Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 354
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...Page 10 of 33    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
I still stand by all my comments made in this thread. The last two posts just continue to add fuel to my fire.
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 355
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/18/2010 1:03:41 PM
Interesting reading here
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593#comment-648967
Thanks to CheshireCatalyst msg 345


Finding who to blame
Feels good
But is a distraction
To finding the solution to the solution floating in the ocean


Sounds to me like the worst case scenario of the leak not being able to be plugged needs to be taken seriously and solutions and preparation fast tracked

I would propose a fleet of tankers circling the area of the breakout along with miles of booms encircling it.
Along with vacuums and seperaters and what ever processing capacity was required to get the crude into tanks and onto the market

Sure messy but better than sitting about pointing fingers

So if you want to make noise I would suggest you demand solutions instead of denial

Even thinking in terms of compensation at the moment is a distraction that may well not be affordable in terms of time wasted and focus distracted

Another possible solution would be to put a smaller tube inside the existing one and sealing it from the bottom
Just dont ask me to do it......I couldnt hold my breath long enough :-)
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 356
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/18/2010 2:13:27 PM
"Island home, I agree!

Yes I'm outraged, yes I think blame should be aportioned, but it IS a distraction.

We need, our government needs, BP needs, Anadarko needs to focus on what will extract the oil from the water, try to limit the damage as best ALLLL of us can.

The fleet of tankers thing was used in the mideast. One of the problems here of course is the depth of the water, as opposed to over there.

The problem admittedly by all the oil companies, is they all have failed to look into clean up, in the detail it needs. So we now are playing catch up, very late in the game.

Supposedly BP has literally 10's of thousands of ideas submitted to extract oil from water, clean up the marshes, clean up the gulf. Here in lies the rub, we don't know how many people are sifting through these proposals, nor if there is government involvement in the process. Not that would be neccessarily better, but with that much data, it kinda goes to the proverbial "needle in a haystack" thing.

Additionally I earlier in the thread quierd why our government, does not take an active hand. What I mean by that is this:

1. We have an ongoing unemployment issue of epic proportions. Congress is failing to act on extending benefits further. Why not employ people WPA style to help with the clean up?

2. Instead of billion dollar boondogals, or pork barrel projects in remote locations. Set up a $1 billion dollars, to hire 25o,ooo people over all the states from Texas to Florida working on the cleanup. That would reduce unemployment by almost as many as the census did.

3. Further since these people would be employed there, they would offset loss of tourism dollars with the money they would spend to live there temporarily. Even at only 4 or 6 weeks, it would have a tremendous impact, for all concerned.

While I may continue my diatribes against the powers that be inside BP, congress and the MMS. I do promote constructive ideas, that would impact the problem on our shores.

I just don't understand the mentality of standing around, goofing off while we sink in muck. Is it the election year, and they all need their soundbites to bring home to be elected again? Are they really that callous, that they will let 5 states drown in a sea of oil? Eventuall it will reach the east coast gulfstream, then you can add 7 or 9 more states that will need clean up and a couple of zero's to my plans cost.

(sigh) is ANYBODY LISTENING OUT THERE???
 HeyJenny
Joined: 11/13/2008
Msg: 357
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/18/2010 3:51:38 PM
Finally after how many weeks BP has paid attention to Kevin Costner's invention and has ordered 32 of them. I for one will be praying that it works.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Broadcast/bp-excited-kevin-costners-oil-cleanup-machine-purchases/story?id=10916445
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 358
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/18/2010 3:57:06 PM
mr.evil

Our government has no money.

The only it could fund that kind of program would be to inflate or to borrow, both of these come at the expense of the poor. The rich can avoid inflation by buying hard assets and moving their money into other currencies. The poor can't. They're stuck.


That policy would effectively place the majority of the economic cost of the cleanup on our poorest citizens.


Not saying that's a reason to reject the idea. Just something to keep in mind.
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 359
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/18/2010 4:26:49 PM
Gawd ubiq, pulllleezzzzeee send me some of that sh1t your smokin! God I could use to have my brain that fried!

"Our government has no money."

OMG!! We're spending a couple of billion a DAY, chasing idiots around in 2 countries Iraq and Afgan. We spent a TRILLION, that's TRILLION with a "T", to fix the banking system. We spent $30 billion on GM and Chrysler. We spent $125 BILLION on AIG>

That doesn't count all those fuking idiots in Washington with their fuking hands out, for a paycheck they didn't earn(obviously here in MMS) The CIA, FBI, NSA and the rest of that fuking alphabet soup that missed the 9/11 guys, the christmas plane guy, the shoe bomber and a sh1tload of other things, we have NO IDEA what they spend because their budget is top secret, and buried in some other budget.

Your telling me, OH WAIT, I forgot, Fannie and Freddie, fuk up corps set up by the giv we've dumped 200 billion into and they are still a black hole with no end in sight.

Your telling me, they can't cut a few bombs, a couple of flights over the goats in afgan, and a few other places to get ONE STINKIN BILLION, when they've already spent 4 or 5 TRILLION?

Hey you, over there, take the bong away from this boy, before he hurts himself!

You want a billion dollars, pass the 28th amendment to the constitution. It would force changes to the federal government. Among which would change the right of members of congress to retire at the same pay rate after one term. It would force them to pay into social security which they don't do now. It would stop them from exempting themselves from laws that apply to us but exempts them, such as healthcare, sexual harassment and other laws.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 360
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/18/2010 4:55:13 PM
That's exactly what I'm saying. It's one of the major contributing reasons why we have so much poverty and a shrinking middle class in this country. Inflationary government spending and high sovereign debt reduces the purchasing power of wages and has a concentrated effect on the poor. Ask Greece. Ask Spain. Ask the UK. Or you could go to more extreme examples and ask the Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe.

This is a fact, verified hundreds of times over. Inflationary government spending hurts the poor. This cannot be denied.



Do you get off on this style of debate or something? You seem to be more interested in war cries and mockery than in pursuing truth.
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 361
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/18/2010 5:43:37 PM
I get off on the truth! "Inflationary government spending hurts the poor."

Exactly how do you get there? IF someone doesn't have a job, they are well on there way to being poor. Giving them a job, gives them a chance to NOT be poor. Cleaning the gulf would be a good thing, otherwise more businesses owned by our citizens will be exported! When 2,000 shrimpers in Lousiana are out of work due to the oil spill. Do you believe we will go without shrimp? Of course not, we'll buy them from Peru, so the peruvian shrimpers will make that money, on top of which it will cost more to ship them here.

What is hurting the poor isn't government spending, it's NAFTA and beancounters sending jobs offshore. We import our steel from asia, we import at least half of our auto's from europe or asia, we import our software coding from the Phillipines, Thailand and India, we import our clothing from every 3rd world sh1thole that can run a sweatshop.

Intelligent government spending is good business. The billion I spoke about would turn out to be more like 700 million or less. The rest would be recaptured in taxes paid by the workers, paid by the businesses who benefited. The gulf would be cleaner, promoting tourism again. In the long run you would save on healthcare costs for those living near the polution. If your mind can't grasp the far reaching implications of what I'm saying, see that the benefits far outweigh the short term costs. That for everybody, oil company, citizens, unemployed, local businesses and the country as a whole, it's a win, win, win! Then I don't know how to reach you, maybe somebody better than I can. But so far, you disagree with everyone who doesn't see it your way, despite valid points and arguments.

You also can't compare those other economies to ours. Take out the UK and Spain and those other economies wouldn't add up to the GDP of California, much less our whole country. Given a change in laws, approach to business that emphasizes production in our borders again, w would be on track for a paying off a lot of that debt. He11 even Wall Street paid back most of the money, and what is left as debt from the 700 billion will turn a profit with the sale of Citibank stock the government holds.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 362
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/18/2010 6:51:21 PM
Just mere negligence, arrogance, greed and corporate posturing...

The Tyee (Vancouver) June 18, 2010

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/06/18/WhatHappenedBP/

What Happened on the BP Oil Rig?

The facts, now out, are detailed here. The moral reckoning has yet to begin.

By Rex Weyler

After the Deepwater well blew out, the first announcement from
British Petroleum (BP) assured the public that "we have the best
engineers in the world." Then they announced that the damaged well
flowed at a rate of "one thousand barrels per day" (b/d).

Estimates now range between 50 and 150 b/d.

How do the "best engineers in the world" get this wrong by two orders
of magnitude?

My father is a petroleum engineer. One of my earliest memories is
sneaking into the Quonset hut near our home in Wyoming and tracing
the swirling colours in drilling cores from thousands of feet under
the earth. When I was a teenager, my father and his crew drilled the
deepest producing gas well in the world at the time, 22,000 feet
below the west Texas plains. He knows wells, and I've been writing to
him for industry scuttlebutt about BP's Deepwater disaster.

