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
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 671
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...Page 21 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)
abelian

Read my posts on page 18 of this thread. I am 100% opposed to limited liability for corporations. While I do believe allowing investors to collectively "own" capital under a "brand", I fully believe that shielding them from damages they may impose is a perversion of freedom.

Again, it seems to me you've been using the news-room tactic of attacking a caricature of me rather than taking the time to understand my position so you can respond to it rationally. I'm not as ignorant of this topic as you think I am.


As for the labor market, I still do not understand what you are getting at. Yes, I agree 100% that the majority of poverty in most impoverished nations is caused by government restriction of freedom (most notably, a restriction of transacting freely). But I do not see how that suggests globalization is harmful. Are you saying the average Chinese citizen would be better off if Western nations didn't invest in them and didn't offer tens -- if not hundreds -- of millions of jobs to them, the vast majority of which are vastly superior to the alternatives available to them (mainly subsistence agriculture).

Yes, it is an unfortunate fact that emigration is restricted in China. But we will not help Chinese citizens by refusing to do business with them. Chinese citizens have benefited enormously from international, private investment. Yes, there are protests in China, but they are mostly about increasing free speech and, more recently, about the inflationary monetary policy of the Chinese government. One thing they are not protesting against is foreign investment. They want more of it.






mr.evil


Our government is ineffective, due to outside influences, lobbyists, political contributions from corporations, and a host of other things.

Yep. But don't forget, it takes two to tango. It's not all from outside influences if politicians accept bribes or contributions for political favors. It's a "problem" of human nature.




If this was as serious an issue, back during the Carter administration, during the oil embargo, we would have reenacted similar to WW2, gasoline rationing, dependant on need. Thereby forcing the population to embrace mass transit.

Don't you think large lobby interest like international corporations would benefit the most under that system? They would be able to lobby congressmen and women to get the largest rations and the rest of us, including their small-business competitors would have to find artificially more expensive alternatives, thereby making us less competitive.

Also, as I've stated previously in this thread, the discovery, production, and manufacturing of the alternative to petroleum will, in the short run, almost certainly require vast amounts of oil (to transport thousands of scientists, researchers, and workers over long distances, to provide for plastics and other patroleum-based building materials, to provide for lubricants, to ship raw building materials over long distances, etc etc etc). Using violence to prevent buyers and sellers from using oil will necessarily make developing an oil alternative artificially more expensive than it otherwise would be and could very will make it take longer to develop an alternative or will economically force us to adopt a less viable alternative.


Petroleum is a cheap source of energy. Oil will, ironically, help the human race transition away from oil.



Still I gotta tell ya, I'd pay $2,000 a gallon for a "ride of a couple of miles, dragging hayward behind the car, at 5 miles an hour!

Do you really think violence actually contributes anything positive to solving complex social problems? Or are you just trying to win brownie-points with the posters who are more in touch with their barbaric side?
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 672
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/5/2010 11:16:55 AM

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?

Wait, BP is paying less taxes because they made less money because they paid out the ass because of their costs in the oil spill.

What's the problem? Yeah, that's what happens when companies don't make money. They don't pay taxes on that money that they don't make.


What would be the difference here? Hayward wanted to save $500,000 a day, the cost of the rig, so he says "damn the safety, full speed ahead". I need to use that rig on 10 other wells, I don't care about safety, just the money. Do you believe the captain on the rig, 47 miles from shore, would risk his own life without orders to do so?

You know, you might be right. I'm not sure. There could certainly be a case of reckless endangerment.
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 673
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/5/2010 4:24:21 PM
Interesting stuff now, having followed the news, I made some calls.

Yesterday, Washington did a ala shrub, "mission accomplished" with the spill. Announcing that the well has been sealed, and "most" of the oil collected or disapated.

Then I called a few friends from up north, that was the story, anything about the spill was GONE! So for a chunk of the country the spill is over, fini, done, finished!!

Well being here in the south, allow me to say it ain't so. A report on tv, showed them still cleaning up the marshes, with LOADS of oil still here, and more on the way! One scientist, probably one of the last not on BP's payroll said that at least 50% of the spill is still in the water, as opposed to Obama's assertion of 80% or more is gone! Gotta love those spin doctors, talking heads and lying politicians trying to bury this sh1t and move on!

Another story of interest for those NOT on the gulf is, Alabama will open it's fishing grounds by weeks end, the last state on the gulf to do so. In fact, they say the shrimping season will open 2 weeks early this year. Hope all of you around the country enjoy that shrimp****ail with the special BP sauce! Bon Appetite!!
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 676
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/6/2010 12:43:46 PM
@ Mr. Evil:

"A report on tv, showed them still cleaning up the marshes, with LOADS of oil still here, and more on the way! One scientist, probably one of the last not on BP's payroll said that at least 50% of the spill is still in the water, as opposed to Obama's assertion of 80% or more is gone! Gotta love those spin doctors, talking heads and lying politicians trying to bury this sh1t and move on!"

Here is where non-spin doctor people are quite capable of keeping an issue alive.

An open invite should be given to anyone involved in the cleanup to take digital recordings of what is ACTUALLY going on and upload them onto the Internet for everyone to see.

Independent scientists who are NOT on the corporate payroll can do their own studies and upload and explain their results on line for the public to see.

There is no good reason for toxic or contaminated food to sit on supermarket shelves when ordinary citizens can buy it, have it tested, send the results to the food inspection people (FDA, etc.), demand recalls and invite producers to sue BP over lost profits (again).
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 677
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/6/2010 1:23:50 PM
50%......80%,why some of you talk as if you have a exact number as to what itr actually is.I know BP amd the White House both said ,that even though the well is plugged and much of the oil is gone,they have much much more to do and most of us I assumed meant things like beach cleanup and marshes and residual cleanups as it comes to land over the weeks.

Coast guard said they had to just go in the air to find oil patches before now they have to fly all over to find anything and they clearly stated there is sheen all over,but sheen cannot be skimmed,which is how they mean its hard to see oil patches,so thats oil patches not sheen.

How are you so quick to say one is a liar and the other is the fact.I never once saw a consensus of what amount ever spilled in the first place,independents said such a total would never be know since for starters gases and oil spewed together,it was not a straight oil flow.

I know many of you are loving the lets assume all info is bull,but the NOAA and others state its best calculated guess.Do you think Cornell's studies are being bought off,they state oil has always leaked from the ocean bottom and stated a drop of oil in the gulf starts a microbial feeding frenzy.

No I don't like BP and the fact they are one of the largest polluters ,yet on the other hand I don't ,like either the others that always go for the dramatic sky is falling,the complete pessimists slant on everything,and everything is a cover-up and anything Obama is bull and lies.

Can we all agree that with past track record of drillers and miners,that nothing is ever made 100% whole as they promise in their ads and no one is ever compensated as they should have been.

Sometimes world events are full of shimmers of hope amidst a ton of tragedy,so if everything is painted bad one misses out on the only good optimistic things happening around them.I'm thankful Obama forced them to cough up 20 billion,thats a huge breakthrough,did you see any such thing happen during the Valdez,those are the shimmers of hope,give some of these folks there props ,Thad Allen has been great,he reminds me of the general that kicked Katrina into gear when all else drug slowly.

I like Thad,a straight shooter,nothing sugar coated,he says we're working hard and its done when its done.Whereas BP says we will make this thing whole again and Obama says,we're making progress but we have a lot of work ahead of us.
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 678
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/6/2010 1:43:40 PM
imalwayssmiling, sorry I have on this thread and others said to give Obama a chance, more than once. YOU HAVE AN AGENDA in his support, it reads clearly in all your posts. I simply look upon him as the president, as such I say give him a chance.

When he or his press secretary or other white house officials, start yelling "all clear", I call bullsh1t! If you just look at the calender, any reasonable person understands we are 4 months until the midterm November elections. That means get this off the radar and start telling us "hey it's alright, we're alright", if you don't get that about politicians, you really are naaive.

As to the other poster saying "let the workers photograph or tell their story", they can't, BP fires anybody who talks to the press. In fact all the workers sign agreements NOT to talk to the press(yeah there goes freedom of speech). I'm sure they hold back a certain amount of pay and may even be able to sue them should they speak.

As for the independents(scientists) yeah Cornell is great, but located in NY, not the gulf. For every scientist(independent) that speaks to the issue, BP has 4 that spin it their way.

As to the oil, lets not forget we're dealing with more than 500,000 square miles, with a depth from 100 feet to thousands. So the oil carried by currents, that exists below the surface, can be like finding a needle in a haystack. As to the size of the spill, despite claims to the contrary, it has been justifably said to be in the million or millions or barrells. I'm sorry, that much oil just doesn't simply disappear.

Additionally today, news sources on several networks CNBC, MSNBC said it looks like BP's costs will be capped at 22 billion, need more facts on this, just heard part of the story. If anyone knows or heard this story please post links.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 679
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/6/2010 3:26:49 PM
No all clear was ever called out.

Its your slant that this is BP spill is political for Obama.

The reports I'm talking about are from all the scientists,the NOAA and the Coast Guard none of which are fired.who ever said otherwise.I'm not talking about anything BP trys to fire or silence,I'm talking whats coming from those that are not silenced.

Like I say on almost every thread,I don't like nor trust BP,I'm consistent.

You seem to think that Cornell's location somehow changes science,do you think in all of the schools existence their scientist students probably never have been there or studied the science literature gathered from there,are you trying to say only locals know best about the gulf microbes,it seems to be what your saying.

Who ever said all the oil disappeared,no one,even BP has not said that,I argued that you take a figure of 80% gone and 50% gone and call one accurate and one not,you write like your physic .

I clearly stated today and other posts the government has said we have much work to do,you though are stating they are giving an all clear,that's make believe.

Agenda,your too funny,if someone has to repeatedly call false statements and claims false,and prove something has nothing to do with the leader,that somehow means that person has an agenda,interesting !

See to me that means I like the actual facts,and no consensus exists on the spill totals,but I will trust the NOAA or Coast Guard any day of the week over the BP damage control people .

This is why I dislike most out of the tea party folks all over,where nothing has to do with fact.And No, I didn't call you a tea party person.

Props,yes,I do believe Obama should be thrown a bone for getting 20 billion,usually oil companies win in court,Obama didn't need to drag them to court.He nailed Wall street too and the medical industry,who else has been able to do truly amazing things like that.Heck,I see no personal agenda but I do feel amazed by what this man accomplishes ,I've been through a ton of presidents and this man stands out,most presidents throughout history merely existed through their term.Especially the ones you don't even recognize by name,and why is that ? because they did nothing.

Are any of them perfect ? pla eez,are you either !
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 680
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/6/2010 5:26:23 PM
"Are any of them perfect?"

NO!! Not one of them! Not even close, some better than others, but for the most part, my idea would be, "kill em all, let God sort it out!"

"pla eez, are you either!"

Now I would have ended that with a ? but that's just me. Now the 80% or 50% was not my numbers, but a press comference from a government official yesterday, at the behest of the white house. Since i was refferring to his numbers, not mine, yours or others, the 50% came in answer from another scientist on CNBC.

But in answer to your question, hardly, not even close. BUT I don't have to have my fellow party members reelected in November either.

Now as to:

"This is why I don't like most of the Tea Party folks"

They aren't a party, just a group of misguided people, steered by the likes of Trailer Trash Palin and their ilk. Mostly scared old people who think they can return to a more gentle time. Not understanding that time is gone forever, kinda like "happy days" sitcom. I say misguided because they don't have a freakin clue from what they speak. 40% of them accept social security and medicaid, but object to big government, not understanding those 2 things account for the 2 biggest drains on the very thing they object to!

As for you, how can you be "iamalwayssmiling" when you live in the land of "not" Arizona, the state with the biggest hate statistics in the country. But it's OK, keep your guns, hate laws and profiling! it's all good. Hahahahaha!!!!!!

Now as to the "bone" you want to toss the prez. Why? Sorry when you reach that office your supposed to be presidential, even if the last 2 or 3 azzholes weren't. Not step down in the mud and slug it out, which is what he is doing. Nor sell out to BP, which he is, sorry no corporation repeat, NO CORPORATION should be in charge of EVERYTHING in a clean up of OUR country! You do it, THEY PAY! Or maybe you view it differently than he is the most powerful man in the world?

Try some independent sources, while not the best in the world, go on youtube, check out a woman named Karen something or other from La., she has several videos on there talking about BP strong arm tactics, and SHE LIVES THERE, not in Arizona, michigan or bugtussle anywhere usa.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 682
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/6/2010 6:06:36 PM

NO!! Not one of them! Not even close, some better than others, but for the most part, my idea would be, "kill em all, let God sort it out!"
My point of "are you" no no one is perfect.But I do think he is brilliant and the list of what he has done thus far of great change is one long list.

No actually you were calling the lower number of gallons bull,your opinion ,nothing at all based on fact,even if you chose the higher number its guessaments of various credible scientists,since all these people are PHD'd and experts,obviously some of the best in the land are on this spill.Thats Ok, some of the greatest doctors and experts in their field are also polar opposites,they arrived at their conclusions from vast amounts of research and testing.They call it practicing medicine,what would the phrase be for a scientist.

I see none of it as misleading they just vary in numbers,I do see BP under shoots all aspects of numbers,I don't trust them,since higher numbers cost them money,you will not ever receive true exact numbers,I know you already realize this,so do we,science is filled with interpretation and theory.Still do you know a better type expert to be there,I know I don't want Joe the plumber,so inexact is fine with me,glad they are there and helping.

Arizona,like our economy wasn't hurting enough,our republican leader has been selling the state buildings and we are leasing them back,then she starts this,now we have sunk to unprecedented new lows,we are boycotted by many,hated by many,we now lose millions from illegals no longer here.
What!!!! yes,the whats not talked about,they did a study on the millions spent on health care and such freebies for illegals then a best guess calculations of what is brought into the state in retail sales,groceries,rents,automobiles,ect.and the money made off illegals is more than twice greater than the cost of it all.

Anyways,I'm stuck in conservative tea party republican land,we were turning around until the Governor jumped on the immigration thing with all fours,now unemployment is really rising,tourists are banning us.No tourists,no jobs !

As for the prez,he NEVER gave control to BP,Who stalled the protection of the marshes and beaches,the corp of engineers,go after the head of that,not the prez,who kept the boaters off the water,BP and the Coast guard,go after BP and the head of the Coast Guard,not the prez.Some think that the prez should let others alone yet also think he should also run everything, we have key people in charge of each branch ,Obama isn't running everything .Blame those at fault,that's whats fair.

Castro runs everything.Obama and our country put others in charge,welcome to democracy.When all hell breaks loose suddenly the president is supposed to run everything,every little thing is suddenly his fault,heck so many here have democratic thoughts when feeling comfortable and communism wants when shyt hits the fan.

One cannot even blame all of BP,one needs to blame only the few in charge of the thousands of BP employees, those few that actually calls the shots for their entire business.
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 683
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/6/2010 6:43:42 PM
Now now now, c'mon, you heard of Harry Truman and his famous "the buck stops here"! Has been used by both dems and Goper's alike for decades! Despite what you may think, it's true! No matter what, no matter when, no matter who, the president IS the leader of this country and NOTHING happens without his direct or indirect OK.

When Watergate happened did we blame Liddy or Nixon? When Viet Nam was escalated was it the generals or Johnson who got the blame? When we had an oil embargo did they blame the secretary of energy or Carter? Was it the head of the FAA who sacked the air traffic controllers or Reagan? Was it Bush or the generals who decided NOT to invade Bagdad? Did we blame the head of Fema or Shrub for the disaster in NOLA?

The buck stops here appiles to ALL presidents.

In this case, BP is calling the tune on the cleanup, look at the statement coming out of the white house. It is always "we are consulting experts" then will advise BP what we think, not fuk u BP, do this! Sorry review the statements, THEN reply.

As for BP, there are no govenrment longevity things, or seniority working, you do what the higher ups say, or as the donald says "your fired!" So i you stay at BP after the spill, your just a lacky to the big bosses, a gobber smoocher!

When children are getting sick from toxic substances in the air from the oil and the EPA says "uh, I don't think so" or they say that 4 men who got sick on different boats working the boom lines on oil "were sick because they coated the deck with "Pine Sol" to clean it" you gotta call bullsh1t on everyone in government. Cause even the white house saw those reports!

Sorry pal, you gotta wake up and smell the coffee or the politics.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 685
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/7/2010 10:11:40 AM

This film is several weeks old,
Yes its 30 days old,that's a lot of microbes,cleanup and dissipation,no one ever said there is not a lot of clean up still to do,if its 80% gone or 50% gone that's still tens of millions,so yes we will all see a lot of oil on any new video someone might produce,and yes the marshes and such will look like crap.

I remember success being called on stopping the leak,I heard no party call success on the oil cleanup.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 686
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/7/2010 10:24:08 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/05/tech/main6748183.shtml

The recent ecological history of the Gulf gives scientists reason for hope. In an extensive survey of Gulf of Mexico researchers by The Associated Press, at least 10 of them separately volunteered the same word to describe the body of water: "resilient."

This is buttressed by a government report that claims that all but 53 million gallons of the leaked oil from BP's Deepwater Horizon well are gone. The report issued Wednesday says the cleanup extracted a lot of it, but the natural processes that break up, evaporate and dissolve oil took care of 84 million gallons - more than twice the amount human efforts removed.

At the same time, more progress was made in sealing the well for good as BP finished pumping cement into it on Thursday.

The Gulf's impressive self-cleanup makes sense given its history and makeup. The Gulf regularly absorbs environmental insults: overfishing, trawlers raking sea floors, frequent hurricanes. And then there's the dead zone, an area starved of oxygen because 40 percent of America's runoff pours from the Mississippi River into the Gulf.

And yet the Gulf remains America's most biologically diverse place, with 15,419 species. It is the nation's buffet of life as well as its gas station and septic tank.

It's too soon to know the full effects of the BP disaster. But to get a sense of where the Gulf has been and where it's going, the AP surveyed 75 scientists about the health of the Gulf of Mexico before the spill. On a 0-to-100 scale, the scientists graded its general health a 71 on average. That's a respectable C, considering 100 would be considered pristine and untouched by civilization.

n the survey, which was sent to scientists through several research institutions and scientific societies, sea turtles, manatees, wetlands and water quality hovered around or below the failing point. Doing well were beaches and birds, including the once-endangered brown pelican, Louisiana's state bird.

While others are optimistic, Jeremy Jackson, director of the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, is worried.

"You have an ecosystem that's already severely stressed, then you add this major disturbance," he said. "We're going to pay for our sins double-time because we've neglected the environment of the northern Gulf so badly for so long."

Yet the Gulf's water is warm, which is good for microbes that eat oil. The currents and drainage are right to flush and dilute tainted water. And the Gulf has long been exposed to natural gas, oil and a host of other contaminants.

While BP's well dumped 172 million gallons into the Gulf over three months, the muddy Mississippi brings in 198 million gallons of water - replete with urban and farm runoff - every minute. The National Research Council estimates that 41 million gallons a year of oil naturally seep into the Gulf from below.

A thriving microbial ecosystem has developed to consume the oil.

"The Gulf has been immunized many times by environmental insults," said Larry McKinney, director of a Gulf research center at Texas A&M University Corpus Christi. "Because of that resilience we see here - and not in other places - it also may be the best place" to cope with a gigantic spill.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 687
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/7/2010 10:45:23 AM
mr.evil

"Do you really think violence actually contributes anything positive to solving complex social problems? Or are you just trying to win brownie-points with the posters who are more in touch with their barbaric side?"
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 688
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/7/2010 1:00:58 PM

The National Research Council estimates that 41 million gallons a year of oil naturally seep into the Gulf from below.
This is news to me ! so then with all this normal seepage we have enjoyed all the wonderful seafood that came from the Gulf for all these years,under this type of circumstance. Were we to busy being mad to hear this or were these facts being told from the onset of the disaster.I now looked up the NRC here's what they say.

Who is the National Research Council

The National Research Council (NRC) functions under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM). The NAS, NAE, IOM, and NRC are part of a private, nonprofit institution that provides science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter signed by President Abraham Lincoln that was originally granted to the NAS in 1863. Under this charter, the NRC was established in 1916, the NAE in 1964, and the IOM in 1970. The four organizations are collectively referred to as the National Academies.

The mission of the NRC is to improve government decision making and public policy, increase public education and understanding, and promote the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge in matters involving science, engineering, technology, and health. The institution takes this charge seriously and works to inform policies and actions that have the power to improve the lives of people in the U.S. and around the world.

The NRC is committed to providing elected leaders, policy makers, and the public with expert advice based on sound scientific evidence. The NRC does not receive direct federal appropriations for its work. Individual projects are funded by federal agencies, foundations, other governmental and private sources, and the institution’s endowment. The work is made possible by 6,000 of the world’s top scientists, engineers, and other professionals who volunteer their time without compensation to serve on committees and participate in activities. The NRC is administered jointly by the NAS, NAE, and the IOM through the NRC Governing Board.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 691
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/8/2010 3:40:18 PM
Oh please,apparently you have to explain something 3 different ways to get a point across,so forgive my use of the English language,apparently I don't express myself well,if the after effects of my writings is to dredge up such fine comments as Naked lunches .

Of course to Gulf is on overload,thought we all agreed to that.The point was I had no idea any ocean had a microbe that eats oil,which is why Valdez was so extremely different,cold water has no such thing.

My point was of awe that the gulf always had leaked oil in the tens of millions of gallons and always was able to produce such wonderful seafood under those conditions.

The whole idea of listing the NRC was a couple had seem to act like microbes were some form of make believe and that all the scientists were on the take in some form or not and if one listed a fine university one must comment that they are not from the gulf but a Northerner,and others feel if you express any thankfulness to anyone trying to clean this up whether its the white house,Coast Guard,BP,ones just cheer leading for them with their own agenda in play,guess one needs a strange motive to be thankful for the little things and all the attempts whether they all work out to everyone's grand expectations.

I'm not in the dark in the least that the gulf was functioning fine,although not as well as once before all of mans waste over the last decades,but functioned fine and now its stressed to the outer limits and on the critical list but hanging in there.

Odd that if FOX news reports that Cornell completed a study that somehow we are not to listen because its FOX.There are very few reporters one can trust one hundred percent,heck even the Bible parting of the Red Sea,was actually in the Sea of Reeds,many miles away.Reporting has always been an interpretation,some things one can totally believe,like a house on fire,then they show you a video of the house on fire.One cannot discount all, because they don't trust the source 100%.

Even a joke like Glen Beck,whom walks around the truths,he's the king of taking everything out of context.I'd trust 90% more from FOX than Beck,and that Bible with 800-900 year old men,Man that lived in a whale,an Ark that held every living thing,a god that never did something imperfect yet got pissed one day and flooded the world,killing everyone,well ok,maybe that was a "Perfect" kill.That kind of reporting is the hardest to trust,Its a nice read like the Hobbit,or Lord of the Rings.You show me any reporter you can completely trust,even if he's truthful sometimes his interpretation is false.

Sometimes with scientists its just best to compile all the reports and follow the common ground.Politic are also a strange interpretation of whats really happening.Even an idiot would know that you cannot have millions in the gulf fall out of employment and not have it drastically alter the job creation numbers we were making steady gains on.

This gulf spill is not some thing the spin doctors are tricking me with,or is that some of you are the only ones that think you get it.Sounds like most all of us get it,we seem to disagree on numbers,and we will continue too also ,because there will never be exact numbers,that's why I laugh when one wants to believe in a 50% figure over an 80% figure,as if they would ever know if they were correct or not.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 694
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/10/2010 12:49:01 PM
Excellent story on the oil eating microbes around the world.Pros and cons,how fast or slow the process works,what they can and can't eat,and a very good point,that is that the oil dispersant the oil company uses might kill the natural oil eating microbes .Corexit 9527A contains the solvent 2-butoxyethanol, which is a known human carcinogen and toxic to animals and other life. But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and others are monitoring whether adding such dispersant ends up boosting microbe-growth and hence dangerously depletes oxygen levels, among other potential environmental ill effects.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-microbes-clean-up-oil-spills

Bottom line ,its a good read from the Scientic American for those like me that never heard of a oil eating microbe before this disaster,or for those in the know,that need a bigger picture about it.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 697
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/10/2010 2:55:22 PM
Ok,loved the science . com

Even though science is often debated,I'd rather form my own opinions off of the scientific communities data over mainstream reporters or shock jocks stories.I now have them bookmarked ,thanks for the insight Krebby.

Paul,good point on bringing it to the marshes,I though feel the marshes already have the microbes since its the same seawater,I don't know though,that's my opinion.

A month back they showed one patch of marsh where all were shocked that although the marsh grasses were stained brown there were new green shoots popping out........a glimmer of hope. two thumbs up for mother nature in her grandest moment
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 699
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/10/2010 5:29:50 PM
Thanks for the link Krebby,its a handle and password to see your article but found one can backdoor them by using their search engine ,then clicking on the articles shown,I typed "Gulf oil spill "and got a long list of great articles.

In any field,any nationality and any sector ,you have bad apples.Scientists are part of that mix.So yes,right now some scientists are being bought off,and others are being swayed by their corporate bosses,as to not jeopardize their jobs by being to forthcoming,not rocking the proverbial boat.Others though, take great pleasure in the "proofs in the facts" and the employers welcome and encourage their truths.
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 701
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/10/2010 9:36:26 PM
"violence actually contributes"

Brownie points? Hahahaha! At some point in your life, you will learn that accepting the status quo is meaningless and an insult to your very existance grasshopper! I have basically avoided your exchanges, because you obviously are oblivous to the problem. In the greater scheme of things, at your age guess I can't fault you, your just young and foolish.


To my friends and foes I apologize for mssing the last few days. Did a brief stint at Sloan Kettering the last few days, so missed some of the back and forth. Will be back for a couple of months before I leave.

However I saw a interview with Phillip Costeau, son of Jaquea. Sorry about the spelling, good drugs doncha know!

He said what Obama said the other day was BS! I agree!! No way, they let the president eat gulf seafood with what's in the waters. Bottom line Costeau made it clear there was a shitload of oil in the water, and it wasn't safe to eat ANY seafood from near the gulf states!

Now I'm sorry guys, this man has no political axe to grind, he just is following in his fathers footsteps and reprsents, the interest of mankind, BP POISIONED THE GULF WATERS!!!!

When some of you teabaggers(gawd I love that term, seems so fitting for them) republican conservative azzholes in the party of "no" and the sleazy element of the democratic party who just want to maintain a majority wake up and deal with the reality of a poisoned gulf coast waters, just let me know, but dont wait to long, if you know what I mean! Hahahahaha!

Sorry guys your problem, NOT mine!
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 702
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/11/2010 4:03:30 AM
RE Msg: 707 by Krebby2001:
This article is about how some scientists are being prevented from the Gulf Coast Area unless they sign confidentiality agreements -- so much for neutral science.
I couldn't get access to the article you mentioned. But the idea of censorship interested me. So I looked up other sources for the issue. Anyway, it turns out that BP is not being totally unreasonable:
The BBC has obtained a copy of a contract offered to scientists by BP. It says that scientists cannot publish the research they do for BP or speak about the data for at least three years, or until the government gives the final approval to the company's restoration plan for the whole of the Gulf.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10731408

You can read the BBC's copy of the contract here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/22_07_bp_contract.pdf

Please note, that this contract allows you to enter the Gulf of Mexico, and do what you want. It only restricts those who want to be PAID by BP for analysing the situation. If any scientists really think BP wants to suppress data, then why are they taking money from BP in the first place?

I'll quote the contract itself:
You may perform any research and data collection and analysis services for any federal or state government agency or any 501(c) (3) non-profit organization relating to the Incident that do not involve or conflict with your performance of BP NRDA services without any prior approval by BP.
So if you want to work for the fisheries commission, AND BP, then you can report what you want, as long as there is NOT a conflict of interest. That's a perfectly reasonable condition for ANY company.

Also, see here, that BP is only doing what the NOAA are doing:
Researchers are asked to sign similar contracts with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agency charged with tracking the oil and assessing the damage.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/23/business/main6708143.shtml

If it's not OK for BP to require a confidentiality agreement, then why it is OK for the scientific agency that is responsible for accurate scientific reporting on this matter?

Anyway, Obama has already made it clear that BP is going to have to pay for everything. BP has already spent $6 billion, and has put $3 billion as an initial payment into a compensation fund. So BP is showing it is trying to sort out the mess.

Anyway, BP is NOT requiring silence on everything. It's only requiring that you talk to their lawyers FIRST.

I think that all in all, BP is only putting a requirement on scientists who are working for them, that IF they find that the environmental damage is more than previously thought, that they give BP a chance to develop a good plan to deal with the extra damage, and put it to the government for approval, BEFORE they shoot their mouths off to the papers, and ruin any such deal, ruining any chance that BP can sort the mess out.

Considering just how angry Americans seem to be about the situation, it is quite likely that many American scientists would probably shoot their mouths off to the papers, with all good intentions, and make such a scandal in the media, that they will screw up any chance that BP has to get the situation sorted.

If BP are doing something to ensure that good-intentioned American scientists will not screw things up for the world, then I say, good luck to BP.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 704
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/11/2010 7:27:52 AM
I find myself disturbed anytime someone talks about a company like BP as overall a great company.When your company is one that sets records of abuse around the world then you are the worst of all business.I hold BP akin to something as bad as a mafia,both organizations pay off political figures,local authorities,inspectors,ect. and when they are not giving to a local school or hospital they are up to no good.

It know longer matters if BP funds baseball teams,or donates to colleges and such when they set records for the worlds worst business/environmental abuses.

Jeffery Dahlmer I understand was an outstanding friend and neighbor,people loved him,he was an outstanding person 97% of the time,but it was that pesky 3% of the time when he ate people that blew the 97% of being an angel.

I do not care what country the company comes from,I do though dislike greatly almost all our world top mega corporations,there is a common theme among them.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 708
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/11/2010 9:27:39 AM

The main thing about it is about blame. It hasn't been British Petroleum since it merged with Amoco (American Oil Company) in 1998, when it became BP Amoco Plc, and in 2001, it was renamed BP Plc. But Obama keeps on calling it "British Petroleum". Either everyone in the White House are idiots who don't even try to look up the names of the companies they quote, or, Obama's press crew advised him to call it a name that doesn't exist anymore, because he wants to pretend its a British company, to draw on the strong anti-British feelings that Americans still have since the American War of Independence was fought against British troops in the 1770s, over 200 years ago.
What a petty hate slinging slant.Obama calls it British Petroleum because that is who they are,in 1998 they merged with Amoco,Amoco is also an abbreviation standing for American Oil Company.So if Obama wanted to be really exact and sound really off the wall when he refers to them he will Say British Petroleum American Oil Company Plc,butttttttttttt.............................read on

In 2000, BP Amoco acquired Arco (Atlantic Richfield Co.) and Burmah Castrol plc. In 2001 the company formally renamed itself as BP plc and adopted the tagline "Beyond Petroleum," which remains in use today. It states that BP was never meant to be an abbreviation of its tagline. Most Amoco stations in the United States were converted to BP's brand and corporate identity. In many states, however, BP continued to sell Amoco branded petrol even in service stations with the BP identity as Amoco was rated the best petroleum brand by consumers for 16 consecutive years and also enjoyed one of the three highest brand loyalty reputations for petrol in the US, comparable only to Chevron and Shell. In May 2008, when the Amoco name was mostly phased out in favour of "BP Gasoline with Invigorate", promoting BP's new additive, the highest grade of BP petrol available in the United States was still called Amoco Ultimate.


To me its pretty darn weird to think if someone calls a company by their name its a nation slam.

Yes corporations are owned by shareholders,but the CEOs drive the vehicle,and the back seat drivers (shareholders) only scream loud each time the driver makes a wrong turn or crashes the vehicle,on an occasion if the vehicle crash was really nasty,they hire a new driver and reassign the old driver elsewhere.
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 710
Did BP influence release of Lockerbie bomber (Pan Am # 103) ? ? -to drill in Libya?
Posted: 8/11/2010 9:50:36 AM

To me its pretty darn weird to think if someone calls a company by their name its a nation slam.

Yes corporations are owned by shareholders,but the CEOs drive the vehicle,and the back seat drivers (shareholders) only scream loud each time the driver makes a wrong turn or crashes the vehicle,on an occasion if the vehicle crash was really nasty,they hire a new driver and reassign the old driver elsewhere.


oh, BP, BP, BP..

what a wicked web we weave, when first we learn how to deceive.

BP, it appears is a very bad 'corporate citizen'.

They seem to have influenced the British & Scottish Gov'ts decision to release convicted Pan Am Flight # 103 bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in August 2009.

the same month, BP was granted a permit to drill for oil offshore of Libya by the Libyan gov't.

Coincidence? I think not..

read about it here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38256677/ns/world_news-africa/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6814939.ece

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1712902220100717

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/world/europe/11lockerbie.html

Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was released OSTENSIBLY..for 'comapssioante reasons" because he supposedly had "3 months left to live", in August 2009.

Hewas given a "hero's welcome" back to Libya (for killing 270 people) and is still alive, living in a seaside mansion there.

oh, bad ol' BP admitted lobbyingfor his release..

http://www.aolnews.com/politics/article/bp-lobbied-brits-ahead-of-lockerbie-bomber-release/19555218

anything for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ eh, BP?

what happened to "no blood for oil" ? or "no blood for money" ?

down the drain, needed the $$$$ to fund Tony Hayward's lavish retirement package??
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 712
Did BP trade blood for money ? (or oil? ) it appears so!
Posted: 8/11/2010 9:59:55 AM
Amid a new U.S. furor over trading a terrorist for commercial considerations, BP confirmed today that it had lobbied the British government in late 2007 over a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya prior to the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.

"BP told the U.K. government that we were concerned about the slow progress that was being made in concluding a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya," BP said in a statement. "We were aware that this could have a negative impact on U.K. commercial interests, including the ratification by the Libyan government of BP's exploration agreement."



"Evidence in the Deepwater Horizon disaster seems to suggest that

BP would put profit ahead of people --

its attention to safety was negligible and it routinely underestimated the amount of oil gushing into the Gulf,"


At the heart of this controversy is a $900 million exploration deal BP provisionally agreed with Libya in May 2007, the same month that Britain and Libya opened talks on a Prisoner Transfer Agreement. During initial negotiations over the transfer pact, Britain's then-Justice Minister Jack Straw refused to sign on to the deal if it included Megrahi. At the same time, Libya was stalling and refusing to ratify its multimillion-dollar deal with BP.

Then in December 2007, according to The Sunday Times, Straw wrote to Kenny MacAskill -- his counterpart in Scotland, who set the Libyan free last August -- and said the government was abandoning its attempt to exclude Megrahi from the prisoner agreement, citing the national interest. Within six weeks of this about face, Libya had authorized the BP deal.

It later emerged that Straw had changed his mind following lobbying from the petroleum industry, especially BP. He took two phone calls from Sir Mark Allen, a former MI6 agent, then working for BP as a consultant, on Oct. 15 and Nov. 9, 2007.

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph last September, Straw admitted that trade and BP were key considerations when the government decided to include Megrahi in the prisoner agreement. "Yes, [it was] a very big part of that. I'm unapologetic about that ... Libya was a rogue state," he said. "We wanted to bring it back into the fold. And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP deal."


"The question we now have to answer is, was this corporation willing to trade justice in the murder of 270 innocent people for oil profits?"


ANSWER ??? YES!! obviously!

Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence agent, is the only person ever sentenced in connection with the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over the small Scottish town of Lockerbie in December 1988. He was convicted in 2001 of 270 counts of murder for masterminding the attack. But last August, the Scottish government released him from jail on compassionate grounds, after being told by doctors that his prostate cancer was likely to result in his death within three months. That decision angered the U.S. and many relatives of those killed in the attack, who argued Megrahi should end his days in prison.



Almost a year later, Megrahi, 57, is still alive. And last week, the British doctor who originally diagnosed the bomber admitted Megrahi might survive for another decade.



In an interview with the Daily Telegraph last September, Straw admitted that trade and BP were key considerations when the government decided to include Megrahi in the prisoner agreement. "Yes, [it was] a very big part of that. I'm unapologetic about that ... Libya was a rogue state," he said. "We wanted to bring it back into the fold. And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP deal."


 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 714
view profile
History
Did BP trade blood for money ? (or oil? ) it appears so!
Posted: 8/11/2010 2:19:07 PM
RE Msg: 712 by annasthasia:
Americans only SEEM angry to you?...
I didn't want to say Americans ARE angry, because angry people are considered to make such bad decisions, that they are not supposed to be driving at all:
147

Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204). You should

* try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well

* be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake

* not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070309

If Americans really ARE angry about the situation, then they shouldn't be driving, and driving is something that most people can do, far more easily than evaluate an offshore situation dealing with a problem that they know far less about than how to drive.

Two refineries owned by oil giant BP account for 97 percent of all flagrant violations found in the refining industry by government safety inspectors over the past three years, a Center for Public Integrity analysis shows. Most of BP’s citations were classified as “egregious willful” by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and reflect alleged violations of a rule designed to prevent catastrophic events at refineries.
Hey, I'm all for justice. But justice means that if someone has been doing dodgy stuff, that you convict them then and there, not wait until they've made your life personally difficult.

So yeah, if Americans thrown the book at BP, last year, when they had hundreds of violations, when there was no spill off the coast of the USA, I would have applauded them, as citizens in favour of justice.

If BP is such a pure spirited company, why did it lawyer up to the max and decided to spend millions on an ad campaign promoting their propaganda.
Maybe it's because Americans are in such a frenzy, that it's clear that they HAD to manage things.

It would have been so much more telling if they actually spent the millions on the people they are supposed to help and HAVE THEM do the ads... I for one, would have much more respect and may even increase my level of confidence in that company.
Considering that they just put $3 BILLION into a compensation fund, for an INITIAL payment, they probably would LOVE to do that. But at the moment, the claims have to be sorted through, and if they did, considering just how frenzied Americans seem over the situation, Americans (and Canadians) would probably say they are just buying those people off, to lie on BP's behalf. So I'll be a "doubting Thomas", until I see some proof of your claim about how you and others would act.

RE Msg: 714 by Krebby2001:
That's not what the article is about.
I wrote earlier that I don't have access to the article. Considering your views on BP, wouldn't you want me to independently review your findings?

However, I looked again, and saw that I could register for free. Just did. Had a look at the article you referenced below:
Editor's note - Pete Tuttle, USFWS environmental contaminant specialist and Dept of Interior NRDA coordinator, told The Scientist that he was unaware of any samples being taken or access to study sites being restricted by federal, state, or tribal officials associated with NRDA. He did, however, confirm that researchers wishing to formally participate in NRDA must sign a contract that includes a confidentiality agreement. Tuttle said that the agreement prevents signees from releasing information from studies and findings until authorized by the Department of Justice at some later and unspecified date. "This is a civil lawsuit [against BP]," Tuttle said. "We are protecting our interests and our case. It's not designed to squelch anything, but just to ensure that the integrity of the case is protected." The Scientist contacted a BP representative to respond to Hooper-Bui's claims, but BP declined to comment
It seems to me that the NRDA is making an excellent case. If scientists publish their evidence, without considering the exact words they use, then those papers can be used by BP's lawyers to kill the case against BP. Is that what you want?

The scientist, and independent scientist, is not being allowed access to the area, UNLESS she signs up with BP or the NRDA --
Then why not sign up with the NRDA,? It's an American agency. Surely they wouldn't be pro-BP, considering that Obama is making BP foot the bill for the operation and for any compensation claims.

not being allowed to PUBLIC land, as an independent scientist
Oil rigs are vessels in the sea. They're like ships. They are the property of the owners, and as such, setting foot on any oil rig is subject to the owners' discretion.

But I am willing to be wrong. Please, can you show me a court ruling about offshore oil rigs from 2009 or before?

Thanks to the National Science Foundation (NSF), some of us might. We don't work for BP or the government's National Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process, which is overseen by state, tribal and federal science agencies and is partially funded by BP. We are independent scientists who want to honestly and independently examine the effects of the oil spill.
I understand that scientists want to have total intellectual freedom.

But if you're gonna make that claim, then be fair. Go and have a look at Uncle Sam's research labs, you know, the ones that are supposed to be germ-warfare-free, and chemical-weapon-free. Go and have a look at the nuclear power stations all over America, and demand to examine the towers, and see the safety x-rays. Go and examine the environmental effects of nuclear power stations in the surrouding areas. Do that, publish all the environmental impacts of nuclear power stations in America, and what the US government is cooking up, and THEN try to get into BP, and THEN claim that BP is gagging scientists, when no-one else can. But if you HAVEN'T done that, then BP is just doing what American companies, and your best friend, the US government, is doing, all over America.

I want to collect data to answer scientific questions absent a corporate or governmental agenda. I won't collect data specifically to support the government's lawsuit against BP nor will I collect data only to be used in BP's defense. Whereas I think damage assessment is important, it's my job to be independent -- to tell an accurate, unbiased story.

In southern Alabama back in late May, my PhD student's ant samples were taken away by a US Fish and Wildlife officer at a publicly accessible state Wildlife Management Area because our project hadn't been approved by Incident Command (also called the Deepwater Horizon Response Unified Command -- which is a joint program of BP and federal agencies, such as the Coast Guard, the Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, assembled to respond to problems related to the April 20 blowout).

We've had similar experiences in south Louisiana, where our research trip was halted after driving more than 150 miles to a study site. On the way to our sampling sites in Grand Isle, LA, were turned away by a sheriff's deputy blocking the road who said that he was told to allow no one who wasn't associated with BP or NRDA to pass that point. We've also been blocked by the Wisner Trust, one of the largest private land owners of marsh habitat in Louisiana, who in the past allowed LSU researchers access to their property. The lawyer representing the trust indicated that they are coordinating over 700 different people associated with BP and NRDA and that they simply cannot approve access for anyone else.
Even in the UK, which has a history of supporting science for centuries, intellectual freedom doesn't exist anymore. When Professor David Nutt worked for the British government as their scientific expert in drugs, he declared his findings. All that happened was that he got the sack, and the government said he just didn't understand the issue.

Or, better still, read up on Dr David Kelly. He was the scientist in charge of the UK's part in inspecting Iraq's weapons for WMDs. He went on TV, interviewed by the BBC, to say that the British government KNEW that there were no WMDs before the war. He mysteriously turned up dead, in what was claimed a suicide, but with the evidence indicating something quite different. Not only that, but the journalist who interviewed him, Andrew Gilligan, and the director general of the BBC, Greg Dyke, and the chairman of the BBC, Gavyn Davies, all resigned from the BBC. Can you imagine what kind of scandal you'd have to have, for an NBC interviewer, and the head of programming for NBC, and the chairman of NBC, ALL had to retire, because of ONE interview? Now, guess who owns the BBC? The British government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Gilligan#Resignation_from_the_BBC

There is only one freedom in the scientific community. If you say what your government wants people to hear scientists saying, then you are free to say it. But if you say what your government doesn't want people to hear scientists saying, then you'll find your funding gets cut, and your research will probably be hastily reviewed and rubbished.

That's currently what seems to happen, all too often.

However, in this case, Obama is clearly holding BP responsible, and America is the ONE country in the world that could force BP to do what it wants, especially as 50% of oil consumption is from the USA. So BP will do what America wants, or risk losing 50% of its profits. No question at all what BP will do. So US government agencies have no reason to gag scientists to help BP, only to stop scientists, who are not trained in diplomacy and how opening your mouth can completely decimate any chance of success in a lawsuit, doing just that, screwing good Americans over.

American scientists are well-intentioned. But that won't stop them screwing up, and this time, it will cost the Americans who've lost their livelihood, BILLIONS. I say, give them the choice. They get the right to speak and do what they want, as long as they sign a legal agreement, that if they screw up and cause the case against BP to be thrown out, as a result of their statements, then let them. Then, WHEN they screw up, and they cause the case again BP to be lost, make THEM pay, every one. Take their cars, their homes, every scientist in America. THEN, they'll realise that when they speak, it MATTERS, and it costs lives, and then, they'll be careful in future.

RE Msg: 717 by imalwayssmiling:
What a petty hate slinging slant.
That is what every news station in the UK reported, every journalist in the UK reported, and every politician in the UK who spoke about the subject pointed out. If you want to say this is a hate-slinging slant, then by all means, write to every newspaper, TV, station, journalist and politician in the UK, to tell them as such. But it was considered, from different angles, and that's what everyone in the UK concluded. But don't shoot the messender.

Obama calls it British Petroleum because that is who they are,in 1998 they merged with Amoco,Amoco is also an abbreviation standing for American Oil Company.So if Obama wanted to be really exact and sound really off the wall when he refers to them he will Say British Petroleum American Oil Company Plc,butttttttttttt.............................read on



In 2001 the company formally renamed itself as BP plc and adopted the tagline "Beyond Petroleum," which remains in use today. It states that BP was never meant to be an abbreviation of its tagline.
To me its pretty darn weird to think if someone calls a company by their name its a nation slam.
So do I, and if Obama had said "BP", just like everyone in the world does, then everyone would have been OK with that. But if Obama or anyone brought a legal suit against BP, using the name "British Petroleum", or "British Petroleum PLC", it would be thrown out, because that company doesn't exist anymore. Legally, BP's name is BP plc.

Mind you, it's only using an old name. So I guess it would be no different if the Prime Minister of the UK called America, "a British colony". After all, it used to be. What's in a name, right?

Yes corporations are owned by shareholders,but the CEOs drive the vehicle,and the back seat drivers (shareholders) only scream loud each time the driver makes a wrong turn or crashes the vehicle,on an occasion if the vehicle crash was really nasty,they hire a new driver and reassign the old driver elsewhere.
Actually, shareholders are the legal owners of the "vehicle", and the "driver" can be asked to stop the bus and leave, at any time, provided there is a majority of voting shares in favour of ousting the current CEO. They also vote on major decisions in the AGMs. It's more accurate to think of them as your landlord. They can kick you out, any time they want, and they make the rules that you have to live by.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >