^then you're not a good capitalist.

5/25/2010 6:27:41 PM

^^
That specific article is from a pro-clean energy website, but it references this article from Bloomberg:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aGDZMpv5Y9Vo&pos=13

Quote :

"Twice this year, the nation’s 21,000 wind turbines pumped out so much power that utilities reduced customer bills for using the surplus electricity... The wind-energy boom in Europe and parts of Texas has begun to reduce bills for consumers. Electricity-network managers have even ordered windmills offline at times to trim supplies... Spanish power prices fell an annual 26 percent in the first quarter because of the surge in supplies from wind and hydroelectric production..."

[Edited on May 25, 2010 at 7:07 PM. Reason : 2]

5/25/2010 7:07:07 PM

Quote :

"^then you're not a good capitalist."

If being a good capitalist means finding new, cleaner, cheaper ways to produce energy (drive down the cost to produce) while increasing the cost to your customers then I guess I'm not.

5/25/2010 7:36:23 PM

Quote :

"i don't think we should force them out of our country. i do think we should ban them from drilling anywhere off our coasts for a good 30 years or so."

I think we should ban them from being able to do ANY business in the US until the oil is no longer seeping from the well. If we did that, I bet that thing would be sealed like yesterday

5/25/2010 8:42:57 PM

Quote :

"i do think we should ban them from drilling anywhere off our coasts for a good 30 years or so."

If not altogether.

Just curious, but are people boycotting BP gas in the States currently?

5/26/2010 2:47:52 AM

yeah, you'll be loving that ban when a major competitor is eliminated and the cost of your gas is butt fucking your bank account

5/26/2010 9:37:54 AM

^ imho, more expensive gasoline would be part of the benefits of the ban. Fossil Fuels are already too cheap given the significant amount of harm they inflict on the planet.

5/26/2010 9:56:11 AM

you want to turn a recession into a depression, then jack up fuel costs.

5/26/2010 10:02:23 AM

i read that is the first accident of its kind in 41 years (in the US). is that an acceptable risk? how does it compare with the accident rate of requiring other types of energy?

i am not defending BP or their pitiful attempts at controlling this disaster...i just want to add some perspective to the debate.

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 11:00 AM. Reason : .]

5/26/2010 11:00:28 AM

wolfpackgrrr


I've seen some small boycotts in the news, and there is a boycott BP facebook group http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pages/Boycott-BP/119101198107726

Who knows if they are actually boycotting. And to be effective, they'd have to be in the millions, not hundreds of thousands

5/26/2010 11:08:48 AM

Socks has lost his mind. I really hope you don't use ANYTHING that involves the use of oil, since it's so evil and whatnot.

^^Obviously there's always a risk of an accident. I feel like you just have to accept it and move on. So there's this accident drilling for oil. Let's ban oil! Didn't we have some minor nuclear accident in the 80s? Let's ban nuclear energy.

I can't wait to be living around a campfire sometime soon

5/26/2010 11:58:41 AM

oil isn't evil. its just under priced.

5/26/2010 12:03:17 PM

^^ I'm living around a campfire starting next week

5/26/2010 12:16:38 PM

^^I'm glad you think you know what's best for me, and would like to lower my standard of living.

5/26/2010 12:53:14 PM

Quote :

"I'm glad you think you know what's best for me, and would like to lower my standard of living."

And our frenetic consumption of oil didn't lower the standard of living for fishermen in the gulf, not to mention the lives of millions of animals? Glad you know whats best for them.

I consume oil all the time, just like most other people on this planet. It's easy. Yes, it's nice to have the choice to use it or not. The problem is no one is choosing not to, it puts industries at a severe disadvantage in a capitalistic economy.

5/26/2010 1:12:05 PM

But if something is legitimately killing you, it's an objective fact that it's bad for you. It's not an opinion. Saying "you shouldn't eat a Double Down every day" isn't an opinion, it's as factual as saying "it's bad to enjoy a glass of cobra spit with your meals."

And while oil nationalization isn't necessarily some immediate sign of communism (ask Norway), I think that this at least makes a case for increased royalty payments for future drilling, if not a new moratorium. Energy independence via oil isn't worth destroying agriculture.

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 1:15 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2010 1:13:29 PM

Solving this problem is real easy.

1) Issue ultimatum to BP that within the week they must have submitted to EPA or Congress or whoever is overseeing this thing a plan of action that they are actively making progress on and conform to current US law (sorry EPA, if the chemical is approved you can't go in after the fact an change your mind).

2) If BP fails to submit and start on the plan or at any time falls more than 5% behind schedule on the clean up plan, have the military and/or other government hired contractors step in to either do the clean up or assist in bringing cleanup back on schedule.

3) Send BP the bill. If BP feels one of their subcontractors was responsible or the people they leased the rig from, it is their responsibility to get their money back from the subcontractor, not the government's. BP was the company authorized to operate, therefore BP is responsible for paying the bill.

3.5) Repeal the stupid liability cap, but limit liability to actual damages. No punitive or "emotional distress" awards unless BP is found criminally negligent.

I seriously don't understand why this is so difficult.

Incidentally, stopping BP from conducting business here over this would be a bad idea. Not so much because of the harm to BP (I don't care), but because of the many innocent individuals that would be harmed when they could no longer operate their BP gas station and go out of business.

5/26/2010 2:20:52 PM

^nice to see rational input here.

5/26/2010 2:43:03 PM

Quote :

"I'm glad you think you know what's best for me, and would like to lower my standard of living."

You are not exactly in a place to complain about other people making decisions for you, because you are doing exactly that yourself. When you use fossil fuels, that harms other people that don't have any say in your use of that product.

There is a name for that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

5/26/2010 3:00:09 PM

For everything to function in this world today, oil is the best available option given all pros and cons.

Saying I'm harming someone is ridiculously retarded. Why should I even bother though, you think the air we breath out is an evil sin and will bring ruin to the world.

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 3:03 PM. Reason : k]

5/26/2010 3:03:19 PM

Quote :

"When you use fossil fuels, that harms other people that don't have any say in your use of that product."

So why do you use them Socks? There are names for people like that.


1337, I disagree with a couple of your points. I think the liability cap keeps these rigs insurable. And the general notion, although you dont directly say it, that other groups will somehow do a better job or are even capable of doing the job as BP. You heard this point a lot with Halliburton too. When in fact there are such a few groups that are actually capable of doing the job.

Did someone suggest stopping Bp from doing business in the states?

5/26/2010 4:03:58 PM

removing a liability cap doesn't have any affect on insurance on a rig because the rig has a set value. If the current insurance is for rig + potential spill, removing the liability cap would cause insurance companies to ensure only the rig (which is what i imagine they do now anyway). So removing the cap doesn't hurt BP or whoever on a rig accident that doesn't cause a spill.

And it doesn't matter if BP is the best or if they have to go out an hire the best or if the government is the best (lol) to clean up the spill. As long as they have a requirement to clean it up in x amount of time they will find the best solution to avoid higher long term costs.

5/26/2010 4:08:28 PM

between their refinery explosion in 2005, their alaskan pipeline leak in 2006, and their current rig disaster, i'd say BP is on very thin ice in the U.S. right now. wouldn't be suprised if there was a real push to revoke their license to operate in the states. likely won't happen, but i'm sure it will be discussed heavily. for whatever that's worth.

and really, if they did lose it and couldn't do business in the u.s., better believe exxon or shell or conoco, etc would buy their assets and run them, thus keeping their gas stations, pipelines, gas wells, oil rigs, etc in business. they'd just be operated by a better run company. may be some headaches during the transition, but there would be little to no "loss of competition driving prices higher" or "gas station owners without jobs". their corporate folks in westlake, TX would get screwed, but that's probably about it.

5/26/2010 4:18:40 PM

Shaggy, you feel BP is dragging thier feet on this?


I know I heard the uninsurable claim before. This was from a quick google.

Legislation seeking to increase producers' liability for economic damages from oil spills would make oil and natural gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) uninsurable by all but the largest companies, two producer groups said.

"Initial economic analysis shows raising the liability cap to $10 billion per incident would limit Gulf operations to only the largest companies, forcing mid-size and smaller firms who cannot self-insure from the market," said Jack Gerard, CEO of the American Petroleum Institute (API), which represents major producers.


[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 4:31 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2010 4:29:14 PM

eyedrb,

Like I said, fossil fuels are not evil, just under priced. If it was politically feasible, we would evaluate the costs that the fossil fuels impose on others (in the form of climate change, oil spills etc) and tax the use of these fossil fuels so that the costs they impose on others is adequately accounted for in consumer decisions.

However, that isn't politically feasible. So, I figure banning offshore drilling is one step of a second best solution. One that doesn't require competent government oversight.

5/26/2010 4:40:45 PM

The oil's in our backyard. If we dont take it, somebody else will. THUS, it should be us b/c at least that way it can be regulated.

5/26/2010 4:45:29 PM

the rigs themselves will still be insurable but yes it would make accidental insurance (for spills) prohibitively expensive. And thats not a bad thing. If the insurance companies think its too risky to insure against spills then thats the free market telling you its too risky to do. The government meddling in the market and artificially pushing down cost to opperate oils rigs can only do harm to the economy.

as far as if they're dragging their feet, i dont know. I think there are probably a thousand good ideas for plugging it up, but i dont know whats the best. But i do think if they have an ultimatium and no limit on liability they will pick the fastest option to get it fixed since it avoids the most long term costs.

5/26/2010 4:49:50 PM

^^^^ Ultimately whether or not your business plan is insurable is not the government's (or my) concern. Having a liability cap to keep insurance premiums low is no different from corn subsidies, sugar tarrifs or any other number of stupid market distorting policies which only serve to harm us in the long run.

Further, I have full faith in the ability of insurance companies to find creative ways to limit their liability while still enabling smaller oil companies to operate. And ultimately we should ask ourselves, if you can't afford to insure your operations, do we really want you conducting your business knowing full well you can't afford to pay for your mistakes?



[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 4:51 PM. Reason : ^]

5/26/2010 4:50:20 PM

Quote :

"The oil's in our backyard. If we dont take it, somebody else will. THUS, it should be us b/c at least that way it can be regulated."

Someone's going to walk into our backyard and take our oil?

Is there another USA out there that I am unaware of?

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 4:51 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2010 4:51:25 PM

stealth usa
shhhh

pm ur email and i'll send u an invite.

5/26/2010 4:57:51 PM

Quote :

"i read that is the first accident of its kind in 41 years"

it'll probably take a good 40 years for the gulf to fully recover from this.

5/26/2010 5:28:35 PM

^I'm pretty sure we don't have rights to the ENTIRE Gulf of Mexico. Thus, another country will drill it if we don't.

5/26/2010 9:28:34 PM

Do you really think we'd let that happen considering how important a reliable supply of oil is to our national defense? What you said was stupid.

5/26/2010 10:57:34 PM

Pretty sure what I said isn't stupid. Although its a pointless statement to argue over since it'll never happen b/c we'll NEVER ban drilling in the gulf (the territory that's under our control at least).

5/27/2010 8:46:43 AM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure we don't have rights to the ENTIRE Gulf of Mexico. Thus, another country will drill it if we don't."

the US owns the continintal shelf and several miles beyond that. there is part of the GOM thats own by Mexico but since they only allow PeMex they do not have the experience to drill a deep water well yet.

if another country was to drill way out in international waters, i'm pretty sure the US would not let them have support systems in america, therefore making it very expensive to do.

5/27/2010 5:54:37 PM

This disaster would have never been allowed to happen in Venezuela.

5/27/2010 6:51:30 PM

If I learned anything from the Simpsons, Mexico could setup a slant drilling operation to steal the oil from under us.

5/27/2010 9:13:29 PM

^They could "drink" our "milkshake", so to speak.

5/27/2010 9:27:44 PM

The relief wells BP is drilling are CURVED.

5/28/2010 12:05:10 AM

according to FoxNews, the TopKill method has failed.

5/29/2010 7:04:58 PM

it didn't work before, either
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHmhxpQEGPo&feature=player_embedded

5/29/2010 7:42:23 PM

Nuclear bomb option, next



BP's going to be paying a lot for harming a lot of people

[Edited on May 29, 2010 at 9:42 PM. Reason : .]

5/29/2010 9:42:19 PM

They'll probably find a way around a lot of it. The fines that they'll ultimately pay won't be anywhere near what they should be. Every state and federal agency ought to bill them for the cleanup effort.

5/29/2010 9:45:54 PM

haha. anyone who is unemployed should go to the gulf for the cleanup effort, and send BP the bill

5/29/2010 10:19:29 PM

I don't think anyone else has mentioned this here, but it should have been (and in the future be amended to be) required by law to have a relief well drilled for any drilling operation. Before extraction of oil can even be accomplished a relief well should have to exist.

Several countries already require this. Retardedly we don't. If a relief well existed then this entire situation could have had much more resolve a long time ago.

5/29/2010 10:33:37 PM

It's also important to note that no solution that they are coming up with according to BP is their "do all, catch all" solution. The only thing they are saying will stop this is a relief well and the drilling for that won't be complete until August.

5/29/2010 10:41:09 PM

^^ If they actually pay the damages they caused, then drilling relief wells will look cheap in the future.


Right??


Too bad the market waited until after a shitload of damage has been done.

5/29/2010 10:54:29 PM

Nah, that's what bankruptcy and reorganization is for. Oil companies are like furniture stores...just put a new name on the sign and start with a clean slate.

5/30/2010 1:12:27 AM

Quote :

"just put a new name on the sign and start with a clean slate"

The funny thing is you're right and they very well could since they already hold claim to various other brand names including ARCO and Castrol. I doubt "BP" itself is going anywhere though. The name "British Petroleum" dates back to 1954 and the company itself goes as far back as 1909.

They're the 3rd largest energy company and the 4th largest company in the world. Even if the cost of cleanup is in the billions of dollars, they can cover the cost of cleanup easily and pay some people off in the media to spin things positive for a long time.

[Edited on May 30, 2010 at 1:54 AM. Reason : spellin']

5/30/2010 1:54:07 AM

ok

new thing

asteroid heading towards earth

what the shit do we privatize first to win?

5/30/2010 2:10:23 AM