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
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 587
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...Page 18 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)

Just think what happens when concrete is under water soaking in salt water under high pressure !

Actually, the pressure from the water is irrelevant. All that matters is the pressure differential at the weakest point on the cap (or the pipe or some other part of the chain). Eventually, the salt water will cause the materials to degrade and weaken, so eventually it will fail. Depending on what ``eventually'' means and what bp ultimately plans to do with the well, failure of the cap may or may not matter. The only way you could say anything about that is if you knew what the cap was designed to do, the details of the design of the cap, what bp intends to do and when bp intends to do it.
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 588
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/29/2010 2:34:25 PM
Aaaand just in case your sense of outrage might be flagging a bit, here's this nugget hot off the presses:

"BP said Tuesday that it plans to cut its U.S. tax bill by $9.9 billion, or about half the amount pledged to aid victims of the disaster, by deducting costs related to the oil spill."

"The credit for BP could mean, however, that taxpayers will indirectly foot part of the bill for the $20 billion fund that BP established to compensate people and businesses harmed by the disaster."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072704437.html

Wreck the environment, set up a compensation fund under pressure from Washington and then bill the Fed back for half of it.

Good to see the guys at BP haven't lost their touch, no?
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 589
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/29/2010 2:41:06 PM
BP -don't they just give you a warm fuzzy feeling all over

BP Safety record
[edit] 1965: Sea Gem offshore oil rig disaster
Main article: Sea Gem

In December 1965, while the BP oil rig Sea Gem was being moved, two of its legs collapsed and the rig capsized. Thirteen crew were killed. Sea Gem was the first British offshore oil rig.[97]
[edit] 2005: Texas City Refinery explosion

In March 2005, BP's Texas City, Texas refinery, one of its largest refineries, exploded causing 15 deaths, injuring 180 people and forcing thousands of nearby residents to remain sheltered in their homes.[98] A large[clarification needed]column filled with hydrocarbon overflowed to form a vapour cloud, which ignited. The explosion caused all the casualties and substantial damage to the rest of the plant. The incident came as the culmination of a series of less serious accidents at the refinery, and the engineering problems were not addressed by the management. Maintenance and safety at the plant had been cut as a cost-saving measure, the responsibility ultimately resting with executives in London.[99]

The fall-out from the accident continues to cloud BP's corporate image because of the mismanagement at the plant. There have been several investigations of the disaster, the most recent being that from the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board[100] which "offered a scathing assessment of the company." OSHA found "organizational and safety deficiencies at all levels of the BP Corporation" and said management failures could be traced from Texas to London.[98]

The company pleaded guilty to a felony violation of the Clean Air Act, was fined $50 million, and sentenced to three years probation.

On 30 October 2009, the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fined BP an additional $87 million—the largest fine in OSHA history—for failing to correct safety hazards revealed in the 2005 explosion. Inspectors found 270 safety violations that had been previously cited but not fixed and 439 new violations. BP is appealing that fine.[98][101] (see #Environmental record).
[edit] 2006–2008: Texas City refinery fatalities

From January 2006 to January 2008, three workers were killed at the company's Texas City, Texas refinery in three separate accidents. In July 2006 a worker was crushed between a pipe stack and mechanical lift, in June 2007, a worker was electrocuted, and in January 2008, a worker was killed by a 500-pound piece of metal that came loose under high pressure and hit him.[102]
[edit] 2007–2010 Refinery safety violations

Under scrutiny after the Texas City Refinery explosion, two BP-owned refineries in Texas City, Texas, and Toledo, Ohio, were responsible for 97 percent (829 of 851) of wilful safety violations by oil refiners between June 2007 and February 2010, as determined by inspections by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Jordan Barab, deputy assistant secretary of labour at OSHA, said "The only thing you can conclude is that BP has a serious, systemic safety problem in their company."[103]
[edit] 2009: North Sea helicopter accident
Main article: April 2009 North Sea helicopter crash

On 1 April 2009, a Bond Offshore Helicopters Eurocopter AS332 Super Puma ferrying workers from BP's platform in the Miller oilfield in the North Sea off Scotland crashed in good weather killing all 16 on board.[104][105]
[edit] 2010: Deepwater Horizon well explosion
Main article: Deepwater Horizon explosion

The 20 April 2010 explosion on BP's offshore drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico resulted in the death of eleven people and is currently the biggest off-shore oil spill in U.S. history.[106][107][108]
[edit] Political record
[edit] 2007: Propane price manipulation

Four BP energy traders in Houston were charged with manipulating prices of propane in October 2007. As part of the settlement of the case, BP paid the US government a $303 million fine, the largest commodity market settlement ever in the US. The settlement included a $125 million civil fine to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, $100 million to the Justice Department, $53.3 million to a restitution fund for purchasers of the propane BP sold, and $25 million to a US Postal Service consumer fraud education fund.[109][110]
[edit] 2008: Oil price manipulation

In May 2010, the Supreme Court of Arbitration of the Russian Federation agreed in support of the country’s antimonopoly service’s decision to a 1.1 billion Ruble fine ($35.2 million) against TNK/BP, a 50/50 joint venture, for abusing antitrust legislation and setting artificially high oil products prices in 2008, TNK and BP declined comment.[111]
[edit] Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline

BP has been criticised for its involvement with Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, due to human rights, environmental and safety concerns.[112]
[edit] Colombian pipeline

In July 2006, a group of Colombian farmers won a multi million pound settlement from BP after the British oil and gas company was accused of benefiting from a regime of terror carried out by Colombian government paramilitaries to protect a 450-mile (720 km) Ocensa pipeline.[113]
[edit] Contributions to political campaigns

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, BP is the United States' hundredth largest donor to political campaigns, having contributed more than US$5 million since 1990, 72% and 28% of which went to Republican and Democratic recipients, respectively. BP has lobbied to gain exemptions from U.S. corporate law reforms.[114] Additionally, BP paid the Podesta Group, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm, $160,000 in the first half of 2007 to manage its congressional and government relations.[115]

In February 2002 BP's chief executive, Lord Browne of Madingley, renounced the practice of corporate campaign contributions, noting: "That's why we've decided, as a global policy, that from now on we will make no political contributions from corporate funds anywhere in the world."[116]

Despite this, in 2009 BP used nearly US$16 million to lobby US Congress, breaking the company's previous record (from 2008) of US$10.4 million.[117]
[edit] BP and Russia
See also: European energy dependence on Russia

BP is one of the few Western energy companies with major investments in Russia, a country which has failed to obey the Energy Charter Treaty. It has been subject to controversies. In 2008 Igor Sechin, a former GRU agent and later official in Vladimir Putin's government, did private negotiations with BP CEO.[118]

A report observed in January 2009:[119]

Disruption to EU gas supplies in January 2009 - as Ukraine quarrelled with Russia and pipelines were shut down - exposed EU reliance on Russian gas. A dependence that does not support EU energy security, but does support BP's financial security. That financial security depends on BP maintaining its position as a bridge between Russian resources and EU customers. Given the company's turbulent relationships in Russia, BP draws on the EU to help it maintain that position. The EU assists BP because, while it may not be in the long term interests of the EU to depend upon Russian gas, EU energy policy currently relies on it. Without BP, it would have to rely on Russian state companies, most notably Gazprom. As TNK-BP is currently the only major oil and gas company in Russia with no state involvement, and the only major energy company in the country not majority-controlled by Russians, it is a key partner for the EU.

BP's Russian joint venture filed bankcrupty in June 2010.[120]

In 2003 The Guardian published intelligence reports that the GRU has allocated money towards hiring or training eco-warriors and mercenaries to sabotage the 1,100-mile Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline project, which was under construction and would have reduced Europe's energy dependence on Russia. The consortium was headed by BP.[121] During the 2008 war, the pipeline was a major target of Russian forces.[122]
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 591
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/29/2010 3:15:18 PM
Abelian, is correct that the water pressure is irrelevant compared to the other pressures upward. If water pressure was so great as to push down a plug, the Top Hat would have worked. As it is, even our best bubble gum and duct tape plug technologies will not be proven to work in the long run for decades, centuries or millenium. When you create a fracture tens of thousands of feet deep and then pop in a few hundred feet of dubious, corrodable materials, it's all just guess work, much like the efforts over the past months.

Yesterday, the NY Times had an interesting piece on the geology we are dealing with. http://tiny.cc/qkz5b
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 592
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/29/2010 3:24:40 PM
^^

A sly bandit;




Aaaand just in case your sense of outrage might be flagging a bit, here's this nugget hot off the presses:

"BP said Tuesday that it plans to cut its U.S. tax bill by $9.9 billion, or about half the amount pledged to aid victims of the disaster, by deducting costs related to the oil spill."

"The credit for BP could mean, however, that taxpayers will indirectly foot part of the bill for the $20 billion fund that BP established to compensate people and businesses harmed by the disaster."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072704437.html

Wreck the environment, set up a compensation fund under pressure from Washington and then bill the Fed back for half of it.

Good to see the guys at BP haven't lost their touch, no?


so, what's your 'beef' with that?

it's all perfectly legal is it not?

you yourself have said before that as long as something is 'legal' we must assume it is also moral & "right"

what's wrong with deducting costs of doing business, from income, to arrive at taxable income, and thus reducing tax payable or owed?

everybody does that, every company does it..

should these costs be made 'non-deductible' by special act of Congress in your ( esteemed legal ) opinion??

why would that be 'fair" different rules for BP than for everyone else?

it's all LEGAL man . BTW would it be fair to assume from your username "sly bandit" that you are a sneaky person that steals money and other goods from people, sometimes using a gun &/or mask? that's the meaning of a sly bandit right? quite fitting for a lawyer actually.. ;)
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 593
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/29/2010 3:25:00 PM
^^

@ sly bandit;




Aaaand just in case your sense of outrage might be flagging a bit, here's this nugget hot off the presses:

"BP said Tuesday that it plans to cut its U.S. tax bill by $9.9 billion, or about half the amount pledged to aid victims of the disaster, by deducting costs related to the oil spill."

"The credit for BP could mean, however, that taxpayers will indirectly foot part of the bill for the $20 billion fund that BP established to compensate people and businesses harmed by the disaster."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072704437.html

Wreck the environment, set up a compensation fund under pressure from Washington and then bill the Fed back for half of it.

Good to see the guys at BP haven't lost their touch, no?


so, what's your 'beef' with that?

it's all perfectly legal is it not?

you yourself have said before that as long as something is 'legal' we must assume it is also moral & "right"

what's wrong with deducting costs of doing business, from income, to arrive at taxable income, and thus reducing tax payable or owed?

everybody does that, every company does it..

should these costs be made 'non-deductible' by special act of Congress in your ( esteemed legal ) opinion??

why would that be 'fair" different rules for BP than for everyone else?

it's all LEGAL man . BTW would it be fair to assume from your username "sly bandit" that you are a sneaky person that steals money and other goods from people, sometimes using a gun &/or mask? that's the meaning of a sly bandit right? quite fitting for a lawyer actually.. ;)
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 594
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/29/2010 5:43:52 PM
If it's "legal" to kill a few million people for oil, is it moral?

If it's legal to kill off an entire ecosystem, and a way of life for millions, can that also be construed as "legal" no matter how immoral the action may be.

It is interesting on how selective the "legal" team of the planet eaters have been when consistency is presented to them. Certain things are "legal" and sacrosanct, while other actions, no matter the death toll, are sacred, no matter the death toll. The "free market" advocates have a revovling door of what and who are protected by the sanctity of their religion. Screw the poor and posterity. They don't have rights. Blessed are the profit makers...for they shall, and must, rule the earth. We shall all be trickled down upon.
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 595
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/29/2010 5:57:10 PM
"what's wrong with deducting costs of doing business"

Well let's see now, in my mind, this would be covered by the RICO statute. I expect to hear from all my pals on this!!

The profits or in this case losses are the result of a criminal enterprise, by virtue of the avoidance of safety standards, that were supposed to be adhered too. If you put the income of 2 million people at risk, to save 3 or 5 million dollars in costs, you in my mind are commiting a crime.

I will assume it will be all legal, but I certainly can hope the accountants, fuking lawyers and ALL executives will burn in he11!! BP has the worst safety record of ANY energy company in history.

THIS is where Washington comes into the mix. We all know this was part of the deal when this went down. All the kiss azz politicians will turn there gaze away while BP picks the American taxpayers pocket, and then get their campaign contribution with a wink wink from the azzholes at BP.

Why would anybody reward a company with a tax deduction for killing 11 men, poisoning the gulf, putting thousands of people out of work, and risking the environment for not only the gulf states but the countries in the gulf as well?

Sorry you guys don't get it, some day when they send somebody to your home to kill you because you won't give them drilling rights on your land, maybe then you'll figure it out while you lay in the box!
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 596
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/29/2010 6:16:42 PM
I'm a damned yankee, living in the Appalachians. I had no idea that there was such a thing as "mineral rights" on land when me and the then-mate, bought our 80 acres. Coal companies retained their mineral "rights" as land was ceded to people decades ago. They have a right to come in, undermine your home, drain or poison your wells, drain your ponds. sink your grave-sites of you family, blow up sh*t around you to the point where the air poisons you, your foundation cracks, and your whole family suffers from PTSD.

And..it is LEGAL It is not legal to kill people who poison your well, kill your childen from falling boulders, ash spills and toxic air.

There is a double standard where the planet eaters are far more protected than citizens. Until the selectively "moral" and selectively "legal" proponents of corporate welfare are unduly affected by the "legal" actions of the oiligarchy, there will be little change. There is a whole slew of formerly conservative and libertarian Americans who changed their tunes when the theory conflicted with the facts of Corporatism killing their families. If you are willing to allow your kids, neighbors and friends to die for the cause, then you have cred. If you have never experienced what is happening to billions of people as a result of the current system, or if you have, remain true to the tenants, then perhaps you are merely clueless, or just plain evil.

Now rocks are "minerals". Companies have a "right" to come onto your property, bulldoze, strip-mine, rape and pillage your land to sell mountain stone to yuppies in Atlanta and other markets for people who want to present the illusion of how they live "rustically" in cities, with no clue about how they rape others.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 597
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/29/2010 8:05:06 PM
EP

You do realize those mineral rights are granted by government, right? They own and control the natural resources of most of the land. If you own the property, your property rights should extend to you granting mineral rights to whomever you want. You could choose the least-intrusive company or you could choose not to grant any rights at all. It would be your choice.

Don't you think you'd be able to protect your land better how the government has been "protecting" it?
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 599
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/29/2010 10:15:51 PM
They always have been because the people sit idly by and allow the state to control the resources on their land. Or, you could rephrase it and say the state uses violence to forcibly extract the natural resources from private land.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Secondly, what makes you think someone who owns the land - and thereby profits from his ability to keep his land valuable (clean, reusable, attractive, maintained) - would be less protective over his land than a state bureaucrat, who sees no personal gain whatsoever from only signing mining contracts that limit the amount of damage the mining company can inflict on the land?

How on earth can a more-or-less indifferent party be less protective over a party who has every reason to deny careless companies contracts to work on his land?
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 600
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/30/2010 6:34:17 AM

mineral rights are seperate from land ownership ... always have been ... always will be.


Lessee, the planet is 4.5 billion years old, and humans have walked its surface for about 500,000 years, if you trace back to our earliest ancestors. The concept of mineral rights discreet from surface property ownership has only been around for about 150 years, give or take, so 'always' is a bit of stretch.

Oh, both the Government and private owners are quite capable of exploiting land and the minerals below for less than honorable purposes. Sometimes the Government is more responsible, sometimes landowners.

Unfortunately very few, whether in the private or public sector, take the concept of stewardship seriously. I know I'm outside the norm, but frankly I've never understood how one can "own" something that long predates us and will still be here long after we're gone.

I own the computer I'm typing on, the clothes I'm wearing, my car and truck and kayaks and camping equipment. "My" land is something I have the privilege of caring for, and all the responsibilities that come with it, a bit like one 'owns' one's children, only in this case it is we 'owners' who need to grow up.

I recognized long ago that people tend to fall into one of two camps when it comes to land. There are those who look at a beautiful wooded hillside over coal, oil, and gas reserves here in WV and see nothing but the profits it might bring them, and there are those who think instead of how to cherish and care for the same hillside.

Btw, puppy, there ARE ways to minimize the ability of mineral owners to negatively impact your home. Laws may vary slightly from state to state, but blasting can only happen within a certain number of feet from a residence, so throwing up a small cabin or even parking a camper close to planned blasting and either living in it or offering it up as free shelter to a friend or local homeless person can shut down a blasting operation.

Likewise, oil and gas drilling can't happen near a water well, so putting one in can shoo away prospective drillers.

And if either is happening anywhere near, they're supposed to come get pictures of your foundation and be held accountable for any new damage. Always good to take your own and do some well water sampling beforehand to give you leverage should legal action be needed.

Resource rights vary from state to state. Where my sister lives in CO, it's illegal for her to put in rain barrels to collect the rain off her roof! That seems nuts to me, but so does knowing I might have to defend my land against some corporation coming after the minerals below. At least I own my timber, which I'm quite happy to let gradually return to old growth as long as I'm here, harvesting only trees that fall of their own accord.

Dave
 az109
Joined: 7/3/2010
Msg: 601
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/30/2010 6:40:56 AM
Stewardship is a moral concept. Legal ownership is a contract assigning rights of amoral exploitation. Corporations are the legal vehicles for irresponsible behaviors. How a reasonable and even slightly ethical individual contemplates the use of resources will bear no resemblance whatever to the way resources are accounted in business.
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 602
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/30/2010 7:35:48 AM
Dave with all due respect, see the movie "Gasland", it shows a quite different picture. Government agencies either doing all they can to aid drillers OR government agencies such as the EPA, NOT doing their job, at thee behest of the office of president under shrub!

Your right about how you look at the land, what the government SHOULD do, they don't. As for 'rights', well all of us know, unscrupulous real estate agents, who fail to mention, the current owner (usually in EP's case) will retain mineral rights after you purchase and close on the property. Further lawyers who are "supposed" to be protecting your rights, do a half azzed job, to just get the fee when property is transffered.

They are more interested in a clean transfer, than the details of mineral rights, some even miss unpaid water bills, taxes and the like. Just so long as the transfer is legal, the owner has a clear title, and the property WILL transfer, they could care less, beyond their fee, fuking lawyers!!
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 604
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/30/2010 8:18:04 AM
@ Sarniafairyboy-- you're big on evidence-- find one posting where I ever stated anything remotely like "as long as something is 'legal' we must assume it is also moral & 'right' ".

I most emphatically stated nothing of the sort.

Canada, the U.S. (and the U.K., for that matter) have a vast number of laws that are morally objectionable, but persist nonetheless due to either (a) the sensible cowardice of the elected, (b) the disengagement of the majority of the 'electorate', (c) the effectiveness of lobbyists-- pick the explanation you prefer.

Somehow, what I do to pay the bills seems to have gotten under your skin because of things you have seen and heard other people do.

Or maybe it was that totally reckless presumption on my part of assuming that you were "gay" (horror of horrors, such slander) rather than 'bi', because you call yourself "fairyboy", which was incredibly rude and stupid on my part, mea culpa.

As far as "every company does it"...well, actually, those charming investment bankers at Goldman Sachs had the moral sense to state, no, actually, we are not going to be charging back our losses to the Fed, in the current climate. Perhaps they do not admit to engineering mass homelessness for financial gain and betting money against the products they pushed, but their PR people probably told them that taking a tax deduction for being punished for it might not look so good on the front pages.

Not that I have great love for other oil companies, but BP was notorious long before this particular pecadillo for their grotesque safety record.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 605
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/30/2010 9:25:18 AM

Dave ... your 4.5 billion year comment is just filler and not appropriate.
your ancient ancestors had no concept of land ownership as we do.


...and my point was that just because for the most recent blip in history we've had certain customs, laws, and practices in no way implies that we 'always' will, or even that by the end of our lifetimes we'll do things the same way.

I hear these sort of silly arguments all the time - that whatever we've grown up with is the way things will always be, as if our most recent developments are somehow etched in stone.

We won't 'always' use oil, coal, and gas like we do today, if at all. We won't 'always' treat the only planet we have to call home as simply a marketable commodity. We won't 'always' act as if somehow a few extra brain cells and an opposable thumb make us immune from the same fundamental natural laws that HAVE always dictated the fate of every species on the planet.

'Rights' are a human construct, and the one thing we as a species HAVE always done is change whatever systems for conducting ourselves are currently in vogue, resulting in the sort of inevitable conflicts we also always seem to crave.

I promise you by the end of this century we'll be conducting ourselves quite differently, including how we collectively view our 'rights' to manipulate the resources of the planet.

Some of those changes will be through conscious choice, some because we'll simply be forced to quit living like trust fund babies as we continually deplete the planet's energy savings account, foster the sixth great extinction in the planet's history, and keep elevating greenhouse gasses higher than ever seen since humans first walked the earth.

I wasn't trying to nitpick, but rather place the discussion in the proper context. But if it's nitpicking you want, the water well concept came straight from the head of the oil and gas regulatory office here in WV, who is a friend of mine. No it doesn't preclude extraction of oil and gas from under my home, but it does give me sway over just where they choose to drill.

Mining companies do NOT have to leave the surface as they found it. I defy you to point to a single closed surface mine in WV that looks as it did before it was mined. They do have to commit to an approved post mining land use that can be as mundane as "wildlife habitat" and are supposed to achieve "approximate original contour" topographically, but the definition for that is intentionally vague. Only recently have any of our mountain top removal mining permits been seriously challenged, based on water quality concerns, not simply permanently changing the topography and precluding regrowth of the dense hardwood forests that long predated the arrival of white men here.

Mining companies DO regularly close mines and sell off whatever they leave behind. That's how they get back the reclamation bond they post when they get their permit. Sometimes what comes next is actually a beneficial use. The coal industry here points proudly to the one airport, one golf course, and one soccer field among the thousands of closed mine sites in the state. The vast majority of the time what you see is just dramatically altered terrain, little to no topsoil, and given time, a bit of straggly brush and maybe a locust tree or two.

Finally, at least here, there is no statute of limitations for exploiting mineral rights. In fact they can be retired as part of a conservation easement - not a permanent fix, because laws can always be changed, but that's the current legal status.

Dave
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 606
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/30/2010 10:19:34 AM


Canada, the U.S. (and the U.K., for that matter) have a vast number of laws that are morally objectionable, but persist nonetheless due to either (a) the sensible cowardice of the elected, (b) the disengagement of the majority of the 'electorate', (c) the effectiveness of lobbyists-- pick the explanation you prefer.

Somehow, what I do to pay the bills seems to have gotten under your skin because of things you have seen and heard other people do.

Or maybe it was that totally reckless presumption on my part of assuming that you were "gay" (horror of horrors, such slander) rather than 'bi', because you call yourself "fairyboy", which was incredibly rude and stupid on my part, mea culpa.

As far as "every company does it"...well, actually, those charming investment bankers at Goldman Sachs had the moral sense to state, no, actually, we are not going to be charging back our losses to the Fed, in the current climate. Perhaps they do not admit to engineering mass homelessness for financial gain and betting money against the products they pushed, but their PR people probably told them that taking a tax deduction for being punished for it might not look so good on the front pages.

Not that I have great love for other oil companies, but BP was notorious long before this particular pecadillo for their grotesque safety record.


not 'under my skin'

well you did say that there should be no questions asked when Marc Rich, who donated over US$ 1 ,000,000 to Bill Clinton's election campaigns, was pardoned by the very same Prez on his last day in office, because it is 'legal' - still STINKS..

well, no doubt hundreds or thousands of your "brethren" called to the bar will do their best to fight for BP to keep doing whatever they want, as long as BP can keep paying them $500/hour each, or whatever they pay

who needs "ethics" when you can have "billable hours" right?

err, no 'love for oil companies" but I bet you love using their products, oil & gasoline?

I mean for people that drive cars, fly in jet planes, but hate oil companies, aren't you being rather HYPOCRITICAL?

almost all of you on here probably do. Fly a plane that burns a thousands of gallons per hour some place but hate the company that make sit possible?

where do you think fuel comes from? magic? thin air?

the day you start walking or cycling everywhere, don't own a car, NOT flying any where, and NOT heating your home &/or business with natural gas/oil, etc. - is the day I'll start taking your oil-company hatred a little more seriously

MOST people want it BOTH ways - "I'll use plenty of fuel, oil co. takes risks, but I'll vilify them when it happens..a spill"..
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 607
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/30/2010 10:35:52 AM
Is it "hypocritical" to expect someone to do their job responsibly?

If someone says to you "give me your rent money, income for the next 2 years, so I can place a bet on red or black at the roulette table" does it make sense? They in essence took the money from the folks on the gulf without asking, spun the wheel and lost.

It's not a question of both ways, it's a question of doing "their way" with safety, with sound management and not misrepresenting the facts to those who's lives they may impact.

When BP said we can "handle anything that might happen" then after the disaster saying we never saw anything like it, is eithe double talk or a downright lie.

If you come up with a engineering design for a well, with safety features, then use inferior materials, use less safety standards(such as support bands, they were supposed to install 21 of them, they used 6) or none at all. You are in essence gambling, with not only your corporate assets, but the assets of all who live there.

That's not both ways, thats ONE way, the BP way.

There is nothing wrong with your argument of "using plenty of fuel, but vilify them when", except when they fail at their end of the bargain of what they will do.

BP had big plans on drilling in this track. They already had 2 wells 1 pumping, the other was Horizon. The rig they used(rented,leased) cost them 500K a day. If they were going to drill say just 10 wells, saving 10 days a piece by short circuiting safety saves them $50 million. I'm sure that factored into the minds of lower level managers and executives to get a bigger bonus.

Sad really isn't it.
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 608
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/30/2010 10:47:16 AM
^^


It's not a question of both ways, it's a question of doing "their way" with safety, with sound management and not misrepresenting the facts to those who's lives they may impact.

When BP said we can "handle anything that might happen" then after the disaster saying we never saw anything like it, is eithe double talk or a downright lie.

If you come up with a engineering design for a well, with safety features, then use inferior materials, use less safety standards(such as support bands, they were supposed to install 21 of them, they used 6) or none at all. You are in essence gambling, with not only your corporate assets, but the assets of all who live there.

That's not both ways, thats ONE way, the BP way.

There is nothing wrong with your argument of "using plenty of fuel, but vilify them when", except when they fail at their end of the bargain of what they will do.

BP had big plans on drilling in this track. They already had 2 wells 1 pumping, the other was Horizon. The rig they used(rented,leased) cost them 500K a day. If they were going to drill say just 10 wells, saving 10 days a piece by short circuiting safety saves them $50 million. I'm sure that factored into the minds of lower level managers and executives to get a bigger bonus.

Sad really isn't it.


err, well it was YOUR beloved government who "supposedly" REGULATES these things "for the good of the people" that let BP go 'fulls team ahead", was it not??

not sure your analogy about gambling is apropos, but how about this one:

A guy steals your car with 4 on-duty police officers standing right beside it, too bored to do anything about it, to try to stop it. maybe they said: "well, our coffee break time starts NOW, too bad, so sad" or sees a guy mugging you, they let it happen, or let a guy stab you,whatever?

wouldn't those cops be at least as responsible in away, as the actual thief? I'm sure you'd be quite pizzed off at them, at least?

you might be right about the risk, I don't know

I'm fairly sure that BP did not WANT this to happen.. you think they WANTED millions of barrels of oil to float away into the Gulf?

besides the terrible publicity and BAD P.R., how would that make them any $$, their primary goal?

BP says they will have a quarterly LOSS of about US$ 13 BILLION this quarter, that's after they MADE $$ through many other operations, so the actual loss from the GULF thing has to be even higher than that
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 609
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/30/2010 12:20:48 PM
"I'm fairly sure that BP did not WANT this to happen.."

No absolutely not!! BUT as they've done in many places time and again, as their safety record shows their willing to "roll the bones" with someone elses life!! If this were a a great govenrment, a good company the government would investigate, the company would tell how many times in the past they rolled the bones and by the luck of god they got away with shorting safety standards, took shortcuts to add the odd couple of million to the botttom line.

We're not only talking here in the gulf, or the north sea, but everywhere they operate. How about their sterling record in Nigeria? I'm sure they msut be great corporate citizens in other countries where their big enough to bully the local prez. Where the income and bribes of BP that the company will throw off to the economy. It may double or more the size of taxes and fees to that govenrment.

BP took the risk, hid te facts, STILL are trying to hide the facts, STILL trying to spin the story. NOT because they give a sh1t, but they fear a backlash. Not one at the pumps, but a 5 year restriction or even a ban on their drilling in our waters.

After all to quote you, too many in our country are addicted to oil use, a backlash that basically outlawed them in our country would cost them a he11 of a lot more, than what this spill may cost.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 610
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/30/2010 12:24:49 PM
BP was named by Mother Jones Magazine, an investigative journal that "exposes the evils of the corporate world, the government, and the mainstream media",[46] as one of the ten worst corporations in both 2001 and 2005 based on its environmental and human rights records.[47][48] In 1991 BP was cited as the most polluting company in the US based on EPA toxic release data. BP has been charged with burning polluted gases at its Ohio refinery (for which it was fined $1.7 million), and in July 2000 BP paid a $10 million fine to the EPA for its management of its US refineries.[49] According to PIRG research, between January 1997 and March 1998, BP was responsible for 104 oil spills.[50] BP patented the Dracone Barge to aid in oil spill clean-ups across the world.[51]
A Gulf petrol station in Louisville, KY using the previous BP prototype. BP purchased all Gulf stations in the southeastern United States in 1980s after Chevron, Inc. was forced to divest the stations by the United States Justice Department.

As of 11 February 2007 BP announced that they would spend $8 billion over ten years to research alternative methods of fuel, including natural gas, hydrogen, solar, and wind. A $500 million grant to the University of California, Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, to create an Energy Biosciences Institute[52] has recently come under attack, over concerns about the global impacts of the research and privatisation of public universities.[53]
Solar panel made by BP Solar

BP's investment in green technologies peaked at 4% of its exploratory budget, but they have since closed their alternative energy headquarters in London. As such they invest more than other oil companies, but it has been called greenwashing due to the small proportion of the overall budget.[54]

In 2004, BP began marketing low-sulphur diesel fuel for industrial use.

BP Solar is a leading producer of solar panels since its purchase of Lucas Energy Systems in 1980 and Solarex (as part of its acquisition of Amoco) in 2000. BP Solar had a 20% world market share in photovoltaic panels in 2004 when it had a capacity to produce 90 MW/year of panels. It has over 30 years experience operating in over 160 countries with manufacturing facilities in the U.S., Spain, India and Australia and has more than 2000 employees worldwide. BP has removed it's US plants (Frederick, MD) in a transition to China. This is due in part to Chinas upswing in solar use and the protectionist laws that require 85% of the materials to be produced in China.[55] Through a series of acquisitions in the solar power industry BP Solar became the third largest producer of solar panels in the world. It was recently announced that BP has obtained a contract for a pilot project to provide on-site solar power to Wal-mart stores.

In the 2006 annual report Lord Browne noted that BP now has a total wind generation capacity of nearly 15,000 megawatts. 15,000 megawatts would be sufficient to provide power to approximately 15,000,000 typical American households simultaneously. This makes BP one of the largest generators of wind power in the world.[citation needed]
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 611
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/30/2010 12:31:20 PM
If you're going to blatantly rip off something with a poorly edited cut and paste job, at least cite where you got it.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 612
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/30/2010 12:47:10 PM

Secondly, what makes you think someone who owns the land - and thereby profits from his ability to keep his land valuable (clean, reusable, attractive, maintained)

What incentive do I have to keep land clean, reusable and maintained if it's more valuable as a toxic waste dump? What's to keep the chemicals that get dumped from contaminating the ground water that propagates the contamination well outside my property? Get a clue.

How on earth can a more-or-less indifferent party be less protective over a party who has every reason to deny careless companies contracts to work on his land?

Put down the crack pipe. A ``careless company'' who wants to pay a landowner to allow them to dump toxic chemicals will certainly find a taker.
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 613
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/30/2010 12:59:45 PM

"I'm fairly sure that BP did not WANT this to happen.."

No absolutely not!! BUT as they've done in many places time and again, as their safety record shows their willing to "roll the bones" with someone elses life!! If this were a a great govenrment, a good company the government would investigate, the company would tell how many times in the past they rolled the bones and by the luck of god they got away with shorting safety standards, took shortcuts to add the odd couple of million to the botttom line.

We're not only talking here in the gulf, or the north sea, but everywhere they operate. How about their sterling record in Nigeria? I'm sure they msut be great corporate citizens in other countries where their big enough to bully the local prez. Where the income and bribes of BP that the company will throw off to the economy. It may double or more the size of taxes and fees to that govenrment.

BP took the risk, hid te facts, STILL are trying to hide the facts, STILL trying to spin the story. NOT because they give a sh1t, but they fear a backlash. Not one at the pumps, but a 5 year restriction or even a ban on their drilling in our waters.


well , that confirms my point -EVEN with an ABYSMAL safety/track record, as you state

your U.S. government still did not check hem out, rein them in, regulate as they are SUPPOSED to do

the D.O.E. spends US$$ billions every year -what do they spend it on exactly? shouldn't SOME part of that budget go to regulating companies like BP ? (and others) ?

SOMEBODY (or, "somebodies", plural) was asleep at the switch at the DOE & other gov. bodies.
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 614
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/30/2010 1:15:18 PM
What is that saying about democracy, "it is the best of the worst form of governments" and until someone comes up with a better one, it will remain so.

As for the "reign them in", "check them out" and "regulate them" well your right. When our government, not unlike yours or any gives over the jobs of oversight to underpaid clerks making 1/50 of what the executives of that company make, lobbyists who spread cash and jobs around in the industry, the system will ALWAYS be flawed.

A 60K middle management type regulating an oil giant, looking to the day, he will leave government service and take a job in the industry, will always be vulnerable to looking the other way for promises of a great future with that company then. 20 years later, he leaves with a government pension, AND a job paying at least that or double or triple what he made.

The problem in all this is with 100 or 150 wells being drilled at any one time, we don't have the manpower to inspect the actual well, as they drill. We rely on reports from these companies and what they are doing.

IF you submit a plan for this strength of cement, then use an inferior grade, but submit "cementing complete" on your report without noting the change. IF you submitted that you will use 21 support bands for the well, then alter that plan to 6 bands and just note on your reports "support bands installed" without noting the change in number, you are lying and taking unwarranted risks to the ecology.

This doesn't change from country to country as far as I know. Worse in many countries it only takes a briefcase full of money(and not that much either) to get officials to look the other way. Ask them in Mexico, Nigeria and a slew of other countries.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >