP, but blame still not apportioned. Yet as every terrorist knows, it is not the bomb that does the real damage, it is the publicity multiplier given it by the media and politics. The bomb causes the bang; the target is then relied on to supply the megaphone.

So it has proved in the Gulf. Competing scientists have had a field day. While some kept up the hysteria this week with such declarations as "We don't know the long term yet", those with links to the administration or fishing for BP's $500m offered to Gulf environmental research are suddenly optimists.

Most of the oil has mysteriously evaporated, like that from the biggest similar disaster, the dumping of oil into the Persian Gulf in 1991 by Iraqi forces. America did not turn a hair, any more than it did about the Union Carbide explosion that killed 15,000 Indians in Bhopal in 1984, with only trivial compensation paid.

The issue is apparently no longer the number of "barrels" spilled but the sort of oil, the location of the spill and the temperature of the ambient water and air. Contamination of most wildlife appears to have been minimal. Even crustaceans recover fast, while the ban on fishing has boosted fish stocks.

Part 2:
"The great conflation of fear – often egged on by "the science" – is the result of government gladly allowing itself to go mad for a day, to raise a fear, glean a headline or win a budget rise. Obama grotesquely exaggerated the oil threat to advance his personal and party cause. He is now struggling to downplay it.

The US Travel Association is suing BP for $500m in promotional compensation. Why not sue the president? It was he who led the charge in disaster rhetoric, with a daily stream of negative publicity for the Gulf of Mexico, before trying, somewhat pathetically, to make up for it. He and others were surely accessories after the fact."

The above by Simon Jenkins, not someone I normally agree with, taken from the Guardian of 17th August, 2010 in an article entitled:

Oil spilled. But hysteria did the real damage in the Gulf

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:55 PM

Disaster spawns fallout that goes far beyond the event and which is long-lasting. Trust will take time to re-build and money will be lost and lives disrupted until it is regained.

Moreover, the studies of the effect are by no means complete. Many are waiting for the other shoe to drop.

As the company with the worst record for mistakes, especially considering Alyeska and the refineries, and numbers of fines for disregard of safety that make other majors seem pristine, Americans will worry about BP's operations at all levels and in all situations.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 12:09 AM

As the company with the worst record for mistakes, especially considering Alyeska and the refineries, and numbers of fines for disregard of safety that make other majors seem pristine, Americans will worry about BP's operations at all levels and in all situations.

BP's Safety record in the GOM was far,far better than that of Transocean. The safety record that you attribute to BP was that of the American Company it took over (AMOCO) caused by serious errors made by that company's management seven years before BP bought them.

As has been detailed in reports while your President has grandstanded and postured, the actual perpetrators, two American Contractors have been let off "Scot Free" (Transocean & Halliburton).

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 03:01 PM

Ye gawds, Teribus! You're starting to sound like Colonel Blimp!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 11:04 AM

Why Don did he tell the truth too?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:34 PM

OK so who owns Mariner Energy Inc., becuase that had a gas blast in the same area as BP.

I am sure somebody in the USA will find a possibility of blaming BP

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11014645

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: toadfrog
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 02:01 PM

Teribus:

Can you tell us the source of the statements you are making?
I have by now read four long and seemingly painstaking accounts of the Machado explosion, three in the WSJ and one in the New York Times. All step-by step, detailed, with diagrams and referring to events on a time line with explicit quotations from testimony. None of them leaves any doubt that BP was in control of the rig--aside from the fact that key BP people were missing from the bridge on the day of the explosion because they were busy ushering BP executives around the rig. All four point to a long sequence of events in which BP repeatedly made the quick and dirty choice. And on or near the final day, it made a bizarre decision to draw out drilling fluid and pump in seawater, overruling the strong objections of Transocean people on the spot.

I also understand that Shell, also a British Company, has run a formal presentation describing precautions Shell normally takes and pointing out that BP did not follow what it considers best practices. I have not read or seen that presentation, so I may be wrong on that.

So the question is this. Your version of the story squarely contradicts every factual source I am aware of. Is there any evidence to support it? If so, what is it?

I think I am only hearing patriotic slogans from you--no facts.
Where do you get this stuff from?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Alice
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 02:22 PM

toadfrog, do you mean Macondo explosion? I googled Machado because I had not heard of that one. The Macondo Prospect in the gulf is where the Deep Horizon rig was drilling.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 02:44 PM

Royal Dutch Shell (Shell Oil) is not British, but home office in The Netherlands.

Macondo is the name of the BP Gulf drilling project which blew out. Each drilling prospect (well, or group of wells) is given a name under which data about the prospect can be summarized.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 06:30 PM

Well toadfrog best ask the journalists who wrote the stories how many years experience they have in the offshore oil & gas industry.

While BP may well have been in "control" of the rig in as much as they hired Transocean to do the drilling for them, it WAS Transocean doing the drilling. Transocean would be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the equipment on the rig.

Reported today in the UK press is that the original BOP has now been recovered. If it does transpire that Transocean "plumbed" it incorrectly, or made "local" and unauthorised modifications to it without the approval and knowledge of BP or of Cameron (BOP's manufacturers) then Transocean are, like the Macondo Well, in very deep water.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 06:40 PM

Sorry toadfrog, that did not really answer your question about where I get my information from. I refer you to:

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 24 Aug 10 - 10:48 AM

Authoratitave eyewitness account not by a journalist but by someone who was there, involved, and knows what they are talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:05 AM

The first inkling that there WAS something wrong with the BOP and the way it was connected up inside.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:45 AM

Where I make it known to Alice exactly what I meant by "our guys", i.e. fellow workers.

I have not worked on BOA Sub C but have done quite a bit of work on her sister ship BOA Deep C

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: toadfrog
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 07:20 PM

Teribus:

O.k. I assume that by referring to yourself as a person with "years of experience" in the offshore oil and gas industry, you are saying you work for BP. Is this correct? You have talked with one [unidentified] "authoritative" person who were present and is not a journalist. In other words, someone who may have directly caused the incident has assured you it was not his/her fault. And I assume the reason this individual cannot be identified because he/she is a likely witness in litigation and potentially liable.

Is that a fair summary of what you are saying, or have I missed something? If this is what you are saying, your story does not inspire confidence.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 09:31 PM

Testimony being taken at the hearing being conducted by the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, in the latest installment, focused on functions that keep a rig afloat and in place above a well, and the command structure.

The attorney representing the rig's chief mechanic, noted that the rig's captain, Curt Kuchta, earlier had testified that he had not been trained to disconnect the rig from the well in an emergency- the rig's last line of defense in case of a blowout.
An audit by BP marine safety personnel identified about 70 problems on board the rig. Testimony was that 63 of the problems had been addressed.

US Coast Guard Captain Hung Nguyen, co-chair of the (Macondo) Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation, criticised the separation of navigation and drilling decisions aboard floating drilling rigs, a management structure commonly used throughout the oil industry.
"The fact that ship captains do not have oversight over drilling "is one of the problems we have here," Nguyen said in a Dow Jones Newswires report.
From Upstreamonline.com, a weekly international oil news source, 24 Aug 2010.

The BOP was lifted by a semi-submersible vessel operated by Helix Energy Solutions.

An article in the same source, Aug. 30, covering the probe, said BP engineers made mistakes, including mis-reading tests of the well's stability.
"The managers decided the test results confirmed the well was in good shape, clearing the way for rig workers to begin replacing drilling fluid in the well, which is heavier than oil and natural gas, with seawater.
"The seawater was too light to prevent the natural gas that had begun leaking into the well from shooting up the pipe to the rig, where it exploded and killed 11 workers."
BP will issue findings of its internal probe by Sept. 10.

Bloomberg copies some of Upstream Online reports, a weekly journal that charges subscription fees, but these items are taken directly from the journal.

The dispute over cement jobs on the rig intensifies, is another article in Upstream Online, but I can't access without subscription.




.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 09:44 PM

Digression-
Norwegian billionaire says his Seadrill company is considering a takeover bid for Transocean. "We are looking at companies that are cheap and that have good equipment."
Upstream Online, Sept. 1, 2010.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 12:17 AM

toadfrog you obviously did not read the link.

You are wrong in quite a number of your assumptions

I do not work for BP (I did about twenty years ago)

The person who wrote the article is not a journalist, and does not work for BP, he was not present at the time of the incident so can in no way be liable or involved. The ship they talk of was the command ship for the response effort from 02:00hrs on the morning of the 22nd April (tells you that in the link).

One article toadfrog? No toadfrog I did not just read one article, what I read and had access to were the daily reports and various logs from the vessel throughout the rescue and well capping phases of the operation up until such time as the leak was stopped.

Don't know about you toadfrog but for me that tops four fucking articles written by journalists who have never been offshore in their lives or worked in the offshore oil & gas industry - TRUE??

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 12:35 AM

Testimony being taken at the hearing being conducted by the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, in the latest installment, focused on functions that keep a rig afloat and in place above a well, and the command structure.

The attorney representing the rig's chief mechanic, **noted that the rig's captain, Curt Kuchta, earlier had testified that he had not been trained to disconnect the rig from the well in an emergency- the rig's last line of defense in case of a blowout.**

An audit by BP marine safety personnel identified about 70 problems on board the rig. Testimony was that 63 of the problems had been addressed.

US Coast Guard Captain Hung Nguyen, co-chair of the (Macondo) Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation, criticised the separation of navigation and drilling decisions aboard floating drilling rigs, a management structure commonly used throughout the oil industry.
"The fact that ship captains do not have oversight over drilling "is one of the problems we have here," Nguyen said in a Dow Jones Newswires report.
From Upstreamonline.com, a weekly international oil news source, 24 Aug 2010.

US Coast Guard Captain Hung Nguyen wants to STFU sit back listen and learn, instead of making a complete and utter arse of himself. Some points about the above:

1) The "marine" crew of any offshore vessel or unit is completely seperate from the construction, survey, diving, or drilling crew for a very good reason - whatever they are on has to float, so if there is an emergency you have crews using their own expertise to dealt with any problems in the areas they know best.

2) The Rigs Captain in incidents like what happened onboard the Deepwater Horizon had far more important and pressing concerns than disconnecting from the well, an operation by the way that could not have been performed at the time. Besides which at his emergency station the Captain of the rig would be nowhere near where any of those actions could be taken.

3) If the rig was subject to marine safety audit, then that audit would conform to an industry standard checklist and would not cover any of the drilling equipment or drilling procedures other than aspects that impact the marine operation of the vessel. There would be separate audits to cover drilling.

4) No confusion within the industry at all about the roles and responsibilities of the Master (Marine Captain); Offshore Installation Manager; Tool Pusher.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 12:49 AM

The managers decided the test results confirmed the well was in good shape

The well was in good shape, it was in exactly the same condition on the 15th July when the leak was stopped as it was on the 20th April when it blew. The reason it blew was because the cement job failed (Halliburton responsibility) as did the BOP (Transocean responsibility).

The drilling had ceased on the 17th when the cementing job started, at least three separate cement plugs would have been set, and that job was completed. The drilling mud used as counterweight is then replaced with salt water because the drilling mud is toxic and expensive and the BOP is then removed and recovered, a corrosion cap is then placed over the open conductor pipe sticking out from the top of the guide base, then they wait for the Production rig to arrive. Nothing has been replaced or substituted down hole on the Macondo Well apart from the cement plugs.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 03:03 PM

Testimony was that BP engineers made a mistake by requesting the mud could be replaced with seawater because they mis-read tests of the well's stability.

It will be some time before all concerned have had a chance to testify and conductors of the hearing will write their report.
At this stage, there is no point in quarreling with testimony that is incomplete.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 09:35 PM

A BP spokesman said its lawyers were allowed to "review" their Deepwater Horizon report, and had provided legal advice and council to the investigative team, but would not elaborate on what that entailed.
"Some internal and external" lawyers for BP worked with investigators who prepared the report. This raises questions about the independence of the report, which assigned much of the blame to contractors Transocean and Haliburton.
The report was quickly blasted by Transocean, Haliburton 'and others'. As operator, BP faces many lawsuits over the accident.

"For BP, the stakes are high as it tries to dodge accusations of gross negligence ..... Under the Clean water Act, BP might have to pay fines of at least $1100 a barrel of oil spilled. But if the government finds the spill resulted from gross negligene, the fine could be $4300, potentially boosting the total to more than $20 billion."
Wall Street Journal, Sept. 10, 2010.

Other news-
Norway has halted new offshore projects until the causes of the Gulf rig blast are known.
North Sea producers are fighting to convince the British government that the UK does not need a moratorium on drilling, like the one imposed in the U. S. British MPs will grill outgoing BP PLC CEO Tony Hayward as part of an investigation into risks.
Doubt that he will be more open-mouthed with them than he was with the U.S. Congressional Committee.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 09:37 PM

Last item from Reuters.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 12:11 AM

One thing that the internal investigation does is knock a few "red herrings" down, that people on this forum were banging on about.

If the findings are verified as stated then criminal negligence may be proven against Transocean but gross negligence on the part of BP will be unlikely.

The timeline surprised me in as much as I was not aware that Transocean played around for as lonng as they did 40 minutes.

I await results of the examination of the BOP.

I stated from the outset two things happened:

1- The Cement Job failed

2- The BOP failed to function as it should

The "red herring" about Cement Bond Logging has now been dismissed, the operation could not be performed, it was not a case of BP attempting to cut costs. From someone in the industry involved in this aspect he said that even had they run such a test it would not have told them anything if the leak was at the shoe as stated in the report so far.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 04:26 PM

No red herrings have been dismissed. As would be expected, the report was self-serving and is being challenged in part by the contractors, particularly Haliburton and Transocean. Cameron has yet to comment.
Its main purpose (all 195 pages) is to provide the story that BP will use in the forthcoming suits and in arguments to limit penalty fines from the government.

Stanley Gordon, the maritime lawyer representing some of the oil workers, took aim at the lack of sworn testimony from people interviewed by BP.
".......people intrviewed, not under sworn testimony conditions, can make comments that are untruthful and there is no legal recourse to pursue perjury in such cases."
No verbatim transcripts of any interviews were produced.

Wall Street Journal, Sept. 9, 2010.

The report suggested the major failures were the cement job by Haliburton and failure of Transocean to implement safety measures in response to the pressure buildup.
Other investigations may substantiate, or refute the BP findings.
Dripping Oil, Sept. 9, 2010.
The government report is in the future, since much testimony remains to be taken.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 01:01 AM

The government report is in the future, since much testimony remains to be taken.

Would that be the report of the Government investigating team whose powers of subpoena powers have been blocked by the Senate Q?

After all, much testimony remains to be taken and:

.......people intrviewed, not under sworn testimony conditions, can make comments that are untruthful and there is no legal recourse to pursue perjury in such cases."

But at least the people carrying out the investigation for BP (Note the team included BP personnel and independent experts brought in to examine the evidence) did get to talk to key figures which without the power of subpoena the Government investigators and inquisitors will not even see.

Additional to that the two bodies are performing two completely different functions and purposes. The BP report details merely what happened and the timeframe and order in which things happened, as such the BP Report actually "blames" no-one (Read it), the purpose of the BP report is to outline what happened for "lessons learned" to prevent re-occurrence.

FBI investigation to establish "Criminal Negligence" will have a tough time pinning anything on BP - That based on my first analogy of the taxi driver and the passenger, any traffic violation is the fault and responsibility of the driver not the passenger.

Government investigation to establish "Gross Negligence" will I believe cast accusations of such negligence at the doors of quite a number of players involved, to varying degrees.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 01:43 AM

If you believe the Warren Report, I guess you are just waiting with baited breath and great anxiety for this new 'report'....good luck!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 01:50 PM

BP has threatened to withdrawl their 20 billion dollar clean up reparations.

While the commercials about helping Gulf restaurants and business are running night and day for millions of dollars... the true story is that restaurants that made $200, 000 are actually offered $4,500 or nothing.

When BP said they would honor all legitimate claims, it was code for your claims will all have to be litigated unless you take the pitance we offer!

but are we surprised?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 02:40 PM

The 'block' is long gone.
"Senate GOP Will Lift Block on Subpoena Power Against BP." Washington Post, July 1, 2010, The Plum Line, Greg Sargent.

Senator Jim DeMint put a block on the legislation during a voice vote. Later his spokesman said, "Senator DeMint does not and will not have an objection to this legislation. He simply objected on behalf of other senators who had not been given time to review the bill."
The colums says that the leadership has read the bill and decided it has no objections, it will move forward if a Dem asks again for it to be passed by unaminous consent.
A spokesman for Mitch McConnell, confirms that the leadership has no objections to the bill. "I don't know of any objections," he said. "What I do know is that there is bipartisan support."

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 03:12 PM

Reparations for onshore businesses probably will require litigation.
Plaintiffs and banding together. Several large legal firms have moved in, offering the needed legal expertise for a percentage of the possible awards.
Yes, litigation will keep BP and plaintiff lawyers busy for a long time to come. Many plaintiffs will go away unsatisfied.

Remember that business losses often can be deducted against profits, so business tax lawyers will be busy as well.

Unfortunately my son the lawyer practices in Canada, so he cannot share in the pie.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 02:03 AM

IF the block has indeed been lifted then I for one will be delighted, after all it was put in place to protect MMS, with that gone the other culprits in this affair, who did actually fail miserably in their "professional" capacities can be dragged before an investigation and roasted to the same degree that BP has been from day one.

In the attitudes shown BP stood up and shouldered their responsibilities while the other ducked and ran, the MMS to stave off recriminations got a name change, and Transocean and Halliburton made a bloody fortune rectifying mistakes that were avoidable and entirely their own.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 01:40 PM

We shall see what we shall see.
And miles to go before we sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 11:18 AM

A US presidential commission investigating the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster has found no evidence to support charges that BP and its rig partners put profits ahead of safety.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/8118435/Everybody-hates-me-says-BP-oil-spill-investigator.html

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 11:30 AM

My take away on this debacle is that all of the oil companies were promising in their environmental impact statements that they could handle a 100,000 barrel per day spill. They were all lying. BP got caught in that lie.

They were all trading off profits for safety. But since that was "standard industry practice" they were excused.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 12:09 PM

So the facts are out at last. US companies at fault - not BP.

About time for an apology, don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 03:14 PM

Couldn't agree with you more Richard.

The yanks bark becuase they think they own the world and can do and say what they like. They have done this with BP and now the truth is coming out.

May I also mention George Bush who thinks that waterboarding is acceptable, because HE was the president of the almighty USA and he can do what he damn well likes, including drawing the UK into his battles with that bottom creeper, Tony Blair.

Things have a way of coming back and biting you in the bum. Its starting to happen.

You never know Bush and Blair may well one day face a War Crime tribunal. Also Obama may get thrown out at the end of his term.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 05:30 PM

My take away on this debacle is that all of the oil companies were promising in their environmental impact statements that they could handle a 100,000 barrel per day spill. They were all lying. BP got caught in that lie. - JTS

Operative words are "Spill" as opposed to "Blow-out"

They were all trading off profits for safety. - JTS

Well John a certain Mr Bartlit seems to totally disagree with you, you know which Mr Bartlit I am talking about don't you JTS, the one in charge of the Federal Investigation into the Deepwater Horizon Incident, the put in charge of it by the President of the United States of America.

Don't know about any apologies from Barak Hussein Obama but I bet there are few who earlier on were extremely vocal on this and other associated threads have now wound their necks in, there will be no apologies from them either, not the thing really to put your hands up and admit that you got it wrong.

The shit of course will really hit the fan when it comes to revealing what went wrong with the BOP and why TransOcean took 40 minutes to react.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:11 PM

Wall Street Journal, Nov. 9, 2010

The federal panel is seeking to move beyond findings that rig workers "didn't consciously put costs ahead of safety."
"The problem here is that there was a culture that did not promote safety and that culture failed," said Bob Graham, co-chairman of the panel created by U.S. President Obama. "Leaders did not take serious risks seriously enough; did not identify a risk that proved to be a failure."
William Reilly, the other co-chairman, said that "BPthe evidence is they are in need of top-to-bottom reform."
He said that "we know a safety culture must be led from the top, and permeate a company."
Possible root causes are the subject of current hearings.
Steve Lewis, a drilling engineer...... said one reason that rig workers may have missed red flags is that the well was designed as an exploration well with only the possibility of producing oil-...... when workers shifted to developing a production well after oil was discovered, BP may have had to rush to put new plans in place.

The hearings have a long way to go and it is too early to predict the outcome or what the conclusion will be. It begins to look like none of the three major participants will escape blame.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:17 PM

Sorry- Missing line in Reilly statement-
"....BP, Haliburton and Transocean are major respected companies operating throughout the Gulf and the evidence is... need........ reform."

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 07:11 PM

I heard the head of the commission say that they did not trade safety for lowers costs that day. and he stressed, that day.

I think the money that BP paid out was as much an admission that you will see from any company. They didn't take tens of billions of dollars off their bottom lines as a favor to Halliburton.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 12:27 AM

"I think the money that BP paid out was as much an admission that you will see from any company. They didn't take tens of billions of dollars off their bottom lines as a favor to Halliburton."

As the Licenced Operator of the field BP lived up to and honoured what it saw as its obligations, it did this waiving its right to hide behind the 75 million US$ liability cap. It did all this voluntarily while your President "Grandstanding" for the press was shooting his mouth off about "kicking ass" and keeping his "boot on the necks of BP". No such talk from Saint Obama about either Halliburton or TransOcean sharing the load although it is now perfectly apparent that it was they who were to blame to some considerable extent. Quite the contrary both Halliburton and TransOcean continued to profit from the accident by providing rigs, crews and support for the relief well drilling operations so in effect they got paid 200% extra to work on the job that they fucked up.

Not to worry though, they will be dragged through the courts and BP will have its pay day from both.

Of the other culprit, the US Regulatory Body, we have not heard a peep. Short-comings there were so bad they had to bury the shame by changing its name. Of all involved if any "body" showed that it needed reform it was them.

By the bye the emphasis was put on "that day" because the investigation was after all about the incident that occurred on the 20th April 2010, please do not be so blinkered as to suppose that if throughout the drilling of the Macondo Well the Operator and contractors put profit before safety right up until the last day the chief investigator would not mention it.

And Q is perfectly correct there is a long way to go yet, lawyers not qualified on the date of this incident will have very successful careers and retire on the proceeds from the cases arising from it. Personally I cannot wait for the reports relating to the BOP to come out, I do not think that TransOcean are so keen though.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 11:57 AM

Of course Obama was tough on BP, they had the leased the oilfield from the Feds, had they not? But implying that it was anti-British bigotry is beyond silly.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 12:14 PM

Well judge for yourself

BP - Field operator with 65% interest in the Field with exploration phase just ending - Foreign Multi-National;

Andarko Petroleum - Field Operator with 25% interest in the Field - American;

MOEX - Field Operator with 10% interest in the Field - American;

Halliburton - Service Contractor - Who fucked up and got caught in a lie - American;

Transocean - Drilling Contractor - Who fucked up - American
MMS - US Government Regulatory Body - Who fucked up - American;


Now guess who Barak Obama decided to get tough with???

Doesn't take a bloody genius does it, to identify who gets selected to fulfil the role of the "Big Bad Wolf" in Saint Obama's grandstanding - couldn't possibly be an American Company or a US Government Department could it? After all it would look bad in the press.

The continual references to "British Petroleum" which he knew damn well how to play. Well what goes round comes round. My guess is that when it comes to the gross/criminal negligence part it is going to be MMS & Transocean that get the roasting, particularly the idiots who by-passed and disabled the rigs safety systems and alarms.

And of course the Transocean employees who modified the BOP and plumbed it back incorrectly. Then there is the Transocean employee who took 40 minutes to react to the indications that the well was going to blow. Oh yeah JTS - Big Bad BP right enough - bloody pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 12:19 PM

He got tough with the principal owner of the lease. He got tough with the largest, most visible company with the biggest pockets.

You need to take the chip off your shoulder.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 01:16 PM

Obama is a great improvement on the previous incumbent - but if you think back to the beginning there were many loudmouthed American jackasses (a bit like Sheriff GW Pepper in the early Bond films) all going for the alien.

Obama is supposed to be (and often is) interested in right and wrong (as, it seems to me, Bush's memoirs make plain that Bush was not). That someone has deep pockets or has the lease does not mean that they did wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 01:38 PM

Someone did wrong. BP registered an environmental impact statement, as a condition of that lease, saying that they were capable of dealing with a hundred thousand barrels per day. They were and are responsible for their subcontractors. If they can collect in court the damages from those subcontractors, well and good. But they were and are responsible, even if not at fault.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 02:06 PM

Wall Street Journal, Nov. 10, 2010.

Testimony led this week by Messrs. Graham and Reilly has painted a picture of managers aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig .....operating on the fly, changing complex plans and making a series of decisions that increased the risks of a catastrophic blowout.
While commission officials stopped short of blaming these decisions on a desire to cut costs, they have said that cost pressures loomed over the operation.
Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson told Commission members Tuesday that it was critical for the industry to instill a strong safety culture. "It's in the companies' best interests to improve in this area," he said.
The Interior Dept. has asked Congress for an additional $75 million to hire more-skilled workers, such as petroleum engineers, instead of relying so much on rig inspectors using a check-the-box oversight approach.
It isn't clear whether the request will find support among newly empowered Republicans in Congress or from oil-industry leaders.

Mr Tilerson, Exxon Mobil CEO, pointed out that it would be tough for regulatory agancies to hire people skilled enough in the complex technology of deepwater drilling to oversee such operations effectively. "We are an industry hiring the best and brightest people, and we pay them so they will come work for us," he said. "It's a difficult challenge for [regulatory agencies] to have people at the same levelof competency."

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 04:17 PM

This is the Exxon of the Exxon Valdez fame is it?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 04:45 PM

Who would know better?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 06:03 PM

There is no relationship between the failure of a tanker crew and the collapse of control by those in charge of a complex drilling operation.

And let's hope that safeguards result from the investigation into the drilling catastrophe.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 06:17 PM

So, Jack, why don't you read my explanation about a million posts above about the difference between liability for the negligence of an employee and liability for the negligence of a subcontractor, and then point us to the words of the lease that make BP liable for the damage caused by their subcontractors, or STFO?

Or maybe you're a bigot?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 06:26 PM

yes, of course, I didn't read your post so I am a bigot. Makes as much sense as the premise of this thread.
I once scolded an English setter for crapping on my lawn. That makes me a bigot to.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 06:34 PM

Are you sure it was an English Setter or maybe it was an Irish Setter or a Black Welsh Setter, Jack The Sailor?

Fancy having a go at a dog.

You Yanks got it wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: robomatic
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 06:41 PM

I was irritated by the very public quote in which counsel said they'd studied the 'heck' out of the matter and: "We have not seen a single instance where a human being made a conscious decision to favour dollars over safety."
Reason is, most executives don't make a conscious decision to 'do bad things'. I know plenty of BP folks (most of 'em in the US are American, BTW, and they don't get up in the morning saying "I'm going to foster corporate profits by endangering the lives of my fellow workers."

However, BP corporate decisions led to the Texas City 'massacre' and at least one fatal accident on the North Slope and they for sure contributed to the Offshore debacle in this instance. They are not alone, but they are not wide-eyed innocents. They played with safety margins at the very least.

Now they haven't got off scot free and I think they are entitled to seek co-payments from some of the other involved companies, but that counsel really irritated me.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 09:17 PM

Damage to coral may bode ill for Gulf
Cain Burdeau, Associated Press, Nov. 6, 2010

Federal scientists have found damage to deep sea coral and other marine life on the ocean floor several miles from the blown-out BP well. Damage could be considerably greater than officials had acknowledged. Charles Fisher, biologist with Pennsylvania State Univ. who led the expedition aboard a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Research vessel. "He said "There is an abundance of circumstantial data that suggests that what happened is related to the recent oil spill."
Most of the bottom is muddy, but coral areas are oases for marine life.

Will oil bring death to Gulf's rich web of life?
Miami Herald-Tribune, Kate Spinner, Nov. 6, 2010.
Worries voiced by David Hollander, chemical oceanographer, Univ. South Florida. The extent of damage to plankton may not be known for 1-2 years.

Dr. William Rea, Environmental Health Center, Dallas, expert on chemical injury, has been featured in several articles concerning illnesses associated with the oil spill.
A recent one, Nov. 11 on TV, concerns the dispersant used by BP.
"Health impacts include headaches, vomiting, diarrhoea, abdominal pains, chest pains, respiratory system damage, skin sensitisation, hypertension, central nervous system (CNS) depression, neurotoxic effects, cardiac arrhythmia and cardiovascular damage. The chemicals are also teratogenic, mutagenic and carcinogenic."
1.9 million gallons were released. The impact may not be known for some time. Ingestion in food is a major worry.
http://planetthrive.com/2010/11/dr-rea-treating-bp-oil-spill-victims/

From article by Dahr Jamail, Nov. 10, 2010.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 12:40 AM

"However, BP corporate decisions led to the Texas City 'massacre'"

What caused your Texas City 'massacre' was a decision taken 7 years before BP even owned the refinery, a decision taken the Amoco management of the day who did not lose their jobs, and who were not replaced by BP when they took over the refinery, so the place retained its working practices and safety culture - "business as usual".

Go back and read through the coverage of the Deepwater Horizon Blow Out and count the articles where any of the other players are mentioned by name. Mind you for some it has been an education, after all at the start of this thread you have people insisting that it was BP doing the drilling.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 08:08 AM

An internal safety review passed to the Today programme shows that Transocean - the company operating BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico - narrowly avoided a similar accident in the North Sea, four months earlier.
The blowout happened on Shell's Sedco 711 platform on 23 December last year as the Transocean crew was preparing to switch from a drilling operation to production, bringing the reservoir in stream.

The report, a nine-page safety review of the incident, details a series of errors and misjudgements that led to the blowout.

In a marked parallel with the Deepwater Horizon disaster, key indicators that something was going badly wrong were either misinterpreted or discounted - in this case in favour of a positive pressure test from a valve at the base of the well.

That valve had been dislodged, or damaged, in earlier operations and the report concludes: "The risk perception of barrier failure was blinkered by the positive inflow test."

By the time the crew realised there was a problem oil and gas from the reservoir was forcing its way up the drill shaft and out onto the rig.

Crucially there was not enough heavy mud available to pump back down into the well, counteracting the kick, or surge of gas and oil. A major spill was averted only when the BOP, or blowout preventer, was activated capping-off the well on the sea floor.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2010/12/a_near_miss_for_the_north_sea.html

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Dec 10 - 03:52 PM

An interesting review, much the same data discussed in several reports.
There seems to be blame affixing to all participants, but of course the operator was responsible.
The report of the Committee will be eagerly awaited.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: gnu
Date: 03 Mar 12 - 08:09 PM

$7.8B US settlement. Enough? And, of course, add to that the cost of all the cruise missiles and deaths and such.

Enjoy yer time at the gas pumps.

Go BP... straight to hell.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 03:28 AM

Rather confusing post there gnu.

What the hell has BP got to do with cruise missiles and the like.

Particularly liked the last bit:

"Go BP...straight to hell"

How idiotic - if it did, what would go to hell would be the pensions and retirement funds of millions of people - or do subscribe to Little Hawks ludicrous comic book notion of big evil companies and corporations that are planning global domination and the enslavement and destruction of the human race.

Court cases over this are not over by a long shot and the real culprits Halliburton and Transocean will be rightly brought to task.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 05:29 AM

" ... or do [you] subscribe to Little Hawks ludicrous comic book notion of big evil companies and corporations that are planning global domination and the enslavement and destruction of the human race."

No, Teribus, but I do subscribe to the FACT that "big evil corporations" are recklessly destroying the biosphere - which will lead, inevitably, to the destruction of the human race.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Stu
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 07:03 AM

"but I do subscribe to the FACT that "big evil corporations" are recklessly destroying the biosphere"

Well, capitalism is utterly incapable, and probably uninterested in regulating itself, and concerns itself with making money for the few, at the expense of the many. It's ever been thus and ever will be. The whole system is short-termist and unsustainable.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: gnu
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 08:16 AM

"What the hell has BP got to do with cruise missiles and the like."

The wars are NOT about oil? Hmmm...

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 10:19 AM

"The wars are NOT about oil?"

Nope.

"Well, capitalism is utterly incapable, and probably uninterested in regulating itself, and concerns itself with making money for the few, at the expense of the many. It's ever been thus and ever will be. The whole system is short-termist and unsustainable."

Capitalism hasn't done so bad so far, and has proved to be a damn sight more durable than any socialist utopia promised by many and delivered by no-one.

Ah "making money for the few at the expense of the many2

What complete and utter crap, i can almost hear the violins in the background. Go and find out who "owns" most of the shares in any company or on any stock market in the world - unions, pension funds and insurance companies.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Mar 12 - 04:34 PM

The usual cloud 13 lefties have entered this thread, and may ruin it as they have so many, cluttering it with nonsense.

To the point, BP has a new guide boss for their exploration; we hope that they have learned their lesson.

As briefly noted by Terribus, the well-being of BP affects a great many people, including most of those posting here, if they have savings in banks, pension funds, or stocks of the many companies that depend on the resource industry. Anyone who looks into the resource companies knows that profits are seldom more than the 10 percent that any business hopes for, the bulk of income used to pay stockholders, thousands of employees, operations, and a small bit set aside for future needs.
(Odd, few attack the current biggies, Apple and the like)

Oil is important, but it is impossible to make a logical case for the resource companies being responsible for wars and their bombs, etc.

The progress of restitution for damages in the Gulf is only beginning; BP itself has set aside 20 billion and may have to add to that if the U. S. government exacts penalties, and settlements are made for loss of revenue due to environmental damage, and consequent decisions by vacationers and businessmen to look elsewhere for their needs and interests.

Terribus strongly supports UK business and seems to have a special love for BP; the company has made mistakes and must pay for them. BP, however, will continue to be strong, and develop its potential in other energy sources as well as in petroleum.

I have raised the terrible ire of Teribus at times, but with regard to the importance and continuation of the world's current system of capitalism, I agree with his views.
Controls and improvements will always be needed, but reversion to some form of communal living is impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 11:17 AM

""To the point, BP has a new guide boss for their exploration; we hope that they have learned their lesson.""

Me too, and the lesson I hope they've learned is to ditch the US companies and make and fit their own blowout preventers and move the rigs using their own people. That way they'll only foot the bill for their own mistakes.

Looks as though we were right and the US firms are skating out from under on a teflon sleigh.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,jts
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 11:37 AM

Q,

"the bulk of income used to pay stockholders, thousands of employees, operations, and a small bit set aside for future needs."

You list "paying stock holders" first. Are you totally ignorant of how corporate business works or are you deliberately attempting to mislead?

Profits belong to the stock holders. Simply put. Revenue minus expenses equals the stockholders return on investment. Dividends and other forms of shareholder payout have to be counted as profit.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 03:30 PM

"...but it is impossible to make a logical case for the resource companies being responsible for wars...."

???????

Q, you're dealing in extremes, here. It's not "either / or."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Mar 12 - 03:41 PM

Of course the stockholders gain dividends in a well-run corporation, the dividends determined by the board based on profit, and they are reported as profit. The other payments are included in gross income, but most will appear as expenses in the tax forms.

Not sure what its is trying to quarrel about; I have been an infinitesimal stockholder in a number of corporations, and know that any dividend I receive is based on profit after expenses, but these expenses include money withheld for future use in exploration, perceived increases in expenses, additions to base, acquisitions, etc. I was merely trying to point out this fact to those who look at the gross income of a company and regard that with dismay.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: gnu
Date: 06 Mar 12 - 03:49 PM

I hope you didn't include me, Q. I know how companies finance. I know companies employ. Fact is, I only was making comment on the fact that "I" believe big oil starts wars with their own resources and relies on government(s) military resources to back them up. People die. Countless thousands in a decade or so.

I've said it before on other threads, including this one, I think. BP took a hit in The Gulf. BP, who was just setting up operations in Libya, wanted to renegoiate the RECENT deal with Quackdaffy and he said no, so... BOOM. Of course, that was after BP pulled out it's employees. A buddy of mine was in charge of those operations. Last time I heard from him was to let me know he was home safe and sound... just down the road from you.

I understand, to an uneducated extent, war and I believe it has three valid purposes. Ensuring future existence, culling the population, and opposing oppression (far too seldom on the last one). That does not mean I have to like war. Of course, I realize that my standard of living WAS won and continues to be sustained with the barrel of a gun and that I would much rather be on the team that wins. Still, to see the horror sickens me. Perhaps I am a hypocrite?

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 12 - 01:07 AM

"BP took a hit in The Gulf. BP, who was just setting up operations in Libya, wanted to renegotiate the RECENT deal with Quackdaffy and he said no, so... BOOM. Of course, that was after BP pulled out it's employees."

Ludicrous.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: gnu
Date: 15 Nov 12 - 01:33 PM

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- BP announced Thursday it settled criminal charges with the U.S. government over the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill for $4.5 billion. But that won't resolve some of the biggest liabilities still facing the company.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: kendall
Date: 15 Nov 12 - 01:51 PM

The cost of doing business (in a half assed way).

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Nov 12 - 04:33 PM

You can't fight a witchhunt.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: gnu
Date: 15 Nov 12 - 06:06 PM

"Witchhunt"? Ain't which about which witch spiled the oil. If your neighbour pisses on your flowers and destroys them, he owes you for the flowers.

BTW, you might think otherwise when all that piss starts fouling YOUR shoreline. It's on it's way. Just a matter of time.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: ollaimh
Date: 15 Nov 12 - 11:17 PM

poor suffering british petroleum just pead guilty to many criminal offences and there are still pending charges against some company officers. there is still a civil lawsuit.

its so terribel this holocoust against the down trodden britsh

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Nov 12 - 10:17 PM

There are still possible criminal charges against some BP individuals.

Hang 'em high!

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Nov 12 - 10:31 PM

It is is certainly interesting that Mr.Bridge has such a soft spot for this firm.    Read "blind spot".

So even those who love to wave the Marxist flag have an amazing liking for some of the biggest capitalists going.   One might even think there was a bit of hypocrisy here.    Nah, not a chance.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Nov 12 - 03:04 PM

BP has offshore interests in Arctic Canada. Their sloppy, cost-cutting practices are a worry to all of us in Canada.
Our regulations are abysmal, worse that those applied by the U.S. agencies.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Nov 12 - 04:12 PM

Ditto what Q said.

Subject: RE: BS: US bigots attack British Company (oil spill)
From: michaelr
Date: 17 Nov 12 - 08:03 PM

Witch hunt? Really? These fuckers fouled hundreds of miles of coastline, killed untold wildlife, and ruined the livelihoods of thousands of Gulf Coast fishermen and tourism providers and employees.

Richard Bridge, you are an idiot.