^lol

[Edited on June 11, 2010 at 8:03 AM. Reason : 6]

6/11/2010 8:02:50 AM

Quote :

"BP on Tuesday said it suspended the operation to siphon oil from the ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico, after a fire aboard a drill ship."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/15/oil.spill.disaster/index.html?hpt=T1

facepalm

6/15/2010 4:07:55 PM

Quote :

"The only thing the government should do is remove the cap on liabilities.""

There never should have been a cap to begin with. By having it, oil companies like BP were taking more risks than they would have normally, because they knew they would only have to pay out so much. If there had never been a cap, maybe they would have been more careful. Besides, wouldn't removing the cap be a ex post facto law? In any case, BP has said they'll pay any legitimate claims. I wonder how they'll go about compensating the ecosystem or lost business.

6/15/2010 4:40:42 PM

Quote :

"Is BP really protected by a $75 million cap on damages? Probably not. In the wake of the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, known as OPA (pronounced like 'Oprah' without the 'r'). For leaks from offshore oil rigs like this one, OPA limits the liability of the responsible party -- BP in this instance -- to $75 million in economic damages, but there are several mammoth exceptions. To begin with, the limitation does not apply to any of BP's liability for state and federal cleanup costs, for which BP (BP) is 100% responsible. As of early June, these costs had already come to about $990 million, according to BP, and the company seems to be just getting started. (BP has also committed to spending another $360 million to fund the building of barrier islands off the coast of Louisiana.) But the key, ginormous loophole in the $75 million OPA limit is that BP isn't allowed to take advantage of it if the company -- or any of its contractors, Kende stresses -- acted with gross negligence or violated any federal safety law or regulation. In other words, if either BP or rig-owner Transocean Ltd. (RIG), or cement contractor Halliburton Energy Services (HAL, Fortune 500), or the blowout preventer manufacturer Cameron International (CAM, Fortune 500) violated some safety rule -- the limit vanishes. (If a subcontractor is the one responsible, BP might then be able to go after that company for contribution or indemnification.) "I think there are enough regulations in this area," says Kende, "that something was probably done wrong" by someone, though he acknowledges that that's speculation on his part."

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/04/news/companies/bp_legal.fortune/index.htm?hpt=T2

6/15/2010 5:26:14 PM

Quote :

"But the other oil executives were blocked in their attempts to cast the spill as a rare event directly linked to shoddy safety procedures by BP when it emerged they had virtually identical spill response plans. No company could have averted a disaster in the case of a blowout like the one suffered by BP, it turned out."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/15/exxon-bp-oil-gusher-congress

All the more reason to just ban offshore drilling. Oil needs to be more expensive anyways and since the climate bill is going to be either dead or toothless, I think banning offshore drilling is probably a more popular means to achieve that goal.

6/16/2010 7:51:25 AM

So apparently no one is really happy with the way things are being handled now. HuffPo and MSNBC went after Obama's speech last night:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/15/obamas-oil-speech-panned_n_613711.html

Quote :

"MSNBC personalities Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Howard Fineman were particularly disappointed. "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days," Olbermann said, adding, "Nothing specific at all was said... I don't think he aimed low, I don't think he aimed at all. It's startling to have heard this, isn't it?" Fineman agreed: "He wasn't specific enough," and failed to lead as a "commander-in-chief" should. Even close allies of Obama's in Congress sounded critical notes. "I appreciate the President's attention to the disaster," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said in a statement, "however, the public needs additional assurance that, all aspects of the spill response, from cleanup to claims, are being enforced and coordinated by the federal government." Another senior Democratic congressman, John Dingell of Michigan, said in a statement, "I was disappointed President Obama did not call for an increase in the liability cap. BP made $16.8 billion in profits last year. BP, and oil companies in general, have been making money hand over fist over the past few years - even while our economy falters." Fifty-seven days into the crisis, oil continues to gush from the broken wellhead, millions of gallons a day, and Obama has been powerless to stem the leak. The sad episode has raised doubts about his leadership and his administration's response to what Obama has called the nation's worst environmental disaster."

Maybe it's just me, but it feels like this situation is starting to spin out of control a bit.

6/16/2010 9:31:01 AM

Quote :

"(CNN) -- A document released by the U.S. Coast Guard this week shows a lack of cooperation from BP in providing accurate flow-rate estimates of the oil company's massive underwater gusher in the Gulf of Mexico. The document is a sole-source contract seeking to secure the services of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, described by the Coast Guard as "well known" in the oil spill field and a company that "routinely operates at depths required" at the BP site. Woods Hole submitted proposed technology to BP in May designed to provide an accurate flow-rate estimate from the ruptured undersea well after the oil company provided its own numbers inconsistent with those of scientific experts, the document shows. The institution's technological capabilities at the site include sonar, optical, Doppler and mass spectrometer varieties of sensors, according to the Coast Guard. However, the document quotes BP America CEO Lamar McKay from his congressional hearing testimony as saying, "this leak is not measurable through technology we know." According to the Coast Guard, BP delayed acting on the institute's technology proposal "under the premise that BP would soon implement successful recovery techniques." "Previous efforts to apply sensors to the site for determination of flow rate have been delayed under the assumptions that the oil leak would be stopped by pending mitigation efforts, which have not been successful to date," the document says. BP had initially put the rate of oil flowing from the well at 1,000 barrels a day (42,000 gallons), then 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons), before conceding the actual rate could be much higher. Oil has been gushing at the site since an April 20 explosion aboard the drilling rig the Deepwater Horizon. The most recent government estimate determined by the independent Flow Rate Technical Group puts the number of barrels of oil flowing as high as 60,000 a day or 2.5 million gallons. A containment cap system has been siphoning some of that crude to a surface vessel."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/23/bp.flow.rate/index.html

6/24/2010 11:05:36 AM

Quote :

"All the more reason to just ban offshore drilling. Oil needs to be more expensive anyways and since the climate bill is going to be either dead or toothless, I think banning offshore drilling is probably a more popular means to achieve that goal."

Maybe it's just me, but I don't want my quality of life going down just b/c you (and some ppl in gov't) think oil's bad. The environment will recover in a few years. Take away oil and the standard of living in this country (esp for poor people) will plummet for much longer.

6/24/2010 11:23:15 AM

^ while i don't think that we should ban off shore drilling

Quote :

"The environment will recover in a few years"

Is a vast understatement.... The aftermath of Exxon Valdez is still being felt in Alaska and that wasn't nearly as much oil as has spilled in the gulf.

6/24/2010 11:25:23 AM

I was watching an interview with the guy in charge of the Valdez cleanup. HE was saying they estimated it would take 10 yrs to clean the shores. In reality they were clean within two years. He was saying they didnt even consider bacteria and the natural breakdown of the oil.

However, they did have another interview with someone from Fish and Wildlife that said the fish population hasnt returned to prespill levels.

I think its probably safe to say that the oil will be cleaned up faster than expected(once the flow is stopped), however there will be lasting effects on the wildlife in the area and other ill effects we havent considered.

6/24/2010 11:34:50 AM

Also, you have to take into account this spill involves wetlands which will retain this muck waaaaaaay longer than the shores of Alaska (and they still have oil beneath the surface onshore!) This isn't going to be one of those sit on your hands and hope nature cleans up the mess deals.

6/24/2010 12:18:52 PM

While I'm obviously no expert, I'm basing my opinion on the similar oil spill incident that took place in 1979 in the Gulf and was quoted earlier in this thread.

6/24/2010 1:10:31 PM

I have heard that about the marsh Hockey. I think that is why Jindal was so frustrated at the delays for those sandbars he wanted to protect those.

6/24/2010 4:41:46 PM

Driling won't solve our problems. The us has 4% of the worlds oil reserves and uses 25% of the world's oil. The amount of oil we get from offshore drilling is just a drop in the puddle. Its not worth risking our environment and seafood economy. We need to focus on moving away from oil period.

6/24/2010 7:01:44 PM

It's too bad we can't design our cars to run off the tears of environmentalists.

The 1979 mexican spill and the persian gulf spill are proof that these things can be cleaned up and the sea life bounces back with a quickness. Oil is made of volatile organic chemicals; that shit breaks down. What doesn't evaporate off sinks to the bottom of the ocean, where bottom-feeding bacteria go at it.

[Edited on June 24, 2010 at 8:25 PM. Reason : Stupid cellphone autospell]

6/24/2010 8:10:21 PM

Lots of "evidence" and "science" being thrown around in this thread. Some of it might even be accurate. But probably not.

6/24/2010 8:14:51 PM

lol

the world recovered from an ice age, so clearly we should keep polluting in order to trigger another, right?

6/24/2010 8:54:14 PM

Quote :

"It's too bad we can't design our cars to run off the tears of environmentalists."

And it's too bad we can't run cars off of the hubris and myopic complacency of hypercapitalists.

6/24/2010 9:32:01 PM

no, but we CAN run cars off of the resources that capitalists bring us.

6/24/2010 10:42:52 PM

You're right, like electricity.

6/24/2010 11:53:30 PM

cars running off of coal fired electricity is nonsensical

6/25/2010 1:22:51 AM

I agree, but the principal discussion on hand was not about how that electricity was provided but rather aaronburro claiming that oil is provided by capitalists (as if the other two factions never, ever, never had nor advocated the use of oil).

6/25/2010 1:40:57 AM

Quote :

"It's too bad we can't design our cars to run off the tears of environmentalists. "

This made me laugh. Like there is a magic switch or something. Its about as useful as saying we should be using teleporters instead of cars. If we made cars much more expensive then the research in teleporters would work better.

I wonder if mambagrl and hockey own or have driven a car.

6/25/2010 6:20:53 PM

And we're back to the "unless you live in a thatch hut, you're a hypocrite" argument.

6/25/2010 8:43:28 PM

No, we're back to reading comprehension fails, you dumbshit.

His point was that there is no viable alternative to fossil fuels now. Just saying, 'we need to get off our oil dependence!' is not a solution, but rather a meaningless proclamation without suggestions for how to get there.

6/25/2010 9:02:04 PM

Viable as in can they keep up with the increasing demand of self-absorbed douchebags that think the world is their dumping ground, then no, but are there ways to sustain a society through intelligent living habits and an increase in the alternatives, more than likely. Instead, we have short-sighted asshats who cling to their Manifest Destiny believing that they are somehow more special than anyone or anything else on this planet and are somehow entitled to exploit it as they see fit.

6/25/2010 9:09:57 PM

Quote :

"The 1979 mexican spill and the persian gulf spill are proof that these things can be cleaned up and the sea life bounces back with a quickness. Oil is made of volatile organic chemicals; that shit breaks down. What doesn't evaporate off sinks to the bottom of the ocean, where bottom-feeding bacteria go at it."

did either of those impact wetlands?

6/25/2010 11:13:40 PM

exploit? big word. So you do not have a car? And do you consider yourself exploiting the planet when you drive it to go to work or turn on your electricity to your house, AC, computer, etc? Come on man. Alternatives will come and people are working on them. Why? Bc there is a shitton of money in a cheaper, renewable resource that works as well or better than what we currently use. This is what people want, but wanting it doesnt make it magically appear overnight, or we would have had that cancer cure by now.

6/26/2010 12:30:06 AM

^actually, you might be on to something with that last sentence there. Especially if you swap cancer out with aids.

6/26/2010 12:28:21 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37785640/
A fun read, convinces me that governmental foreign aid is a waste of time and money.

6/27/2010 12:25:43 AM

its called foreign aid for a reason, you don't give aid with the intention of holding it over others, its goodwill. we just need to make sure we call the foreign help we're getting what it is, mercenary help.

6/27/2010 1:35:23 AM

For those interested in more details about why the blow-out preventer failed, the NYT has a long, nicely-written discussion of what went wrong:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/us/21blowout.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

It's 9 pages long, and covers industry and government failures in a pretty balanced way.

6/27/2010 4:26:20 PM

Just FYI: Washington, DC, uses petroleum for 100% of its electric power generation.

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/energy_summary.cfm/state=DC

Hypocrisy? Do you think?

6/28/2010 10:01:33 AM

Eh, that depends on who's supplying the power. Is the city also the utilities provider?

6/28/2010 10:03:45 AM

^ Washington, DC, has a deregulated competitive market for electric power.

6/28/2010 10:05:22 AM