Industry engineers have poured over BP's reports and correspondence,
and the evidence paints a dark tale. Terry Barr of Samson Oil and Gas
in Colorado published a summary of the analysis in the Wall Street
Journal this week. These petroleum engineers know what they're
talking about, have reviewed the data, both public and private, and
have pieced together the following sequence of tragic events.

Wet shoe chronicles

By mid-April, 2010, the BP Deepwater rig crew had tapped into an oil
and gas reservoir, 18,000 feet deep, in 5,000 feet of sea water. At
this depth, normal pressure would be about 8,000 pounds per square
inch (psi), but actual "formation pressure" can build up to twice
normal, so the rig crew would have been prepared for 16,000 psi. That
is a lot of pressure. A typical fire hose operates at about 100 to
300 psi.

Having reached the oil and gas formation, the crew had to temporarily
shut down the well while they replaced the drilling rig with a
production rig. To do this, they need to seal off the bottom of the
hole with a cement plug, called a "shoe."

The well is lined with "casing" pipe, seven inches in diameter at the
bottom. This means the hole has an area of about 38 square inches,
and at 8,000 psi, this amounts to about 300,000 pounds of pressure on
the shoe plug. The world's strongest human can resist about 500
pounds for about two seconds.

According to documents released by the U.S. House Energy and Commerce
Committee this week, BP officials had rejected a $7 million casing
liner and a time consuming procedure to install more casing
stabilizers. "It will take 10 hours to install them. I do not like
this," a BP executive insisted. "Who cares, it's done, end of story,
will probably be fine." Six days before the blowout, in an email, BP
engineer Brian Morel called Deepwater a "nightmare rig" due to these
cavalier safety risks.

To shut down the well, the crew ran a series of "casing integrity
tests" to confirm the shoe is sealed, and no pressure is leaking from
the oil and gas pocket into the well. While conducting these tests,
the BP crew encountered three red flags that told them they had a
"wet shoe," meaning that oil and gas were leaking into the well. The
BP brain trust ignored these three warnings.

Red flags

When the crew tried to fit on the top plug, it did not sit properly,
a clear indication that the bottom cement seal could be leaking
pressure into the well. This was Red Flag Number One.

The rig supervisor reportedly called his BP bosses, but someone along
the chain of command decided it wasn't worth the time and expense to
reseal the shoe plug. According to an Associated Press, Doug Brown,
the rig's chief mechanic, witnessed a dispute among managers on the
day of the explosion. Clearly, the rig engineers had conflicts with
the BP executives. Some wanted to mutiny.

After the troubling top plug incident, the crew ran a standard
"negative pressure test." They released pressure in the well to see
if the pressure built back up. If it does, there's a problem. It did.
They had a problem. The bottom shoe was not sealed and oil and gas
was leaking into the well.

This was the second Big Red Flag. According to Terry Barr in the Wall
Street Journal, "At this point, a decision should have been made to
do a remedial cement job; this is an expensive operation, but having
seen a 1,400 psi response, there was no choice." A cheaper option is
a cement plug anywhere along the well casing, but once again, the BP
brain trust decided to proceed without doing either of these things.

Pressure data

In a final stage of shutting down the well, the rig crew removed the
heavy drilling mud, which holds the reservoir pressure down until the
well is sealed. They replaced the mud with sea water, which is only
about half as heavy. At 8:20 p.m. on the night of the explosion, as
the well filled with water, the crew recorded that more mud flowed
from the well than water going in. Red Flag Number Three!

"One can conclude," explains Barr, "that hydrocarbons were flowing."
This means that pressure from the oil and gas reservoir was clearly
leaking through the bad seal on the bottom. Safety and common sense
suggest they should stop, plug the well, and seal it off. They did
not do this.

By 8:34, for every three gallons of water going into the well, four
gallons of mud came out. Gas and oil was clearly moving up through
the well. They crew pushed on. The rationalizing might may have gone
something like this: "Oh, it's held so far. Maybe we're okay.
Besides, we have blow-out preventers if the reservoir pressure pops
the shoe."

But blow out preventers (BOPs) can fail and are intended as a last
resort. Furthermore, the engineers did not know the reservoir
pressure, so they could not be certain that the blow-out preventers
would be enough. Finally, the pressure rose slowly -- like boiling a
frog -- so the main BOP on the sea floor had already allowed some
pressure to pass.

At 9:30 p.m. on April 20, the rig crew tested the water again and
detected a pressure increase. This was Red Flag Number Three showing
up again, so call it Red Flag Number Three B. At 9:49, oil and gas
reached the rig, ignited, blew up the rig, killed 11 people,
devastated the Gulf's coastal economy, and initiated one of
humanity's worst ecological disasters.

In addition to 11 dead human victims, the blowout has killed
thousands of seabirds, turtles, fish and other marine animals.
Something like 50,000 to 150,000 barrels of oil per day (or more)
pours into the Gulf of Mexico. That's two Exxon Valdez disasters each
week. On top of this, BP has added over one million gallons of toxic
Corexit dispersant, banned in the UK, which contains the neurotoxin
2-Butoxyethanol, arsenic, cadmium, cyanide, and mercury.

Business as usual

According to my father, "the relief wells are the best answer to
control the blowout. But if not contained, the flow of oil and gas
could continue for years." If the relief wells don't work, BP is
considering a nuclear blast to close the hole. This however could
just as easily make the situation worse. It is possible that the Gulf
seabed has already been fissured and that oil and gas is now escaping
from multiple locations. The nuke option could aggravate this problem.

BP, by all accounts, is guilty of criminal negligence, but it would
be a mistake to pass this off as an anomaly. These safety violations
reflect the habits of industrial culture. BP will send some scapegoat
packing and claim they've learned their lesson. But we've witnessed
this before at Bhopal in 1984, at Chernobyl in 1986, at the Marcopper
Mine in the Philippines in 1996, in Seveso Italy, at Love Canal,
Banqiao Dam in China, gold mines in Romania, and in Minimata Japan
for four murderous decades, as Chisso Chemical poisoned an innocent
fishing village.

This disaster isn't just human error. It is the natural consequence
of our society's practice of harvesting nature for profit.
Corporations have demonstrated no ability to regulate themselves or
operate on moral principles. Morality is too expensive. It is cheaper
to cut corners on a hundred oil wells and pay the fines on the one
that blows out. It is cheaper to dump mercury and cyanide and dioxins
into rivers and bays, and then wait to see if the poor inhabitants
have the muscle to make the company pay. It's cheaper to obliterate
nature, finance your own "citizen group" to sign off on your
treachery, and pay squadrons of lawyers to avoid liability.

We took the easy stuff first. Now we go higher into the mountains for
lithium and copper, deeper into the forest for ancient trees, and
deeper into the earth's crust for oil and gas. Damn the cost. The
rich consumers will pay and pelicans have no lawyers.

The Deepwater blowout that now stacks up among the greatest
ecological holocausts of all time was not just an accident. It is a
symptom of a civilization's style.


- Rex Weyler, a founder of Greenpeace, is a journalist based in Vancouver.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 363
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/18/2010 7:20:08 PM
mr.evil


Exactly how do you get there?

It's not easy. It takes work and it takes time. Stealing from the poor, which is exactly what inflation is, is not an effective way to solve social problems. It creates more than it solves. It's pushing on string if your goal is to eliminate poverty.





IF someone doesn't have a job, they are well on there way to being poor. Giving them a job, gives them a chance to NOT be poor.

If it's as simple as that, then why stop at 250,000? Why not hire 2.5 million people to clean up the mess? How about 25 million?

"Jobs" aren't what we want. It's the productivity from jobs that we want. Production. That's what adds value and resources to our economy. More resources means more to go around for everyone, lower prices, etc. That's what pulls people out of poverty. Productive jobs.






Cleaning the gulf would be a good thing

I agree. But there are more efficient ways to do it than the government to further inflate the money supply by hiring an army of hands and feet to the the job. Checkout the link posted by Jenny.

Moreover, merely giving people something unproductive and unsustainable to do in the name of creating "jobs" will 1) discourage them from looking for a sustainable, productive job while they're working and 2) will lengthen the time it takes for local entrepreneurs to employ that labor because the available supply will be artificially not looking for work.

Put those two together and you have a delayed, unnecessarily drawn-out recovery. This is exactly what happened during the great depression. All those government programs, while they meant well, are what made the recession a depression. They prevented the market from adjusting and recovering.





Of course not, we'll buy them from Peru, so the peruvian shrimpers will make that money, on top of which it will cost more to ship them here.

How is hiring 250,000 people to clean up oil going to give us shrimp?





What is hurting the poor isn't government spending.

So the trillions in bailout money to banks, hundreds of billions in corporate subsidies, hundreds of billions in fighting battles overseas, isn't hurting the poor. This isn't preventing prices from falling? Of course it is. It is all being spent by inflation.

The government is doing everything it can think of to keep home prices from falling. Please, tell me, how does this help the poor? Cause, the way I look at it, it helps the rich and middle class at the expense of the poor.



it's NAFTA

So if we just pretended these arbitrary lines that divide countries are actual barriers, we will reduce poverty? We can trade all we want with Texas, but can't go south a few miles into Mexico without exploiting the poor? Sharing infrastructure and resources creates poverty? Man, roommates must really not know what they're doing. Damn Bill Clinton for signing NAFTA.

You are completely wrong about free trade. It obliterates poverty.

Does Free Trade Exploit The Poor?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO2-XRQ4r-0








We import our steel from asia, we import at least half of our auto's from europe or asia, we import our software coding from the Phillipines, Thailand and India, we import our clothing from every 3rd world sh1thole that can run a sweatshop.

And look at how much poverty rates have gone down in those countries. India's alone have been cut in half in barely a generation after opening their borders to trade.

But I guess the poor there don't count to you : /







The billion I spoke about would turn out to be more like 700 million or less. The rest would be recaptured in taxes paid by the workers, paid by the businesses who benefited. The gulf would be cleaner, promoting tourism again. In the long run you would save on healthcare costs for those living near the polution.

You've only looked at (an unrealistically optimistic version of) the benefits. You've only measured costs in terms of direct dollars spent. You've ignored the most important cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost


These things aren't as simple as you are making them out to be. If it were this easy to produce economic prosperity then no nation on earth would be poor. "Get government to hire everyone! They know what to do."

That mentality has caused the deaths of literally hundreds of millions of people. It's time to learn the lesson that it doesn't work.







Take out the UK and Spain and those other economies wouldn't add up to the GDP of California, much less our whole country.

So 2+2 doesn't = 5 but 10,000 + 10,000 = 30,000?

Scale means nothing in this context. Inflation hurts the poor, no matter what size the country is.







Given a change in laws, approach to business that emphasizes production in our borders again, w would be on track for a paying off a lot of that debt.

Agreed. But that change requires repealing the enormously high corporate taxes, personal taxes, wage taxes, high costs of meeting regulations, tariffs, quotas, etc that drive our production overseas.

Our companies don't want to outsource. They know their customers prefer to see "Made in America". Lower labor costs alone rarely are enough to justify the costs of outsourcing. The more free-market non-government policies are generally the driving factor.

That's why so much production has moved to China. Labor is cheaper in Africa. But China has fewer restrictions on business development.

...wonder what China's poverty rates have been doing for the past 30 years? Take a look.






Anyways, in conclusion, your proposed solution is for the government to put the poor in further debt by hiring 250,000 people to inefficiently clean up the spilled oil. This would have the effect of discouraging people from introdicing actual equipment that can get the job done in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost.

Moreover, you believe international cooperation is harmful. That it reduces poverty. Not only do the facts fly in the face of this, but it promotes a deeper, more fundamental problem. Isolationism.

Free encourages people from all over the world to work together towards common goals. It has resulted in the most dramatic tearing down of mental barriers between different peoples and different races that the world has ever seen. These arbitrary mental walls have plagued the human race for millennia. Economic freedom has been the single greatest force in destroying the incentive for large-scale warfare between nations and has and continues to take our species away of thinking the way you do - that we're best when we keep to ourselves - and advances us towards a more progressive era.

Your solution, while well-meaning, would predictably lead to serious economic damage and would not solve the problem of oil in the water in the first place. It would infact discourage a real solution. 250,000 people aren't going to want to give up their job so easily if it turns out machinery can get the job done much more effectively (again, see link posted by Jenny).

You are so filled with anger. Why? It's so destructive.
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 364
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/18/2010 9:19:18 PM
"Why not 2.5 million or 25 million"

Because that WOULD BE inflationary, ineffective, wasteful to administrate and a drain on the overall labor pool. It would also be ineffective, with each person picking up one tarball. It would be expensive as well at 10 times or 100 times the cost I propose. Productivity would be nonexistant with a force that size.

For someone worried about inflationary actions, this would be way up there on that list. While it would be temporary work, it would last long enough, hopefully to get past the worst of the derth of jobs.

"How is hiring 250,000 going to give us shrimp?"

It won't but hopefully the better the cleanup, the sooner shrimping may return to the gulf. As opposed to sending overseas, for something we can or should be able to do here.

"The government is doing everything it can think of to keep home prices from falling."

Ah finally we agree on one thing. Actual free markets, such as the stock market, commodities, bonds and housing are at the whim of supply and demand. The housing problem was started by Nixon and continued to this day by Bush. Each successive president, thought ALL people deserved to own a piece of the American dream. Some dreams are just that, dreams. For well over 150 years some people in america lived in apartments, or rented homes. The reason, they couldn't afford a house. That hasn't changed anywhere in the world, always was, always will be. At least in modern societies, where land is plentiful and unowned, some governments will allow makeshift houses to be erected. The mortgage crisis was not only created by trading MBO's, but by deregulated financial firms, creating products no one understood, or had the capability to pay for. GREED said buy the house now and sell it in 2 years, you'll make X, then buy another. BS!!!!

"arbitray lines that divide countries are actual barriers, we will reduce poverty?"

So you advocate we are our brothers keeper, even to the detriment of your own life? I guess your willing to give up your own job and live in a refrigerator box, so someone in Mexico, India or Asia can have a better life and your job?
We did not create countries, that happened centuries before we arrived on the scene. Maybe in your childrens, childrens lifetime, a united world with a single currency and unified laws, similar wages and benefits will prevail. For now that is not the world we live in. If your way is correct, please write to China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, UK and any other country with a military presence. Get them to scrap their ships, planes and bombs. Without those, the world could end poverty soooo much quicker. Why not start with a trip to see Kim Jong in North Korea, I'm sure he would listen to you.

Yes I'm afraid I have to look out for my own country first, although when you look at the picture, we supply a good deal of the budget to the UN's efforts with poverty, our own efforts in other countries to create jobs and growth, is without precedent.

Further since there are independent nations(or would you abolish them?) what or how will you handle greedy and corrupt leaders who line their pockets at the cost of those millions of lives you speak of?

"But I guess the poor there don't count to you?"

Sorry, rule of nature, I didn't create it, nor do I affect it, only the strong survive. If you were in a lifeboat at sea, with only enough food for 8 but 18 were in the boat, would you feed the 18 and have everyone die? Tough choice I know, but reality is a b1tch. But IMO 8 live people to carry on the human race, is better than 18 dead ones.

Again the problem is not those countries or their people, but the educational system they have. The uneducated live shorter lives, have less and generally get screwed not by the USA, but by the eductaed within their borders. Oh wait, I forgot, to you those borders don't exist. Why not tear up your passport and visit some of those places, like Nigeria, Zimbabwie and a couple of others, see how you make out.

"Inflation"

Exactly how do YOU measure inflation? You keep refering to it. While it seems to be holding steady at around 3%. Not a very high rate given the last 40 years.

"Our companies don't want to outsource"

What source can you cite for this statement? This is nothing more than a pipe dream someone told you. Capital formation for the purpose of starting a business, is based on maximizing shareholder income(dividends) and value. Corporations ALWAYS act in their own self interest. That interest is PROFITS, not jobs in america. If what you said was even remotely true, Walmart would buy goods manufactured in america not china, india and taiwan. GM would still make cars in Detroit not Mexico or other countries they have exported their manufacturing facilities to. AT&T would still employ americans to operate their call centers here not in the Phillipines. Same with the airlines, same with the tech companies who's help desks are located in India.

No corporation is interested in ANYTHING but the bottom line, maximum profit.

"That's why so much production has moved to china."

???? Oh c'mon, you've got to be kidding here. They don't move it to africa for several reasons. First African countries governments are highly unstable. Who wants to invest 20 million to find out they burned down your factory last night? Who wants to pay a 5 million bribe to the new regime? Who wants 70 to 80% of their manufactured products to be defective, because the labor pool is uneducated? Who wants to worry cause there are no roads to get your product to the ships to bring it here to sell?

China is building roads(has been for the last 15 years). China's population is far better educated. China's government is firmly in control of the largest army in the world, that means a stable government. Finally China's polution laws rival Africa's, dump whatever the he11 you want, we don;t care.

"introducing actual equipment that can get the job done in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost."

Yeah right!!! They haven't brought in the super tankers to scoop the oil up and process it YET! They just bought 30 machines from Costners group, we don't know how effective they are. They don't know about the 10's of thousands of other proposals of cleaning mechanisms cause they never thought about it. They are doing NOTHING right now, so what magic machines are you refering to? They've only begun to look at this problem TODAY, within the last week, "60 days into the spill"!!!!

BP just doesn't want the nightmare photo OP of thousands of people in hazmat suits cleaning beaches. It would be a PR nightmare, that would last decades.

"You are so filled with anger. Why?"

Because unlike you, I care deeply about this country, the people in it and the fact that this is not some high school debate, or esoteric exercise in winning an argument. It is the lives of generations upon generations of people who lived there for a hundred years. Who have no voice, cause the government doesn't care, because they have no lobbyists to spread around millions to help reelect people who will watch these peoples children die of poison and polution and just go to the country club for another martini.

I can't fix the world, he11 I can't even fix the gulf, but if my anger causes a few to take up the cause for my country, then I've done some good. If I go there, on my own dime(which I will do at the end of the month) maybe I can help a little.

Tell me, aside from trying to prove me wrong, poke holes in my ideas, belittle my outrage, what will you do?
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 365
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/19/2010 8:09:18 AM

What are your views and thougts on this disaster

What will disadvantage some will advantage others like:


Disaster capitalists: Halliburton to make money off oil spill
Does a company that both builds oil rigs and cleans up oil spills have any motivation to prevent oil rig disasters?

That's the question some people in business and politics are asking themselves after Halliburton's purchase of an oil clean-up company 10 days before the Deepwater Horizon explosion that killed 11 workers and launched the worst oil spill in US history.

Some observers see a conspiracy in the actions of the company once headed by****Cheney. Halliburton, which built the cement casing for the Deepwater Horizon's drill, announced its purchase of Houston-based oilfield services company Boots and Coots for $240 million on April 9, just 11 days before the Deepwater Horizon explosion.

According to a report at the Christian Science Monitor Friday, Boots and Coots is now under contract with BP to help with the oil spill. The company "focuses on oil spill prevention and blowout response," CSM reports. Halliburton's purchase is not yet a done deal -- it's still awaiting regulatory approval, though few observers think the purchase won't pass muster.

"[Mergers and acquisitions] in the industrial and oil services sectors is totally normal," writes David Anderson at The Inspired Economist, "but the timing in this case, is not. Boots & Coots sure seems like the perfect company to own if it would soon become necessary to get more involved with some oil disaster.

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0618/halliburton-making-money-oil-spill/
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 366
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/19/2010 4:59:46 PM
So some people are saying there is a conspiracy because Haliburton has tried to purchase a company before an oil spill, but the purchase hasn't gone through (and wouldn't have) in time for them to make any money off the oil spill, anyway.

Conspiracy theorists just haven't gotten any smarter since 9/11, have they?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 367
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/19/2010 7:16:19 PM


By mid-April, 2010, the BP Deepwater rig crew had tapped into an oil
and gas reservoir, 18,000 feet deep, in 5,000 feet of sea water.


Missed a step. BP wanted to drill in 500 feet of water, and the state of Louisiana okayed it. Then the federal government stepped in and made them drill at an unprecedented 5000 feet instead. So it's no surprise that everything went wrong because nobody has experience with this kind of thing. Thank you Big Brother for creating another huge mess.
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 368
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/19/2010 7:49:45 PM
Mr.evil
While I may continue my diatribes against the powers that be inside BP, congress and the MMS. I do promote constructive ideas, that would impact the problem on our shores.

Dont ever let a good diatribe go to waste

dej
Conspiracy theorists just haven't gotten any smarter since 9/11, have they?

Nor conspirators, oops forgot my tinfoil hat for a second
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 369
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/19/2010 7:57:40 PM
^^^Speaking of conspiracy theories, the Feds didn't "make them drill at an unprecedented 5000 feet instead". This is BPs new reach for profits and competitiveness. It wasn't North Korean subs, enviro whackos, or the feds fault that BP got greedy, sloppy, and played with an inherently dangerous game of deep water drilling for the sake of the company's bottom line and totally uk fupped.

http://www.forbes.com/global/2001/0402/044.html
snip..
For BP Amoco's soft-spoken CEO, Sir John Browne, deep water offers the prospect of the largest untapped reserves and the lowest-cost means of extraction. It could keep the company safely afloat even if oil prices, currently $30 a barrel, fall by half.

The London-based BP Amoco once confined its efforts to buying small stakes in the deepwater forays led by bigger rivals. But in recent years the company has quietly stolen the lead in this expensive game, moving ahead of ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch/Shell. BP Amoco (which will drop "Amoco" from its name later this year) has spent the past decade buying up exclusive drilling rights in the world's most promising deepwater regions, setting up an assembly-line process to find new reserves, build rigs and get the oil out.

By 2005 BP expects to pull 1.3 million barrels of oil and the equivalent in gas a day from fields lying in waters more than 300 meters deep in places that include offshore Trinidad, the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico—25% of its worldwide production, up from only 6% now. The total could climb dramatically as BP completes similar projects in Brazil and Angola. "This demonstrates what organic growth means," Browne says. "We found the resources ourselves, we're developing them ourselves, and we have a lot of legs. It goes and goes and goes."

The deep-sea plunge is the crucial element to achieving Browne's promise of turning in earnings growth of 10% a year even as revenue grows only half as fast. Hitting that target requires trimming per-barrel costs by 3% a year; the key to doing that is technology. And nowhere in the oil patch is technology as challenging as in the deep waters of the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere (see diagram, pp. 46—7).

If Browne is right, BP, now the world's third-largest oil company, with $148 billion in sales and almost $12 billion in net income last year, could pass Shell to become No. 2 and pose a more potent threat to No. 1, ExxonMobil. BP needs some good news:Its stock is down 11% over the past eight months, compared with a 9.5% rise in the S&P Oil Index (BP trades as an ADR on the New York Stock Exchange). BP shares are valued at only 16.7 times trailing earnings, compared with ExxonMobil's multiple of 18.

But Browne's deepwater push carries big risks, ranging from steep upfront costs to devastating human error and corrupt foreign governments. Drilling a deepwater well costs $50 million or more, compared with only $1 million onshore. At the sea floor, ice plugs can form in pipelines exposed to the near-freezing temperatures, forcing the owner to rent a drilling rig for $200,000 a day to fix the problem. Mistakes can be brutally expensive. Poorly engineered wells can get clogged with sand, requiring intervention at $5 million a pop. In 1998 contractors on Texaco's Petronius project accidentally dropped a 3,600-tonne deck module into the Gulf of Mexico. Today the $70 million platform still languishes under 500 meters of water, too deep to be recovered.
more..at link..
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 370
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/19/2010 9:20:00 PM
earthpuppy


the lowest-cost means of extraction

Because the owner of the oil charges them so little...
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 371
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/20/2010 5:29:24 PM
^^^^^More like the owners imposed so little regulation
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 372
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/20/2010 8:54:36 PM
^^^^^^^

That too.

But that's the whole point.
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 373
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/20/2010 9:12:01 PM
"but that's the whole point."

So I guess you are choosing to ignore the last line of my post!

I guess what your all about is the UFC, hanging out and as you say "arguing". So you just enjoy the sport and not want to get your hands dirty and your name sullied. As opposed to making a difference. Not that I would expect that much from a 22 year old.

Funny 10 years before me, they burnt their draft cards. My group tried to make things better in other ways. I guess your contribution will be the "UFC party", yes, you really belong on this thread!

Interesting how the loudest mouths, make the least intelligent sounds.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 374
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/20/2010 10:06:05 PM

I guess what your all about is ... "arguing"

Hey Pot, you look awfully dirty. And not with oil.


-Kettle
 brawnydog
Joined: 5/12/2006
Msg: 375
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/22/2010 12:20:18 PM
and away we go... I told y'all this was gonna be major entertainment.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill
Told you so.
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 376
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/22/2010 1:10:17 PM
*cough cough* Bribed *cough cough*

Cue music from Evita...

"And the money comes rollllllling innnnn"
 brawnydog
Joined: 5/12/2006
Msg: 377
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/22/2010 3:14:01 PM
Anybody else wondering how much more it costs to
drill down that extra mile than it is to stick a slurpee straw down to it?
I mean.. c'mon. I want to see those figures. There's a hell of a lot of diff between five hundred feet and five thousand. Noone's asking the right questions.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 378
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 6/22/2010 4:14:57 PM
I was taught growing up, to not crap on others, and if you screw up, to clean up your mess, have a plan if you screw up, make it right with those who were affected and say you're sorry with sincerity. When we grant corporations rights equal to human beings, it should be easier to arrest the criminals, put them on trial and execute those responsible for poisoning the lives of, and depriving life and sustenance of others. If a guy leaks oil from an oil change, or protests one of these corporate whores, they go to jail and face criminal penalties. Corporate whores have diplomatic immunity from justice.

The judge who ruled for the Corporate overlords today, did not care that they had no desire, ability, or plan to stop these egregious spills. The judge ruled in favor of corporate rule over ecosystem and human rights. No surprise that he owned stock in those he ruled in favor of..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100622/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2771
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >