Louisiana Oil Rig Fire / Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill - Page 15 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

MSD · 08-19-2010, 12:03 PM

Nobody but die hard apologists expected the oil to really have disappeared. Corexit 9500 plus oil is no more toxic than oil alone (this is why BP switched from the more toxic Corexit 9527 at the urging of the EPA); and the evidence suggests that the unknown effects of dispersal of oil into the water column is likely less than the catastrophic damage to wetlands that would have occurred had oil been allowed to wash ashore. That's why as much dispersant as possible was used, now we have to figure out what to do from here.

roachboy · 08-24-2010, 05:43 AM

Fishing Industry in Gulf Still Worried About Levels of Toxins in the Water and the Impact on Marine Life

check out the transcript and/or webcast of this program.
the basic accusation here follows on the kind of information that was provided a few posts above this one. the oil is present, mixed with dispersants. it's not difficult to find. there is no mystery about what's happening. fishermen know what's happening. anyone who's there, seemingly, knows. but for some reason the infotainment coming from the bp/federal government combine seems to be alot more---o i dunno---goofy optimistic about things.

you'd almost think that the locals who see in this stream of infotainment a setting up of the ole cut-and-run are right.

and if that's not what's being set up, it's quite difficult to imagine what possible function could be getting served by acting as though a quite catastrophic situation simply doesn't exist.

except of course that no-one knows extent or magnitude or impact.

but it feels like we're being fed a line of shit.

kinda like shell and the nigerian government fed the un a line of shit in the report that's due out in december which essentially blames local people stealing oil for "90%" of the oil in the niger river delta

Outrage at UN decision to exonerate Shell for oil pollution in Niger delta | Environment | The Guardian

this flying in the face of information gathered over many years from non-governmental, non-royal dutch shell sources.

go figure.

Ourcrazymodern? · 08-25-2010, 07:46 AM

Probably you saw it, but this had a ring of truth to me:

"bp is gonna be here until the oil is gone." -from one of its commercials.

MSD · 08-27-2010, 10:01 AM

Looks like the majority of this plume is 50ppb of oil, the lc50 for almost all marine life in the area is on the order of 2-5ppm, so we're looking at hundreds of times less than what will be killing off wildlife en masse. This is surprisingly good news.

Ourcrazymodern? · 08-27-2010, 11:13 AM

Yeah...sorry I blew up. Quoting their ad was more unwarranted anti-capitalism. Acknowledging the relative insignificance of what happened too soon didn't even tickle this thread's thoughts.

roachboy · 08-27-2010, 12:01 PM

med---where's that information coming from? i've been searching around for a half hour already and can't find any reports or studies that say that. it'd be good if it were true, what you say. but i'd like to see the source if you have a link handy

aphrodisiac · 08-27-2010, 01:50 PM

i seem to remember that new scientist has details of the research that claimes the plume has been mostly degraded by baceria.

the thing is: all that organic carbon doesnt just dissapear... even if it isnt present in the form of an actual plume / oil spill, its still likely to massively f*ck up the ecosystem and have a negative impact on the local biodiversity

Ourcrazymodern? · 08-27-2010, 04:12 PM

The key-word being "local",
re-entering our systems carbon's
systematic beautiful.

Freaking out about this oil spill seems to have at least distracted us from the air we breathe, reading, I hope, as a railing against why it happened, as I think roachboy has intended.

Not that I know, OP, but you've reviewed the percentages.

Rekna · 09-02-2010, 11:34 AM

Here we go again....

aceventura3 · 10-07-2010, 11:26 AM

It appears that our government lied about the oil spill. Good thing people have short memories or there would certainly be more outrage.

Quote:

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration blocked efforts by government scientists to tell the public just how bad the Gulf oil spill could become and committed other missteps that raised questions about its competence and candor during the crisis, according to a commission appointed by the president to investigate the disaster.

In documents released Wednesday, the national oil spill commission's staff describes "not an incidental public relations problem" by the White House in the wake of the April 20 accident.

Among other things, the report says, the administration made erroneous early estimates of the spill's size, and President Barack Obama's senior energy adviser went on national TV and mischaracterized a government analysis by saying it showed most of the oil was "gone." The analysis actually said it could still be there.

"By initially underestimating the amount of oil flow and then, at the end of the summer, appearing to underestimate the amount of oil remaining in the Gulf, the federal government created the impression that it was either not fully competent to handle the spill or not fully candid with the American people about the scope of the problem," the report says.

The administration disputed the commission findings, saying senior government officials "were clear with the public what the worst-case flow rate could be."

In a statement Wednesday, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco and White House budget director Jeffrey Zients pointed out that in early May, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen told the public that the worst-case scenario could be more than 100,000 barrels a day, or 4.2 million gallons.

For the first time, the documents — which are preliminary findings by the panel's staff — show that the White House was directly involved in controlling the message as it struggled to convey that it, not BP, was in charge of responding to what eventually became the biggest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

Citing interviews with government officials, the report reveals that in late April or early May, the White House budget office denied a request from NOAA to make public its worst-case estimate of how much oil could spew from the blown-out well. The Unified Command — the government team in charge of the spill response — also was discussing the possibility of making the numbers public, the report says.

The report shows "the political process was in charge and science really does not have the role that was touted," said Christopher D'Elia, dean of environmental studies at Louisiana State University.

The White House budget office has traditionally been a clearinghouse for administration domestic policy. Why exactly the administration didn't want to emphasize the worst-case scenario is not made clear in the report.

However, Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget, said the budget office had concerns about the reliability of the NOAA estimates.

"The issue was the modeling, the science and the assumptions they were using to come up with their analysis. Not public relations or presentation," he said. "We offered NOAA suggestions of ways to improve their analysis, and they happily accepted it."

Jerry Miller, head of the White House science office's ocean subcommittee, told The Associated Press in an interview at a St. Petersburg, Fla., scientific conference on the oil spill that he didn't think the budget office censored NOAA.

"I would very much doubt that anyone would put restrictions on NOAA's ability to articulate factual information," Miller said.

The explosion in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 workers, spewed 206 million gallons of oil from the damaged oil well, and sank the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.

BP's drilling permit for the well originally estimated the worst-case scenario to be a leak of 6.8 million gallons per day. In late April, just after the spill began, the Coast Guard and NOAA received an updated worst-case estimate of 2.7 million to 4.6 million gallons per day.

While those figures were used as the basis for the government's response to the spill — they appeared on an internal Coast Guard situation report and on a dry-erase board in NOAA's Seattle war room — they were never announced to the public, according to the report.

However, they were, in fact, announced, as news stories from May 2 to May 5 show, though the figures received little attention at the time.

For more than a month after the explosion, government officials were telling the public that the well was releasing 210,000 gallons per day. In early August, in its final estimate of the spill's flow, the government said it was gushing 2.6 million gallons per day — close to the worst-case predictions.

The documents also criticize Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, saying that during a series of morning-show appearances on Aug. 4, she misrepresented the findings of a federal analysis of where the oil went and incorrectly portrayed it as a scientific assessment that was peer-reviewed by inside and outside experts.

"I think it's also important to note that our scientists have done an initial assessment, and more than three-quarters of the oil is gone," Browner said on NBC's "Today" show.

But the analysis never said it was gone, according to the commission. It said it was dispersed, dissolved or evaporated — meaning it could still be there. And while NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco was more cautious in her remarks at a news conference at the White House later that day, the commission staff accuses the two senior officials of contributing to the perception that the government's findings were more exact than they actually were.

Florida State University professor Ian MacDonald, who has repeatedly clashed with NOAA and the Coast Guard over the size of the spill, the existence of underwater plumes and oil in the sea floor, said he felt gratified by the report.

From the beginning, there was "a contradiction between discoveries and concerns by academic scientists and statements by NOAA," MacDonald said in an interview with the AP at the oil spill conference.

And he said it is still going on. MacDonald and Georgia Tech scientist Joseph Montoya said NOAA is at it again with statements saying there is no oil in ocean floor sediments. A University of Georgia science cruise, which Montoya was on, found ample evidence of oil on the Gulf floor.

Panel: Gov't blocked scientists on spill estimate - Yahoo! News

Anyone here gonna call for Obama to be "fired" or resign, like you did with the BP CEO?

Didn't think so.

Pearl Trade · 10-07-2010, 01:01 PM

Obama and the government messed up by suppressing the facts, but a BP CEO and president of the United States are two very different jobs.

roachboy · 10-07-2010, 01:08 PM

you just working out that in petrocapitalism the state and those captains of industry you love o so deeply are working hand in glove? please, ace, wake up and smell the coffee. it's only in the delusions of people like you that there's an adverarial relation between corporations and the state. "regulation" is not an adversarial relation. it's a symbiosis.

that noaa and the coast guard and bp were all basically on the same page in terms of information spill management was obvious to anyone who was looking from quite early on. even you'd likely to have figured it out if you'd allowed yourself a vacation from conservative metaphysics long enough to point your head in that direction. there's lots of information in this thread about it.

so yeah, everyone knew about this.

don't assume that because everyone knew about it that it means yay cover-up. what it means is that you are way behind, and your conservative metaphysics are in significant measure to blame for that. when your analytic viewpoint gets obviously in the way of reality, it's generally an indication that a rethink is in order. just mentioning this for your delectation.

filtherton · 10-07-2010, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

It appears that our government lied about the oil spill.

You're a funny person to accuse politicians of lying. Aren't you the person who said that GWB didn't lie about Iraq because you never believed him in the first place? Aren't you the person that thinks that one can only be lied to if one chooses to be lied to?

Quote:

Good thing people have short memories or there would certainly be more outrage.

Who says there isn't outrage? This just came out today. I think many folks were pissed at the casual attitude the government had towards sizing up the spill way back in May.

Quote:

Anyone here gonna call for Obama to be "fired" or resign, like you did with the BP CEO?

Didn't think so.

The BP CEO should have resigned because he was making BP's problem worse by being publicly obtuse and callous. If Obama complains about having to forego a yacht race to deal with the aftermath of NOAA's fuckup, then he should resign.

There are so many more important reasons to be critical of Obama than this.

worried_monk · 10-12-2010, 08:45 AM

We jus' need to get off oil.

ASU2003 · 10-12-2010, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by worried_monk

We jus' need to get off oil.

I hope to be off of it except for trips over 100 miles by next year. (I take 4-8 trips over 100 miles a year).

I have greatly reduced the amount of gas I buy now since I only use my car once or twice a week to drive under 20 miles.

roachboy · 10-13-2010, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Obama Admin. Drops Drilling Moratorium

— By Kate Sheppard
| Tue Oct. 12, 2010 1:26 PM PDT

The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it is ending the temporary, six-month moratorium on new deepwater drilling operations. The announcement means that new drilling could take place in the Gulf "very soon," said Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar, though rigs will need to undergo new inspection and permitting procedures before companies can start drilling.

The moratorium was supposed to remain in place until Nov. 30, but as of today it is off. "The policy position we are articulating today is that we are open for business," said Salazar in a call with reporters. The agency will be taking applications for new permits and processing them according to new regulations and guidance issued in the six months since the Deepwater Horizon spill. Salazar said he expects to see deepwater drilling resume "very soon—I can't tell you how soon, but soon."

Both Salazar and Michael Bromwich, the director of the Bureau Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (formerly the Minerals Management Service), said that they believed enough work had been done in the months since the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon to prevent another disaster. "The risks of deepwater drilling have been reduced sufficiently to allow deepwater drilling to resume," said Bromwich in a call with reporters.

The two pointed to reforms at the agency that they believe have improved oversight and to new requirements that have been put in place for companies that want to drill. But as many are pointing out, it seems a bit premature given the fact that the agency still lacks adequate resources for inspections—Bromwich said they are hiring and relocating inspectors and "will do the best we can with the resources at our disposal"—and that the exact cause of the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig has yet to be determined.

Environmental groups were, as you might expect, nonplussed.

"To ensure a disaster like this never happens again, we must know what caused it in the first place," said Peter Lehner, executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We're still waiting for that answer and until we get it, the moratorium should remain in place."

Greenpeace USA executive director Phil Radford accused the administration of timing the announcement to the November election. "This is pure politics of the most cynical kind. It is all about the election season, not safety and environmental concerns," said Radford. "The White House wants us to believe that they have solved all the dangers of offshore drilling and we can return to business as usual. It is a false promise, if not a big lie."

But drilling fans were also not satisfied. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) issued a statement arguing that a "de facto moratorium" is still in place because of "regulatory uncertainty and a slow-down of the issuance of required drilling permits" (since Salazar has said other new rules are on the way). And Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.) indicated that she will continue to block the nomination of Jack Lew to serve as director of the Office of Management and Budget because of her concerns about the future of offshore drilling. Landrieu said she would have to "look closely" at how the new drilling permits are issued before she would release the hold, and noted that she wants the administration to "accelerate the granting of permits in shallow and deep water."

Obama Admin. Drops Drilling Moratorium | Mother Jones

roachboy · 10-26-2010, 06:39 PM

FRONTLINE: The Spill | PBS

a little history lesson about those fine fellows at bp.

aceventura3 · 11-10-2010, 11:42 AM

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AFP) – A US presidential panel probing the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster examined he industry's safety culture Tuesday, after its lead investigator said he found no evidence BP and its partners had sacrificed safety for profits.

"To date, we have not seen a single instance where a human being made a conscious decision to favor dollars over safety," Fred Bartlit, chief counsel to the commission, said Monday at the start of the two-day hearing.

BP did not put profit before safety on Gulf well: probe - Yahoo! News

filtherton · 11-10-2010, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

BP did not put profit before safety on Gulf well: probe - Yahoo! News

Holy shit! Not 10 posts ago you were complaining about how the government lied about the oil spill (in a way that arguably benefited BP). Now apparently your questions about the government's credibility have been cleared up.

I think the committee that comprises aceventura3 needs to meet to get its story straight.

aceventura3 · 11-11-2010, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Holy shit! Not 10 posts ago you were complaining about how the government lied about the oil spill (in a way that arguably benefited BP). Now apparently your questions about the government's credibility have been cleared up.

I think the committee that comprises aceventura3 needs to meet to get its story straight.

Don't think I commented on the findings. You don't know what my questions are or if anything has been cleared up for me. Look in a mirror before making charges against others.

filtherton · 11-11-2010, 10:00 AM

"I know you are but what am I" is the best thing the committee could come up with?

I think I can guess your position: we should trust the president when he absolves BP of blame, but we shouldn't trust the president when we have an opportinity to make him look bad.

aceventura3 · 11-11-2010, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

"I know you are but what am I" is the best thing the committee could come up with?

No.

Quote:

I think I can guess your position: we should trust the president when he absolves BP of blame, but we shouldn't trust the president when we have an opportinity to make him look bad.

The President did not write the report, nor was he involved in doing the work that went into the report. It is true I don't trust the President, but I don't trust BP either, and I wrote that.

However, I pointed out early on that the suggestion that BP cut corners due to a profit motive did not add up. The logic of - let's save a few dollars and put our entire company at risk- is not what responsible business people do. And there was no evidence that BP was run by incompetent or irresponsible business people. It was clear to me that the accident was the result of a series human errors and no one was motivated to make errors because of profit. There is no doubt that management has to be held accountable and is at fault for not minimizing the risk of human error. Hindsight is always 20/20. Government regulators also dropped the ball. There should be accountability for errors and the lack of controls, but the knee-jerk reaction that the drive for profits is at the root of every negative corporate occurrence is overly simplistic.

Willravel · 11-11-2010, 02:03 PM

The obvious response to the oil rig explosion and subsequent spill is to reduce government regulation and simply allow consumers to choose whether or not to buy oil from companies that act irresponsibly. While I can't think of a single instance in the history of the planet where less regulation made an industry more responsible, a very convincing person called RnPl2012FreeMarketz on the Mises forums seems to think it will work.

filtherton · 11-11-2010, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The President did not write the report, nor was he involved in doing the work that went into the report. It is true I don't trust the President, but I don't trust BP either, and I wrote that.

Presumably the president didn't come up with the leakage rate calculations, but you seemed to blame him for their inaccuracy.

Quote:

However, I pointed out early on that the suggestion that BP cut corners due to a profit motive did not add up. The logic of - let's save a few dollars and put our entire company at risk- is not what responsible business people do. And there was no evidence that BP was run by incompetent or irresponsible business people. It was clear to me that the accident was the result of a series human errors and no one was motivated to make errors because of profit. There is no doubt that management has to be held accountable and is at fault for not minimizing the risk of human error. Hindsight is always 20/20. Government regulators also dropped the ball. There should be accountability for errors and the lack of controls, but the knee-jerk reaction that the drive for profits is at the root of every negative corporate occurrence is overly simplistic.

I think you've pretty well established that the things you think are true frequently have no bearing on what actually is, so I'm not sure why you're sharing your opinion here as if it has the weight of real, factual evidence.

In reality, there is no shortage of examples of business folk who appeared responsible while they were simultaneously secretly breaking legal and/or ethical and/or safety rules. The fact that you, some guy from the internet, give BP a thumbs up for their business ethics and logical aptitude means nothing.

As it stands now, how have any BP executives suffered anything remotely harmful in the aftermath of the spill? They don't have much incentive to not cut corners. It's a gamble that they make, where if they lose, we pay, they maybe get transferred to a new market (god forbid they get fired with a multimillion dollar severance package), and BP takes a quarter or two break and then goes back to making record profits.

aceventura3 · 11-12-2010, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

The obvious response to the oil rig explosion and subsequent spill is to reduce government regulation and simply allow consumers to choose whether or not to buy oil from companies that act irresponsibly. While I can't think of a single instance in the history of the planet where less regulation made an industry more responsible, a very convincing person called RnPl2012FreeMarketz on the Mises forums seems to think it will work.

Regulation is not magic. When the level or type of regulation is inefficient, less of it certainly can lead to improvements. I think it is very easy for regulators to be overly burdened with things that do not matter - would you want (given limited resources) the focus of regulation targeted in the areas that would have actually prevented the spill?

I never argue for no regulation. I think there is a balancing point, don;t you?

---------- Post added at 04:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Presumably the president didn't come up with the leakage rate calculations, but you seemed to blame him for their inaccuracy.

I blame him for mis-informing the public.

Quote:

I think you've pretty well established that the things you think are true frequently have no bearing on what actually is, so I'm not sure why you're sharing your opinion here as if it has the weight of real, factual evidence.

The report agrees with my position.

Quote:

As it stands now, how have any BP executives suffered anything remotely harmful in the aftermath of the spill?

The CEO got fired. The value of the company dropped about 50%. The future of the company is still at risk. Some may still face civil and criminal damages. The company faces more scrutiny, it will be more difficult for them to get new opportunities to drill in deep water, putting them at a disadvantage. Their cost of capital went up. The company may get bought out. Etc. Etc. Etc.

hambim336 · 06-12-2011, 05:32 PM

Hi,

Thanks very much for this comment. It help me to think about my ideals.

Tks again and pls keep posting.

AbelG · 07-20-2011, 12:54 AM

The British Petroleum oil leak was capped in July of 2010. A year afterwards, the tourists are returning to the Gulf beaches. Considering this, British Petroleum has petitioned the court to reduce its damages settlement. But some say reports of the tourism rebound are inflated or deceptive. I read this here: Rise in gulf tourism prompts BP to ask for discount.

08-24-2010, 05:43 AM	#562 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	Fishing Industry in Gulf Still Worried About Levels of Toxins in the Water and the Impact on Marine Life check out the transcript and/or webcast of this program. the basic accusation here follows on the kind of information that was provided a few posts above this one. the oil is present, mixed with dispersants. it's not difficult to find. there is no mystery about what's happening. fishermen know what's happening. anyone who's there, seemingly, knows. but for some reason the infotainment coming from the bp/federal government combine seems to be alot more---o i dunno---goofy optimistic about things. you'd almost think that the locals who see in this stream of infotainment a setting up of the ole cut-and-run are right. and if that's not what's being set up, it's quite difficult to imagine what possible function could be getting served by acting as though a quite catastrophic situation simply doesn't exist. except of course that no-one knows extent or magnitude or impact. but it feels like we're being fed a line of shit. kinda like shell and the nigerian government fed the un a line of shit in the report that's due out in december which essentially blames local people stealing oil for "90%" of the oil in the niger river delta Outrage at UN decision to exonerate Shell for oil pollution in Niger delta \| Environment \| The Guardian this flying in the face of information gathered over many years from non-governmental, non-royal dutch shell sources. go figure. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-25-2010, 07:46 AM	#563 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	Probably you saw it, but this had a ring of truth to me: "bp is gonna be here until the oil is gone." -from one of its commercials. __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

08-27-2010, 11:13 AM	#565 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	Yeah...sorry I blew up. Quoting their ad was more unwarranted anti-capitalism. Acknowledging the relative insignificance of what happened too soon didn't even tickle this thread's thoughts. __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

08-27-2010, 12:01 PM	#566 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	med---where's that information coming from? i've been searching around for a half hour already and can't find any reports or studies that say that. it'd be good if it were true, what you say. but i'd like to see the source if you have a link handy __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-27-2010, 04:12 PM	#568 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	The key-word being "local", re-entering our systems carbon's systematic beautiful. Freaking out about this oil spill seems to have at least distracted us from the air we breathe, reading, I hope, as a railing against why it happened, as I think roachboy has intended. Not that I know, OP, but you've reviewed the percentages. __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

08-19-2010, 12:03 PM	#561 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	Nobody but die hard apologists expected the oil to really have disappeared. Corexit 9500 plus oil is no more toxic than oil alone (this is why BP switched from the more toxic Corexit 9527 at the urging of the EPA); and the evidence suggests that the unknown effects of dispersal of oil into the water column is likely less than the catastrophic damage to wetlands that would have occurred had oil been allowed to wash ashore. That's why as much dispersant as possible was used, now we have to figure out what to do from here.

08-27-2010, 10:01 AM	#564 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	Looks like the majority of this plume is 50ppb of oil, the lc50 for almost all marine life in the area is on the order of 2-5ppm, so we're looking at hundreds of times less than what will be killing off wildlife en masse. This is surprisingly good news.

08-27-2010, 01:50 PM	#567 (permalink)
aphrodisiac Upright Location: UK	i seem to remember that new scientist has details of the research that claimes the plume has been mostly degraded by baceria. the thing is: all that organic carbon doesnt just dissapear... even if it isnt present in the form of an actual plume / oil spill, its still likely to massively f*ck up the ecosystem and have a negative impact on the local biodiversity

09-02-2010, 11:34 AM	#569 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Here we go again....

10-07-2010, 01:01 PM	#571 (permalink)
Pearl Trade Addict Location: Houston, Texas	Obama and the government messed up by suppressing the facts, but a BP CEO and president of the United States are two very different jobs. __________________ Our revenge will be the laughter of our children. Give me convenience or give me death!

10-07-2010, 01:08 PM	#572 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	you just working out that in petrocapitalism the state and those captains of industry you love o so deeply are working hand in glove? please, ace, wake up and smell the coffee. it's only in the delusions of people like you that there's an adverarial relation between corporations and the state. "regulation" is not an adversarial relation. it's a symbiosis. that noaa and the coast guard and bp were all basically on the same page in terms of information spill management was obvious to anyone who was looking from quite early on. even you'd likely to have figured it out if you'd allowed yourself a vacation from conservative metaphysics long enough to point your head in that direction. there's lots of information in this thread about it. so yeah, everyone knew about this. don't assume that because everyone knew about it that it means yay cover-up. what it means is that you are way behind, and your conservative metaphysics are in significant measure to blame for that. when your analytic viewpoint gets obviously in the way of reality, it's generally an indication that a rethink is in order. just mentioning this for your delectation. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 10-07-2010 at 01:10 PM..

10-12-2010, 08:45 AM	#574 (permalink)
worried_monk Upright	We jus' need to get off oil.

10-26-2010, 06:39 PM	#577 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	FRONTLINE: The Spill \| PBS a little history lesson about those fine fellows at bp. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-11-2010, 10:00 AM	#581 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	"I know you are but what am I" is the best thing the committee could come up with? I think I can guess your position: we should trust the president when he absolves BP of blame, but we shouldn't trust the president when we have an opportinity to make him look bad.

11-11-2010, 02:03 PM	#583 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The obvious response to the oil rig explosion and subsequent spill is to reduce government regulation and simply allow consumers to choose whether or not to buy oil from companies that act irresponsibly. While I can't think of a single instance in the history of the planet where less regulation made an industry more responsible, a very convincing person called RnPl2012FreeMarketz on the Mises forums seems to think it will work.

06-12-2011, 05:32 PM	#586 (permalink)
hambim336 Upright	Hi, Thanks very much for this comment. It help me to think about my ideals. Tks again and pls keep posting.

07-20-2011, 12:54 AM	#587 (permalink)
AbelG Upright Location: Spokane	The British Petroleum oil leak was capped in July of 2010. A year afterwards, the tourists are returning to the Gulf beaches. Considering this, British Petroleum has petitioned the court to reduce its damages settlement. But some say reports of the tourism rebound are inflated or deceptive. I read this here: Rise in gulf tourism prompts BP to ask for discount.