I didn’t say, or mean, that it’s greedy not to want to nuke the ocean. It’s greedy to let this happen in the first place with poor standards and slow reaction. It’s greedy to try to salvage anything at all while the ocean is constantly being filled with oil and gas.
I thought I was clear that I didn’t like the idea of nuking the ocean floor, but now I’ve spelled that out, too.
I hate that that thing is still leaking. My mom lives very near the gulf coast–near enough to evacuate almost every hurricane in the area. And I really hate to think what the next one will do with all that oil.
[quote=“housecat”]I didn’t say, or mean, that it’s greedy not to want to nuke the ocean. It’s greedy to let this happen in the first place with poor standards and slow reaction. It’s greedy to try to salvage anything at all while the ocean is constantly being filled with oil and gas.
I thought I was clear that I didn’t like the idea of nuking the ocean floor, but now I’ve spelled that out, too.
I hate that that thing is still leaking. My mom lives very near the gulf coast–near enough to evacuate almost every hurricane in the area. And I really hate to think what the next one will do with all that oil.[/quote]
If you don’t salvage the oil that has been spilled, what would you do with it? You have to get it out of there somehow. Burning it is bad for the environment. Using soap on it to break up it is better than burning but not by much. I can swear I even saw them talking about using cat litter as a way of absorbing it. Capturing the stuff is the best solution among a list of crappy ones. Yeah it gives money to BP, but it also reduces the amount to be dealt with by other means.
Yes, but so far it’s been a month and no one is salvaging anything, not the health of the ocean, not the sea life, not the shore lines, not the livelihoods of fishermen, and not oil or gas either.
Oh, and BP isn’t posting this video out of the kindness of their hearts, they’ve been court orderd to do this.
What kind of emotional and sophomoric responses I’m reading on IP and the open forum where so many Forumosans are blaming big business for the spill. Yeah, it must be the fault of big business. After all, all big business is evil, right?
I mean, it really couldn’t be the Obama administration’s fault could it? After all, it was Obama administration bureaucrats that fast-tracked the Department of Interior (DOI) environmental assessment studies. People might blame Bush for starting deregulation in this sector before, but let’s not forget that deregulation is outcome based. Its whole purpose is to take prescriptive regulations and reduce them by making them outcome based. Sometimes this requires risk management. The Obama administration took the chance that nothing would happen by reducing the environement assessments, especially in risk management and disaster responses, and they totally fucked up. I’m all for deregulation, but its intent is to improve and streamline not to completely remove, as was done with disaster response elements of the environmental assessment. An article in the New York Times also suggests there were substance abuse and alcohol problems with the specific staff at the DOI. But instead of blaming Obama, his cheerleaders on Forumosa will continue to blame big business. Anything to avoid responsibility and admit their preferred leader made a mistake. If anything, government should be launching numerous investigations into the staff and the approval process for the changes. But that might mean accountability and no one wants that…better to blame the companies, especially if they are oil.
Puzzled by all this BP bashing. In most cases, multinational corporations are a hell of a lot more progressive than small ones that so many liberals seem to favour with their ‘local’ preferences mantra. Corporate governance ensures this. I love it how so many Taiwanese expats, many of whom work for small and medium sized enterprises, rally against big business. Transparency, rule of law, international staff, regular audits, standardized reporting, gender equity etc. are all adopted as SOP by MNCs. Are they adopted by small companies in many locales? Fuck no. Jealousy kills more people than cancer, and I would venture to say that most people would jump at an opportunity to work for a MNC where the best and brightest of so many of the cultures of the world work together for a common goal. Again, I think people are criticizing without knowing all or even half the facts (no surprise here).
IF BP is to blame, they’ll pay the fine, their insurance provider will pay a large claim, and they’ll be paying higher premiums for years. Let’s not become anti-business zealots with this event. If anything, having it happen to a bigger company is probably a good thing as they’ll have the means to clean it up better than an SME.
BP is a good company, and with a 7 percent dividend and cheaper stock price, a real bargain!!!
Since this post was removed from another thread without so much as a notification, I’d be interested to see if responding posters actually want to discuss this issue. Probably not
[quote=“Chewycorns”]What kind of emotional and sophomoric responses I’m reading on IP and the open forum where so many Forumosans are blaming big business for the spill. Yeah, it must be the fault of big business. After all, all big business is evil, right?
I mean, it really couldn’t be the Obama administration’s fault could it? After all, it was Obama administration bureaucrats that fast-tracked the Department of Interior (DOI) environmental assessment studies. People might blame Bush for starting deregulation in this sector before, but let’s not forget that deregulation is outcome based. Its whole purpose is to take prescriptive regulations and reduce them by making them outcome based. Sometimes this requires risk management. The Obama administration took the chance that nothing would happen by reducing the environement assessments, especially in risk management and disaster responses, and they totally fucked up. I’m all for deregulation, but its intent is to improve and streamline not to completely remove, as was done with disaster response elements of the environmental assessment. An article in the New York Times also suggests there were substance abuse and alcohol problems with the specific staff at the DOI. But instead of blaming Obama, his cheerleaders on Forumosa will continue to blame big business. Anything to avoid responsibility and admit their preferred leader made a mistake. If anything, government should be launching numerous investigations into the staff and the approval process for the changes. But that might mean accountability and no one wants that…better to blame the companies, especially if they are oil.
Puzzled by all this BP bashing. In most cases, multinational corporations are a hell of a lot more progressive than small ones that so many liberals seem to favour with their ‘local’ preferences mantra. Corporate governance ensures this. I love it how so many Taiwanese expats, many of whom work for small and medium sized enterprises, rally against big business. Transparency, rule of law, international staff, regular audits, standardized reporting, gender equity etc. are all adopted as SOP by MNCs. Are they adopted by small companies in many locales? Fuck no. Jealousy kills more people than cancer, and I would venture to say that most people would jump at an opportunity to work for a MNC where the best and brightest of so many of the cultures of the world work together for a common goal. Again, I think people are criticizing without knowing all or even half the facts (no surprise here).
IF BP is to blame, they’ll pay the fine, their insurance provider will pay a large claim, and they’ll be paying higher premiums for years. Let’s not become anti-business zealots with this event. If anything, having it happen to a bigger company is probably a good thing as they’ll have the means to clean it up better than an SME.
BP is a good company, and with a 7 percent dividend and cheaper stock price, a real bargain!!!
Since this post was removed from another thread without so much as a notification, I’d be interested to see if responding posters actually want to discuss this issue. Probably not [/quote]
LOL, so you chastise everyone for the blame game and then turn around and play it yourself.
I guess you blamed Bush for Katrina, 9/11 and all the stuff that happened on his watch. Your logic seems to dictate you would, but I bet if all those old threads were bumped we’d read a different story.
ChewEy, hao fang bian it must be to have your brain defecate through your fingers and onto your keyboard.
They could have a lot more tankers out there sucking that shit up but obama is out covering his political ass instead. Nobody is buying it. What a fucking fuck up. He is going to get drilled as a complete incompetent on this. Corrupt too. This is worse than Bush’s slow turd on Katrina.
Looks like the “dispersants” that BP pumped into the Gulf have had harmful effects on the health of the fishermen BP hired to help in the cleanup efforts.
[quote=“Chris”]Looks like the “dispersants” that BP pumped into the Gulf have had harmful effects on the health of the fishermen BP hired to help in the cleanup efforts.
Here’s a list of symptoms for high level unprotected exposure to crude oil. I would bet the side effects the fishermen are experiencing is from inhaling the VOC’s from the leaking crude oil. Crude Oil Toxicity
What BP should have done was to utilize the emergency equipment they should have had at the ready for such a worst-case scenario, given that they knew the risks of drilling at such a depth. Surely they wouldn’t have drilled in the first place without being prepared for dealing with such an incident?
But wait… they didn’t have equipment at the ready to deal with such a contingency. Now why is that?
[quote=“ChewEycorns”][quote=“Center for Reponsive Politics”]
BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals. BP also took the step of hiring the Podesta Group, the lobbying firm headed up by Obama confidant John Podesta and his brother Tony, paying the firm $720,000 since 2008. All told, BP has spent just shy of $20 million on federal lobbying over the last two years [/quote] politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
Hope, change and oil spills!
It’s not just the large number of donations from BP to Obama’s campaign and the lack of due diligence for the environmental assessments, Obama’s tax policy changes for foreign offshore oil workers have also resulted in an exodus of well-trained, experienced Brits from the Gulf. I’m all for offshore drilling, but relacing foreign specialists for cheaper Mexican and American regional workers and fast tracking assessments? Due diligence was not done here and it has Obama’s fingerprint on it. [/quote]
[quote=“ChewEycorns”]What kind of emotional and sophomoric responses I’m reading on IP and the open forum where so many Forumosans are blaming big business for the spill. Yeah, it must be the fault of big business. After all, all big business is evil, right?
I mean, it really couldn’t be the Obama administration’s fault could it? After all, it was Obama administration bureaucrats that fast-tracked the Department of Interior (DOI) environmental assessment studies. People might blame Bush for starting deregulation in this sector before, but let’s not forget that deregulation is outcome based. Its whole purpose is to take prescriptive regulations and reduce them by making them outcome based. Sometimes this requires risk management. The Obama administration took the chance that nothing would happen by reducing the environement assessments, especially in risk management and disaster responses, and they totally fucked up. I’m all for deregulation, but its intent is to improve and streamline not to completely remove, as was done with disaster response elements of the environmental assessment. An article in the New York Times also suggests there were substance abuse and alcohol problems with the specific staff at the DOI. But instead of blaming Obama, his cheerleaders on Forumosa will continue to blame big business. Anything to avoid responsibility and admit their preferred leader made a mistake. If anything, government should be launching numerous investigations into the staff and the approval process for the changes. But that might mean accountability and no one wants that…better to blame the companies, especially if they are oil.
Puzzled by all this BP bashing. In most cases, multinational corporations are a hell of a lot more progressive than small ones that so many liberals seem to favour with their ‘local’ preferences mantra. Corporate governance ensures this. I love it how so many Taiwanese expats, many of whom work for small and medium sized enterprises, rally against big business. Transparency, rule of law, international staff, regular audits, standardized reporting, gender equity etc. are all adopted as SOP by MNCs. Are they adopted by small companies in many locales? Fuck no. Jealousy kills more people than cancer, and I would venture to say that most people would jump at an opportunity to work for a MNC where the best and brightest of so many of the cultures of the world work together for a common goal. Again, I think people are criticizing without knowing all or even half the facts (no surprise here).
IF BP is to blame, they’ll pay the fine, their insurance provider will pay a large claim, and they’ll be paying higher premiums for years. Let’s not become anti-business zealots with this event. If anything, having it happen to a bigger company is probably a good thing as they’ll have the means to clean it up better than an SME.
BP is a good company, and with a 7 percent dividend and cheaper stock price, a real bargain!!!
Since this post was removed from another thread without so much as a notification, I’d be interested to see if responding posters actually want to discuss this issue. Probably not [/quote]
Oh ChewEy, even your right wing blowhard news outlets aren’t taking your side on this one. Wrong again you is! And all for the sake of toeing the right wing line and running plays out of Coach Blowhard’s right wing playbook.
[quote]BP made choices over the course of the project that rendered this well more vulnerable to the blowout, which unleashed a spew of crude oil that engineers are struggling to stanch.
BP, for instance, cut short a procedure involving drilling fluid that is designed to detect gas in the well and remove it before it becomes a problem, according to documents belonging to BP and to the drilling rig’s owner and operator, Transocean Ltd.
More than 200,000 gallons of oil a day are spewing from the blown-out well at the site of the Deepwater Horizon, which exploded April 20 and sank two days later. Meanwhile, concern grows about animals and plants on the ecologically fragile coastline, where oil began washing ashore April 29.
BP also skipped a quality test of the cement around the pipe—another buffer against gas—despite what BP now says were signs of problems with the cement job and despite a warning from cement contractor Halliburton Co.
Once gas was rising, the design and procedures BP had chosen for the well likely gave this perilous gas an easier path up and out, say well-control experts. There was little keeping the gas from rushing up to the surface after workers, pushing to finish the job, removed a critical safeguard, the heavy drilling fluid known as “mud.” BP has admitted a possible “fundamental mistake” in concluding that it was safe to proceed with mud removal, according to a memo from two Congressmen released Tuesday night.[/quote]
what a pity, you are the only one left fighting the ‘good’ fight.
I really don’t get it. They started dumping dispersant into this mess, which essentially makes the oil break up and fucking SINK so that you can’t collect it. Then they put out a bunch of booms which don’t do anything but corral the oil, which makes sense but at some point they have to skim or vacum it up, which I don’t see any reports that they are doing at all. Originally BP said that the effects of this would be minimal, obviously a lie, while at the same time claiming that they were doing everything they could do to clean it up, apparently also a lie.
Here is the wiki on booms…
Why don’t we see reports “anywhere” about vacums and skimmers out there picking the stuff up? Seriously, couldn’t you expect that between the US governmnet and BP they would have it together to be employing those techniques on a major scale?
[quote=“bob”]I really don’t get it. They started dumping dispersant into this mess, which essentially makes the oil break up and fucking SINK so that you can’t collect it. Then they put out a bunch of booms out which don’t do anything but corral the oil, which makes sense but at some point they have to skim or vacum it up, which I don’t see any reports that they are doing at all. Originally BP said that the effects of this would be minimal, obviously a lie, while at the same time claiming that they were doing everything they could do to clean it up, apparently also a lie.
Why don’t we see reports “anywhere” about vacums and skimmers out there picking the stuff up? Seriously, couldn’t you expect that between the US governmnet and BP they would have it together to be employing those techniques on a major scale?[/quote]
I think you have the order reversed on the boom and dispersant. They put the booms out to keep it from spreading (or contaminating marshes), but like you pointed out, that only works at corralling the oil that’s on the surface. That’s also where the dispersant is most effective because the oil is concentrated. Booms work well with oil spills from tankers because the oil is being added to the surface or near the surface and it’s a fixed amount. They aren’t very effective on oil leaks from the ocean floor because the oil is rising in a vertical column, dispersing around the booms and keeps going until you seal the leak.
I don’t think the plan ever was to pick the stuff up. I would guess they looked for the best possible solution (weighing cost, time, effectiveness of solution, etc) and their choice was to use dispersant chemicals plus natural wave action to break up the hydrocarbons. Vacuums and skimmers are designed for spills from oil tankers, where the oil is highly concentrated. You might be able to use them on areas near the platform but over a thousand square miles? You would need hundreds, if not thousands, of boats to pull enough skimmers and vacuums to cover an area that size. The kicker is that until you control the leaking crude from the bottom, every time you clean an area it will be recontaminated by new oil.
As an example, the Petroleum Association of Japan has a list of their response equipment here. A quick look shows the best skimmer they have does 65 kl/h. That would be fantastic for an oil spill from a tanker which is a fixed amount; you can corral up with booms and then separate it from sea water. From a constantly leaking source a mile under the ocean that is spread over a thousand square miles? It wouldn’t be effective.
There are nearly four thousand oil wells in the gulf of Mexico and THIS is the best plan they had in case of an emergency of this kind? And that is suppsed to be in any way acceptable? I ain’t buyin it. A lot of other people aren’t buying it either. And Obama is up there with his usual superior attitude telling us all how it is. Wake up fucko. YOU and BP are in the hot seat on this, not anybody else, and when YOU are in the hot seat it’s unwise to appear too smug. (BTW, have you noticed the EARS on that man. Funny I never noticed how big his fucking EARS are till this happend.)
They should have all the vacums and skimmers they could find out there, just based on the idea that less oil in the ocean is better than more oil in the ocean. They could have had equipment from every corner of the world working on that, and it was offered but BP the and government REJECTED it. I saw a representative from Norway saying (much more diplomatically) the same thing I am saying. “Vacum and skim the stuff up.” They even offered the equipment.
Might have been a good time to think “outside the box” on this one too. You know, show a little creativity. Some form of absorbant material would have been an idea. Say, for example, hay or peat moss. Throw it on, pick it up, move it somewhere and burn it. They could have had an army of boats out there doing that, and they would have except it would have exposed the size of the mess and would have been too expensive.
Just watch. BP, Obama and all the rest of the hypocrite politicians will get slaughtered on this. It’s a fuck up in slow motion.
I am assuming BP owns a few of those. And I am assuming they could manage a few pumps. Why didn’t they just pump contaminated sea water into one of those, fill it up, let the oil rise to the surface and then pump the sea water out from the bottom of the hold. When it started pumping oil, shut the pumps pumping out off and start pumping contaminated water back in till it filled up again. Repeat until the tanker is filled with oil.
Why not? There may be good reasons, but from what I’ve heard BP and the government aren’t listening to anybody anyway, assuring us that the top experts are on it and doing their best. I DON"T BELIEVE IT. What I believe is that they are doing their best within the very narrow parameters set by BP while they attempt to minimize their loses. And I believe that the government will be shown to have been complicit in that.
I’m all for offshore drilling, but relacing foreign specialists for cheaper Mexican and American regional workers and fast tracking assessments? Due diligence was not done here and it has Obama’s fingerprint on it.