The Dead Zone (or, BP and the Oil Well That Keeps on Giving) [Archive]

Lemur

05-26-2010, 20:18

Haven't seen this subject in the Backroom yet, and it's probably the biggest story of the year.

First, and most important, what if there ain't jack-all we can do (http://www.grist.org/article/2010-05-25-what-if-the-oil-spill-just-cant-be-fixed/)with a 5,000-foot deep oil spill?

Tomorrow BP is attempting the "top kill" maneuver (http://www.grist.org/article/2010-05-25-bp-gears-up-for-top-kill-to-plug-oil-leak-despite-doubts/) -- pumping mud into the well. If it doesn't work, well ... then what? Junk shot? Top hat? Loony stuff like nukes (http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/05/nuke-bomb-oil-spill-cleanup-crazy-russia-gulf-bp)? Relief wells will take months to drill and no one's sure if they'll work to relieve pressure. It's entirely possible, even likely, that we're going to be stuck helplessly watching as this well spews oil into the Gulf for years. Even if the flow were stopped tomorrow, the damage to marshes, coral, and marine life is done. The Gulf of Mexico will become an ecological and economic dead zone. There's no real way to undo it, no matter who's in charge.

I'm curious to see how the public's mood shifts once it becomes clear that we are powerless in the face of this thing. What if there's just nothing we can do? That's not a feeling to which Americans are accustomed.

This is pretty close to voicing my deepest fears. 5k feet is just shy of a mile, and a mile under the ocean is a supremely hostile working environment. I am appalled that shutoff valves were not required (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html) for these rigs, but what are we going to do? It's not as though we can fire up the time machine and undo Dick Cheney's energy task force (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/05/03/dick_cheney_halliburton_oil_spill). The damage is done, and it may keep on being done for some time.

It's not likely (but possible) that we have screwed up the Gulf of Mexico for a generation. Think on that for a moment.

gaelic cowboy

05-26-2010, 20:22

Kal from the economist had a poke at this BP/Iceland Volcano (http://www.economist.com/daily/kallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16173456)

Beskar

05-26-2010, 20:24

BP won't have as much money to fund the Climate Skeptic lobby anytime soon, that is for sure.

gaelic cowboy

05-26-2010, 20:27

It's not likely (but possible) that we have screwed up the Gulf of Mexico for a generation. Think on that for a moment.

Absolute disgrace and the level of shoulder shruging of the BP execs is sickening trying to pass the buck etc. I say it's time to break out granpappy's ole blunderbus and fire a couple of pellets up there rear ends.

Vladimir

05-26-2010, 20:32

I didn't think it was possible to despise both ends of an issue.

I'm seething with anger at both the administration and BP.

Lemur

05-26-2010, 20:33

Here's a video of an ABC reporter diving into the toxic stew of oil and detergent-based dispersants with one of the Cousteaus. Chilling stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7MD9ldxGgQ

gaelic cowboy

05-26-2010, 20:36

I didn't think it was possible to despise both ends of an issue.

I'm seething with anger at both the administration and BP.

Yeah those idiots were far too chummy with the execs not a good idea I gues and the BP crowd were more interested in saving money at the risk of destroying fishing and tourism in the gulf.

Vladimir

05-26-2010, 20:39

Yeah those idiots were far too chummy with the execs not a good idea I gues and the BP crowd were more interested in saving money at the risk of destroying fishing and tourism in the gulf.

I'm beyond rationality at this point. I understand the administration needs to take an aggressive stance but all they've done is make jack-booted threats. The BP executive's testimony was pathetic.

All I really care about now are the people in the Gulf states affected by this.

TinCow

05-26-2010, 21:16

As far as I am aware, there is a guaranteed fix: drilling a new shaft into the existing one and using the new shaft to seal the old one. From what I read, BP started doing this almost immediately, but it takes upwards of 2 to 3 months to drill that deep, so it's a very slow solution. Everything they've tried so far is an attempt to stop the damage earlier, since 2 to 3 months of leakage is an ecological apocalypse.

Crazed Rabbit

05-26-2010, 21:43

Huh, we didn't even get to the end of the first post before the Bush blaming started. The other safety measures installed? The fact that Obama's been in charge for over a year? The fact that the acoustic trigger might not have stopped anything?

Meaningless! Let's look back to blame our political enemies with the benefit of hindsight!

Now, the rig will cost upwards of $500,000,000 to replace. I doubt that something that cost $500,000 led to intense lobbying to prevent that part from being required. And where does this claim come from? A trial lawyer suing BP, being interviewed by a very liberal talk show host. Is there any proof of this, any hard evidence?

Heck, it'd be better to look at how the rig was run, if warning signs were missed or alarms ignored like Texas City. Considering what happened, such human mistakes likely have more to do with the problem than one type of safety equipment. But that requires more than political finger pointing and blaming Bush and Cheney.

The point about people demanding the government simply do something is bemusing; as though Obama can, by stomping his foot and yelling, make it all better. Or that the government should push BP out of the way and do it themselves. Luckily the administration seems to know they couldn't even do it as well, though it makes me wonder just how out of touch some people can be.

Sadly, it does seem as though the damage could be very great. And in the end it's BP's fault, and we've got to make sure they properly compensate the people and governments hurt.

CR

Lemur

05-26-2010, 21:50

As far as I am aware, there is a guaranteed fix: drilling a new shaft into the existing one and using the new shaft to seal the old one.
From what I've read, even once the two-to-three months have elapsed, and the relief well is in place, there's no fixed timeline for when that will slow or stop the oil spill. Again, all of this is happening under a mile of water, so the logistics are just frightening.

The fact that the acoustic trigger might not have stopped anything?
Every deep sea rig in Norway has been required to use acoustic triggers since 1993. Do you think they would indulge in this expense for no reason whatsoever? I see we didn't pause to read the WSJ article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html), did we?

Crazed Rabbit

05-26-2010, 22:02

From what I've read, even once the two-to-three months have elapsed, and the relief well is in place, there's no fixed timeline for when that will slow or stop the oil spill. Again, all of this is happening under a mile of water, so the logistics are just frightening.

Hmm. As I've understood it, the relief well, once dug, will stop the spill. The problem is the time - and the difficulty of hitting the old pipeline with the new well.

Every deep sea rig in Norway has been required to use acoustic triggers since 1993. Do you think they would indulge in this expense for no reason whatsoever? I see we didn't pause to read the WSJ article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html), did we?

I did read the article; Britain does not require such devices. I'm not saying they're useless, only that how much they'd help, especially since the US wells in question already have back-up systems, is not clear. It shouldn't be viewed in hindsight as some sort of fix that would have solved everything. Also, I would've thought that tracking down your source for the Cheney allegations through multiple redirects had shown I did read your links.

CR

Lemur

05-26-2010, 22:57

I'm not saying they're useless, only that how much they'd help, especially since the US wells in question already have back-up systems, is not clear. It shouldn't be viewed in hindsight as some sort of fix that would have solved everything.
On the other hand, it's hard to look at another failsafe system that is already in use by major oil-producing nations and not feel a little wistful, especially staring in the face of the biggest ecological disaster in a long, long time. This sort of quote (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html) really grates:

A 2001 report from the International Association of Drilling Contractors said "significant doubts remain in regard to the ability of this type of system to provide a reliable emergency back-up control system during an actual well flowing incident."

By 2003, U.S. regulators decided remote-controlled safeguards needed more study. A report commissioned by the Minerals Management Service said "acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly."

As per usual, when we don't want to modify our behavior even slightly, we ask for "more study." This sort of thing inspires me to use language not appropriate to the Org.

Seamus Fermanagh

05-26-2010, 23:03

Hard to say what safety features, if any, would have prevented this. Nobody planned for the type of catastrophic failure experienced. Nobody really thought anything like that could happen. We are not even certain exactly what caused the explosion as it is.

Would the trigger safety mechanism have done the trick? Unknowable.

Will handling this be a stone-cold *****? Yeppers. We have a better handle on the tech needed to make repairs while orbiting Mars than we do to effect repairs that deep under water.

I suspect the relief drill approach will work, but that won't be complete until Septemberish (they say August, but that's for spin I suspect). The Gulf will be years returning to more or less previous condition.

Blaming this on Bush is ludicrous. It is OBVIOUS that Cheney was the leading figure in this appalling attack -- nobody else has so much to gain.

Vladimir

05-26-2010, 23:26

Blaming this on Bush is ludicrous. It is OBVIOUS that Cheney was the leading figure in this appalling attack -- nobody else has so much to gain.

That's who I thought of when I heard Haliburton was involved. It made me smile. Unfortunately, no one bit.

PanzerJaeger

05-26-2010, 23:27

Huh, we didn't even get to the end of the first post before the Bush blaming started.

Of course, it's the Leem's SOP. If a problem can be linked to Bush/Cheney, regardless of how tangentially, he's going to bring it up. I'm thinking he's just doing his small part in the Left's pre-emptive strike against those seeking to use this against Obama.

I was tempted to wonder aloud why, after 16 months in office, nothing was done to change these horrible Bush-era practices, but that's just petty.

I actually feel bad for the president. There really is nothing he can do but give speeches acting like there is. BP, not the government, is the only entity with the expertise to fix the problem. This wasn't his fault, but the fallout is going to fall on him just as that of Katrina did on Bush, especially if the Top Kill solution fails. It seems the hopelessness of his predicament hasn't escaped (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/27206) him.

An obviously angry President Barack Obama, meeting with senior government officials, had one view on the 36-day old oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that is becoming a monumental disaster not only for the environment and his administration.

“Plug the damn hole,” he told the meeting. “Just get it done.”

Tellos Athenaios

05-27-2010, 00:02

Well that link of Lemur's leads to a few follow up (or prequel) articles which seem to point out one thing very clearly: there was no contingency planning (apparently everyone was deferring to higher chains of command which simply does not work in an emergency), health and safety procedures were the stuff of dictionaries thrown out of the window long ago (because apparently nobody even knew how to release a few lifeboats, and nobody had the sense to shut down the system on their own), and there seems to have been a clever cost reduction programme in using sea water rather than the heavier counter-balance fluids/mud normally used (which seems to have been the cause of the whole thing).

Good thing though that BP will be required to pay for all this, similar to Exxon at Valdez. Bad thing though that the damage is apparently an order of magnitude larger and also more far-reaching.

TinCow

05-27-2010, 00:16

Yikes... just noticed this bit in the latest Washington Post update (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/26/AR2010052601621_3.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010052404233):

Two rigs are drilling relief wells but are not expected to complete their work until August.

August?! They'd better plug that thing long before August. It's still May!

Strike For The South

05-27-2010, 00:23

All my shrimp are covered in oil :sad:

Pannonian

05-27-2010, 00:58

All my shrimp are covered in oil :sad:

You won't even need a saucepan to fry them then. Just set them on fire, and you're good to go.

Kadagar_AV

05-27-2010, 01:22

To those saying that BP will have to pay for this.

Sure, absolutely. They will / should go bankrupt over it.

However, there is absolutely NO chance that BP has the cash to even remotely come close to paying for the damage. And some of the damage is not about money, but lives affected, and nature of course.

Lemur

05-27-2010, 01:26

Of course, it's the Leem's SOP. If a problem can be linked to Bush/Cheney, regardless of how tangentially, he's going to bring it up. I'm thinking he's just doing his small part in the Left's pre-emptive strike against those seeking to use this against Obama.
Shall I count your ad hominems or leave that up to those who are using them for a drinking game? Troll harder, my friend, troll harder.

Vladimir

05-27-2010, 01:29

Kadagar_AV

05-27-2010, 02:05

How many lives would your fantasy affect?

Elaborate please? I didn't quite get you.

PanzerJaeger

05-27-2010, 02:08

Shall I count your ad hominems or leave that up to those who are using them for a drinking game? Troll harder, my friend, troll harder.

It's hardly an ad hominem or troll; I consider it part of your charm. I fully expect every national disaster, calamity, and tragedy that occurs in the next four to eight years to be the fault of the Bush administration in some way or another. Upon the great octosquid invasion, I wouldn't be surprised on my last visit to the .org before going out in a blaze of glory and squid juices to find a link to a HuffPo article quoting some sketchy trial lawyer discussing Donald Rumsfeld's refusal to fund octosquid detection and destruction hardware back in '02. :nice:

Seamus Fermanagh

05-27-2010, 03:18

Shall I count your ad hominems or leave that up to those who are using them for a drinking game? Troll harder, my friend, troll harder.

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party? Remember Mr. Proto-Simian, you are under oath.

Lemur

05-27-2010, 03:19

It's hardly an ad hominem or troll; I consider it part of your charm. I fully expect every national disaster, calamity, and tragedy that occurs in the next four to eight years to be the fault of the Bush administration in some way or another.
And you have a charming manner of diverting every argument to the personality of your interlocutors; you're actually one of the most skilled and slippery thread derailers I've ever seen.

Meanwhile, those 5,000 feet of water continue to be a staggering difficulty (http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/BPs-Top-Kill-Procedure-Poses-Technical-Challenges-94945219.html).

BP officials say the best hope for stopping the oil leak this week rests on a procedure that has been used to stop countless oil leaks before, but never in deep water. For weeks, BP experts have been studying conditions, especially the intense pressure that exists at the well head 1.5 kilometers under water.

During a trip to the Louisiana coastline this week, BP chief Tony Hayward said there is still doubt about the procedure, in spite of the exhaustive preparations. "It has never been done in 5,000 feet of water. If it was on land, we have a high confidence of success," he said. [...]

In case the top kill fails, BP says it is working on other methods to stop oil from leaking into the Gulf of Mexico. Wells says the firm has designed a valve system that can be used to cap the blow-out preventer and siphon oil to a surface vessel. "We believe by doing this we will create an option that will capture more of the flow that we have been able to capture so far," he said.

The ultimate solution for the oil leak is to drill a relief well that will intersect the existing well and choke the flow of oil. Two separate rigs are drilling relief wells now, but the work may not be finished until August.

PanzerJaeger

05-27-2010, 04:57

And you have a charming manner of diverting every argument to the personality of your interlocutors; you're actually one of the most skilled and slippery thread derailers I've ever seen.

Don't introduce subjects into your threads if you don't want them discussed. :nice:

Lemur

05-27-2010, 05:25

Initial signs are good (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWEN521720100527?type=marketsNews)... although I had read that we wouldn't know anything solid for at least two days ...

HOUSTON, May 26 - BP Plc Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said on Wednesday it appears drilling mud, not oil, was gushing from a ruptured undersea well six hours into an effort to halt a month-old oil spill.

"What you've been observing coming out of the top of that riser is most likely mud," Suttles said at a news conference broadcast from a Louisiana command center. "We can't fully confirm that because we can't sample it. And the way we know we've been successful is it stops flowing."

Crazed Rabbit

05-27-2010, 06:37

On the other hand, it's hard to look at another failsafe system that is already in use by major oil-producing nations and not feel a little wistful, especially staring in the face of the biggest ecological disaster in a long, long time.

Oh certainly. But we should recognize it as wishful thinking.

Initial signs are good ... although I had read that we wouldn't know anything solid for at least two days ...

Let's hope that does the trick. From a related link from that page:

BP remained cautious about the outcome of the much anticipated "top kill" procedure, as did President Barack Obama, whose credibility stands to suffer if one of the country's worst environmental catastrophes does not end soon.

I don't get that. He didn't cause it; only with hindsight is there any talk of the government somehow preventing this. BP and the rig operators caused it, and they're doing about all they can. Except for the people who died, of course.

This stupid reporting about Obama somehow being to blame for the long cleanup is ridiculous; worse yet it encourages more stupidity, overreactions by the government to show they're doing something.

CR

Husar

05-27-2010, 06:50

Hah, now that this happens close to home you're all complaining, but where is the outrage about this (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=11732)?

At least BP is trying to fix this instead of letting the local communities deal with it.

Oh and I read the soviets have used nukes before to seal such underwater leaks and that it isn't very nutty because water deals with the radiation very fast in comparison to other environments.

And I don't hope they go bankrupt, I'm indirectly working for them, I might have to work for shell then and they might just have/get a monopole then, too. I know, I'm biased, and it feels good for a change.

Kadagar_AV

05-27-2010, 07:05

I don't get it, what exactly is it anyone expect Obama to do?

Threaten to hold his breath till it is fixed?

No seriously, what can be expected of him that he is not already doing? Dont get me wrong, I am no Obama fan. I just dont understand the flak he is taking.

*we can mark this as a first where I support a US president btw, hmmm, they must have changed the medication on me again, I hate it when they do that*

Pannonian

05-27-2010, 10:34

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party? Remember Mr. Proto-Simian, you are under oath.

Nyet.

tibilicus

05-27-2010, 15:17

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10174861.stm

It's stopped leaking.

gaelic cowboy

05-27-2010, 15:18

RTE say BP could be stopping flow (http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0527/gulf.html)

Kadagar_AV

05-27-2010, 15:58

Hmmm...

I will surprise even myself by saying this: but I think BP has acted rather cool in all of this.

1. About the extra-safe-thingy-that-might-have-prevented it. The US is basically a mercantile being. Blame yourself. Norway has regulations to prevent this to an added cost for the company. The US has not, why spend PROFIT money on making sure accidents like this wont happen?

I mean, what logical reason could it EVER be to spend some extra cash to prevent a catastrophe like this, when you can earn more money if you don't. *think about this next time you flame Comnadia (I take pride of having invented the newspeak Comnadia, Communist-Skandinavia).

2. BP has not gone with the American hype. They have worked with statistics, they have been as clear about what is happening as they could. They have not been all over the media trying to cover up. This operation that seem to have worked, they themselves were clear on being a long shot.

This should however teach the US a valuable lesson. If you want oil, do it the old fashioned way, bomb some country. Preferably one with territorial waters that wont hurt your wildlife.

Lemur

05-27-2010, 16:07

Oh certainly. But we should recognize it as wishful thinking.
And here you oversell your own argument. Would another safeguard have mitigated the disaster? Impossible to say. Maybe yes, maybe no. But to classify the desire for it as "wishful thinking" moves your argument into the realm of, "safeguards make no difference, so shut the heck up," which is overstating your case by factors of ten.

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party? Remember Mr. Proto-Simian, you are under oath.
I refuse to answer the question based on the fact that lemurs are not protosimians, but rather prosimians. The warrant has been incorrectly served. I'm walkin' free on a technicality! W00T!

Ser Clegane

05-27-2010, 16:10

why spend PROFIT money on making sure accidents like this wont happen?

I mean, what logical reason could it EVER be to spend some extra cash to prevent a catastrophe like this, when you can earn more money if you don't.

One compelling reason might be that the catastrophe is going to cost BP more money than the investment for the safety measures would have been.
Avoiding to lose ~30 billion EUR in market cap. over a couple of weeks might be another good reason.

Kadagar_AV

05-27-2010, 16:23

One compelling reason might be that the catastrophe is going to cost BP more money than the investment for the safety measures would have been.
Avoiding to lose ~30 billion EUR in market cap. over a couple of weeks might be another good reason.

Haven't studied economics much, have you?

Imagine you are a company for a second or two, you have two options:

1. 1% chance of something bad happening costing you 50% profit.
2. Not care about that and save 5 billion that could have prevented it.

From a economic perspective, you would be crazy to go with option A. After all, 99 times out of 100 you would go 5 billion more plus.This is very much the American way of thinking. And yes, economy is better of for it!

However, as a Comnadian, I would argue that economic value might not be the only factor. As if you have a 50 companies, you have a 50% chance of a disaster.

Ser Clegane

05-27-2010, 16:30

Haven't studied economics much, have you?

I assume in addition to being a language teacher, history teacher, ski instructor and special forces fighter you also studied economics?

Let's just say that I am not entirely unfamiliar with economics and the relevant industry.

Imagine you are a company for a second or two, you have two options:

1. 1% chance of something bad happening costing you 50% profit.
2. Not care about that and save 5 billion that could have prevented it.

From a economic perspective, you would be crazy to go with option A. After all, 99 times out of 100 you would go 5 billion more plus.This is very much the American way of thinking. And yes, economy is better of for it!

The problem with your argument is that you entirely made up the numbers. Your assumption for option A are not even close to reality in this case.

Strike For The South

05-27-2010, 16:34

Wow BP just capped a well 1.5 miles underwater and did it in record time.

Good show boys.....I mean you really shouldn't be drilling there in the first place but good show none the less

Lemur

05-27-2010, 16:40

Wow BP just capped a well 1.5 miles underwater and did it in record time.
Not to be pedantic, but if one mile = 5280 feet, and the well is ~5000 feet down, how does that make 1.5 miles? Not that working under a mile of water isn't plenty horrible, but still.

Strike For The South

05-27-2010, 16:44

Not to be pedantic, but if one mile = 5280 feet, and the well is ~5000 feet down, how does that make 1.5 miles? Not that working under a mile of water isn't plenty horrible, but still.
oppppsssssss....kilometers

Vladimir

05-27-2010, 16:45

oppppsssssss....kilometers

Strike is converting to metric. :laugh4:

Lemur

05-27-2010, 16:46

oppppsssssss....kilometers
Hey, are you the guy who lost that Mars probe (http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/)?

Kadagar_AV

05-27-2010, 16:52

I assume in addition to being a language teacher, history teacher, ski instructor and special forces fighter you also studied economics?

Let's just say that I am not entirely unfamiliar with economics and the relevant industry.

The problem with your argument is that you entirely made up the numbers. Your assumption for option A are not even close to reality in this case.

In Sweden you cant have only one subject, you need two. I picked history and Swedish. We have conscription in Sweden, my army time thus def should not be something to marvel at, did my 15 months (officer program) plus some UN service, but that kind of comes with the officer program. This was some 10 years ago though, but then I have been helping out with training the Nordic Battalion. Only in summer though (and some winter programs), as in Sweden ,you have 8 weeks summer vacation as a teacher, might as well do something useful. Ski instructing has always been part of my life (works great when you work as teacher too, as the weeks you have off in the winter are the weeks they need extra ski instructors!). Economy I studied extra in the evenings, as well as psychology. Why? Because I spent a whole lot of time skiing instead of studying, so to fill my required hours to get cash from the state for studying, I needed to study double hours the months I did do my studies to make a living.

Sorry for being all defensive, but this is third time in a month or so I have been accused of lying about my background. Am getting rather tired of it. If you look at what I just wrote, you will notice that there are no miraculous feats that brought me to where I am.

May I also add that I took offense to your post. I challenged your post, you challenged me. Not only is it insulting, but it is below what I would have expected from the men in red.

AS TO YOUR (actual) POINT, yes I entirely made up the numbers. It was a mathematical example with no bearing on real life situations. I never claimed anything else, and I thought that was obvious from what I wrote.

The point in the example I made still holds true though. No?

Ser Clegane

05-27-2010, 17:18

I challenged your post, you challenged me. Not only is it insulting, but it is below what I would have expected from the men in red.
Excuse me, but this:

Haven't studied economics much, have you?
is certainly far from challenging the content of my post but is simply questioning my background without you knowing anything about it.

From the "men in red" perspective this remark of your has only been one in quite a number of similar remarks in the past weeks (and which derailed threads several times) and you should not be surprised that other members regularly get annoyed by your posting style. (happy to further discuss this via PM)

On topic:

AS TO YOUR (actual) POINT, yes I entirely made up the numbers. It was a mathematical example with no bearing on real life situations. I never claimed anything else, and I thought that was obvious from what I wrote.
The point in the example I made still holds true though. No?

The point does not hold true if the claim you originally made very much depends on the actual numbers

The point is that the cost for the safety measure in question (500k USD per rig as mentioned in on of the linked articles) in entirely neglectable compared to the profits of BP (~100 USD billions if you just add up the last 5 years) and to the damage that has been caused.
This is not an issue of cost savings, but (assuming that the equipment in question could have made a difference) an issue of poor risk assessment/management.

Lemur

05-27-2010, 17:27

This is not an issue of cost savings, but (assuming that the equipment in question could have made a difference) an issue of poor risk assessment/management.
I, for one, blame the Paleozoic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleozoic) and the tertiary period of the Cenozoic. It's all their fault for having continents of lush vegetation and oceans of zooplankton that turned into coal, gas and oil. Damn you, Paleozoic! Damn you all to hell!*

Early reports of the blowout mentioned a methane bubble (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/20/deepwater-methane-hydrates-bp-gulf) that shot through the system and blew out pretty much everything. Haven't seen that mentioned lately, so I've no idea if that was valid info or early speculation.

*Of course, if you subscribe to the abiogenic petroleum origin theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin), this is moot.

gaelic cowboy

05-27-2010, 17:30

Methane is very prevalent in the gulf I suspect it may have been a factor

Kadagar_AV

05-27-2010, 17:45

Excuse me, but this:

is certainly far from challenging the content of my post but is simply questioning my background without you knowing anything about it.

From the "men in red" perspective this remark of your has only been one in quite a number of similar remarks in the past weeks (and which derailed threads several times) and you should not be surprised that other members regularly get annoyed by your posting style. (happy to further discuss this via PM)

On topic:

The point does not hold true if the claim you originally made very much depends on the actual numbers

The point is that the cost for the safety measure in question (500k USD per rig as mentioned in on of the linked articles) in entirely neglectable compared to the profits of BP (~100 USD billions if you just add up the last 5 years) and to the damage that has been caused.
This is not an issue of cost savings, but (assuming that the equipment in question could have made a difference) an issue of poor risk assessment/management.

The "haven't studied economics much, have you?" was as you say not very polite, I beg your forgiveness. However, you kind of brought a gun to a fist fight (I questioned your economical knowledge, you questioned my person). Let us however move on and leave that behind, shall we?

As to the point, you kind of strengthened my point.

Poor risk assessment? I do think a company that profit (your numbers) ~100 USD billions over 5 years do not make bad risk assessments. Gambling ones, sure! The US economy thrive on it. Gambling is, as I said in my previous post, not bad if you have the odds on your side. And as I said, the numbers I used was only to make an example that the average Orgah gets. The example still holds true though.

500k USD on the stockmarket is HUGE, I have totally forgot what company it was, but when X airline removed one olive in their salad the stocks went way up.

To summarize: Your standpoint is that a global company such as BP did a bad risk assessment. My point is that they did the logical choice given the factors at hand.

My second point is that the factors at hand would be different in Comnadia than the US, thus very possibly altering the risk assessment.

Xiahou

05-27-2010, 17:46

When these things happen, someone always comes out and says "If only we had this one more safety measure, everything would have been averted". It reminds me of the Futurama episode where the 6000 hulled dark matter tanker wrecks and Fry remarks "Oh, the fools! If only they'd built it with 6000 and one hulls! When will they learn?!?"

What happens in most instances, and I suspect we'll find here is that safety personnel get complacent and cut corners to meet a deadline or some such. If so, such people should be held criminally responsible, while BP is itself financially responsible.

On the political front, I think Obama's only mistake has been in mishandling the PR during the spill. He certainly didn't cause the spill, and probably only BP could stop it. The only missteps have been in the administration's inconsistent and sometimes conflicting statements about the spill and their role in the aftermath- beginning with their curious "boot on BP's neck" statement. :shrug:

Kadagar_AV

05-27-2010, 17:55

When these things happen, someone always comes out and says "If only we had this one more safety measure, everything would have been averted". It reminds me of the Futurama episode where the 6000 hulled dark matter tanker wrecks and Fry remarks "Oh, the fools! If only they'd built it with 6000 and one hulls! When will they learn?!?"

The difference to your example and the one we witnessed is that other countries drilling of their coasts has regulated this.

Your example: Norway regulated for 6001 and one hulls for the off chance of anything breaking 6000.

Real example: Norway regulated a device to stop things go very bad if things go bad.

As much as I appreciate the humor in your post, it isn't really applicable in this situation.

Ser Clegane

05-27-2010, 18:56

500k USD on the stockmarket is HUGE

You are kidding - right? Please feel free to alsó provide the airline example you mention - perhaps with real numbers instead of a mathematical example.

I stick with the poor risk assessment - be it the lack of (relatively cheap) equipment or the inability/unwillingness to enforce proper safety procedures (see Xiahou's post)

Vladimir

05-27-2010, 19:08

The difference to your example and the one we witnessed is that other countries drilling of their coasts has regulated this.

Your example: Norway regulated for 6001 and one hulls for the off chance of anything breaking 6000.

Real example: Norway regulated a device to stop things go very bad if things go bad.

The more you compare this to Norway, the more you marginalize yourself.

Crazed Rabbit

05-27-2010, 19:32

500k USD on the stockmarket is HUGE,

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Wow, just wow.

BP has several refineries in the US, each one of which process 100,000 barrels of oil per day or more. Each barrel costs about $75; that's at least $7,500,000 million spent per day at least in each refinery on oil alone.

Haven't studied economics much, have you?

I have. You're wrong and Ser Clegnane is right; the immense cost of the cleanup will provide a very compelling reason to invest in good equipment.

Now, back to politics - I have read that this rig was allowed to operate without complete review under Obama's administration. And that the federal government is reviewing permit applications from Louisiana to put up oil barriers, instead of just issuing them. So there's the possibility of legitimate blame for Obama. But the responsibility lies with BP.

CR

Louis VI the Fat

05-27-2010, 20:46

oppppsssssss....kilometersOh, gosh dangit. Texans use miles, sheesh. You'll give our swapping accounts away if you post in metric. :wall:

Lemur

05-27-2010, 21:52

Hah, now that this happens close to home you're all complaining, but where is the outrage about this (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=11732)?
I, for one, am furious about "We couldn't locate the page."

-edit-

Well, hell. Ugh. (http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/world/article/536242--us-scientists-discover-new-giant-deep-sea-oil-plume-in-the-gulf-of-mexico) Looks like there's a lot more pollutant hanging around deep in the water column than anyone thought.

Marine scientists have discovered a massive new plume of what they believe to be oil deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico, stretching 22 miles (35 kilometres) from the leaking wellhead northeast toward Mobile Bay, Alabama.

The discovery by researchers on the University of South Florida College of Marine Science's Weatherbird II vessel is the second significant undersea plume recorded since the Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 20.

The thick plume was detected just beneath the surface down to about 3,300 feet (1,000 metres), and is more than 6 miles (9.6 kilometres) wide, said David Hollander, associate professor of chemical oceanography at the school.

Hollander said the team detected the thickest amount of hydrocarbons, likely from the oil spewing from the blown out well, at about 1,300 feet (nearly 400 metres) in the same spot on two separate days this week.

The discovery was important, he said, because it confirmed that the substance found in the water was not naturally occurring and that the plume was at its highest concentration in deeper waters. The researchers will use further testing to determine whether the hydrocarbons they found are the result of dispersants or the emulsification of oil as it travelled away from the well.

Lemur

05-28-2010, 00:13

Xiahou

05-28-2010, 00:29

FWIW, here's a much more technical article (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011938864_oilcement24.html) about the techniques used in the creation of the Deepwater well. Lots of inside-baseball comments from petroleum engineers, actually quite interesting.

The BP well "is not a design we would use," said one veteran deep-water engineer who would comment only if not identified because of his high-profile company's prohibition on speaking publicly about the April 20 explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon or the oil spill that started when the drilling rig sank two days later.

He estimated that the liner design, used nearly all the time by his company, is more reliable and safer than a casing design by a factor of "tenfold."

But that engineer and several others said that had BP used a liner and casing, it would have taken nearly a week longer for the company to finish the well — with rig costs running at $533,000 a day and additional personnel and equipment costs that might have run the tab up to $1 million daily.From the story:
BP PLC spokesman Toby Odone in Houston said the London-based company chooses between the casing and liner methods on a "well-by-well basis" and that the casing-only method is "not uncommon."And uhhh, a well that is being drilled at a depth of one mile under the ocean didn't qualify for sturdier containment? I mean, if you're going to go cheap on us, at least do it on a well that's easier to reach.

I've also read somewhere that records indicated irregular pressure tests during the capping process, but workers were told to proceed anyway- shortly before the explosion. I think BP is going to come out of this looking very bad.

Hosakawa Tito

05-28-2010, 00:47

From the story:And uhhh, a well that is being drilled at a depth of one mile under the ocean didn't qualify for sturdier containment? I mean, if you're going to go cheap on us, at least do it on a well that's easier to reach.

I've also read somewhere that records indicated irregular pressure tests during the capping process, but workers were told to proceed anyway- shortly before the explosion. I think BP is going to come out of this looking very bad.

Very bad indeed. Heated arguement on rig hours before blast. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704717004575268302434395796.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read)
Oil rig workers describe safety issues in hearing. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269204575270320416130984.html?mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1&)
BP decisions made well vulnerable. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704026204575266560930780190.html?mod=WSJ_article_MoreIn)

Unbelievable. And rest assured BP lawyers are working to keep the company's liability cap at $75 million.

Husar

05-28-2010, 01:04

I, for one, am furious about "We couldn't locate the page."

Hmm, yeah, seems to have disappeared, how about this (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions_details.asp?ActionID=618) then?

And here's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzj3rEUEXoo) a related one from CNN.

I'm not an expert on that subject but ignoring the problems for years if not decades seems worse to me than having an accident and then trying your best to solve the problem.
Of course when it happens close to the US it creates more outrage than someone ruining a big region in Africa or is that just Amnesty and CNN turning a non-issue into an oil spill? :shrug:

Ronin

05-28-2010, 01:59

I don't get that. He didn't cause it; only with hindsight is there any talk of the government somehow preventing this. BP and the rig operators caused it, and they're doing about all they can. Except for the people who died, of course.

This stupid reporting about Obama somehow being to blame for the long cleanup is ridiculous; worse yet it encourages more stupidity, overreactions by the government to show they're doing something.

CR

There seems to be some apetite in turning this into Obama's Katrina.....the fact that this is BP's problem and not the government's like the hurricane was won´t deter the mudslingers...

like it was said above...if today's move doesn´t work there is a definite solution for this...the problem is that it will take 2 months to put into place....at god knows what price in terms of the enviroment of the area...

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. ...It's the only way to be sure

Crazed Rabbit

05-28-2010, 02:43

I read a detailed article in the Wall St Journal, already linked in the thread by Hosakawa Tito, and it seems BP made a series of decisions based on reducing the time to completion that reduced the safety margin. Taking more time to put in better safeguards, it seems, could well have avoided the whole mess. So it could well be that people have died, and the rest of the oil industry that doesn't screw up will be subject to a bunch more regulations again because BP wanted to do things cheaper and faster, plus this time there's massive ecological damage.

Of course it won't be until the US Chemical Safety Board (http://www.csb.gov/)issues it's report (months from now; they write thorough reports) that we'll really know what happened and why.

CR

Beskar

05-28-2010, 03:40

and people argued against regulation, when it would have prevented this happening.

Seamus Fermanagh

05-28-2010, 20:17

and people argued against regulation, when it would have prevented this happening.

A prohibition on drilling would have prevented it. Regulation? Possibly, but possibly not. Remember, you can only establish regulations covering forseeable problems. I strongly suspect that coping with a major explosion such as occurred wasn't really considered and certainly wouldn't have been rated likely enough to warrant meticulous regulation.

Regulation has its place, but mostly its to prevent repeat occurrences.

Shaka_Khan

05-28-2010, 20:29

Loony stuff like nukes (http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/05/nuke-bomb-oil-spill-cleanup-crazy-russia-gulf-bp)?
What if nuking it makes the hole bigger?

gaelic cowboy

05-28-2010, 20:38

What if nuking it makes the hole bigger?

The pressure at that depth would force good chuck of explosion down I would say the hole would be squashed flat and blocked.

Lemur

05-29-2010, 20:38

Looks as though the top kill did not work (http://dailyhurricane.com/2010/05/top-kill-likely-a-failure.html). Dang it.

Typically, you know pretty quickly if a top kill works. BP has been pumping the kill since Wednesday, trying a number of tactics, including junk shots. Their announcement last night that it would be at least through the weekend before if they know the results of the kill doesn't ring true to me. Certainly they know a lot more than what they are saying.

Recall that a top kill will work only if enough back pressure can be generated in the leaking wellhead to allow the pumped mud to overcome the pressure from the well, turn the flow around, and then build enough hydrostatic head to overcome the formation pressure. The junk shot was designed to do just that, but apparently BP had decided to try just mud for the first effort. I believe that the high rate that BP pumped the mud washed out the cracks in the riser, actually reducing back pressure. The cracks in the riser are where you saw the mud flowing if you watched the live feed of the top kill the last couple of days. As a side note, I do find it interesting that the BP feed no longer includes the bent riser view of the last couple of days,and now looks like the end of the riser where the riser insertion tool had been used previously.

Because of the washed out riser cracks, the bridging material pumped in for the junk shot probably can't clog up the riser and BOP enough to overcome the flowing pressure and allow mud to go down the well, so the mud they are pumping is likely just going into the kill and chokes valves and coming out the top of the BOP.

-edit-

It's official. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10191622.stm)

Lemur

05-30-2010, 16:33

[I]t seems BP made a series of decisions based on reducing the time to completion that reduced the safety margin.
More info is emerging that trends toward that conclusion (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/us/30rig.html?hp).

Internal documents from BP show that there were serious problems and safety concerns with the Deepwater Horizon rig [...] The problems involved the well casing and the blowout preventer, which are considered critical pieces in the chain of events that led to the disaster on the rig.

The documents show that in March, after several weeks of problems on the rig, BP was struggling with a loss of “well control.” And as far back as 11 months ago, it was concerned about the well casing and the blowout preventer.

On June 22, for example, BP engineers expressed concerns that the metal casing the company wanted to use might collapse under high pressure.

“This would certainly be a worst-case scenario,” Mark E. Hafle, a senior drilling engineer at BP, warned in an internal report. “However, I have seen it happen so know it can occur.”

Crazed Rabbit

05-30-2010, 21:10

Apparently the next plan is to have robots saw off part of the pipe and fit some sort of cover on (http://cbs4.com/oilspill/oil.spill.bp.2.1723365.html). The danger, of course, is that if that fails then the whole pipe is opened up and leaking.

I wonder how BP's going to pay for all the damage. I have heard of rumors (and just rumors) going around the refining industry that BP will sell off their US refineries.

More info is emerging that trends toward that conclusion.

In refining accidents and the like, the answer is nearly always one thing; human error.

CR

HoreTore

05-31-2010, 17:14

A prohibition on drilling would have prevented it. Regulation? Possibly, but possibly not. Remember, you can only establish regulations covering forseeable problems. I strongly suspect that coping with a major explosion such as occurred wasn't really considered and certainly wouldn't have been rated likely enough to warrant meticulous regulation.

Regulation has its place, but mostly its to prevent repeat occurrences.

Tougher envorimental restrictions on american cars would've prevented this, as that's the only way to get a prohibition on drilling.

If we were all driving electric cars, we wouldn't see things like this.

gaelic cowboy

05-31-2010, 17:22

Tougher envorimental restrictions on american cars would've prevented this, as that's the only way to get a prohibition on drilling.

If we were all driving electric cars, we wouldn't see things like this.

How so????? most lecky comes from dirty fossil fuels

HoreTore

05-31-2010, 17:30

How so????? most lecky comes from dirty fossil fuels

That's your own fault for not building enough hydro-electricity.

Here, almost all the electricity comes from hydro-electricity. Which is completely clean.

EDIT: And at any rate, even if the electricity comes from a coal plant, an electric car would still be better. It costs about a dollar for enough electricity to drive some 100km. Think you can do that with a combustion engine...?

gaelic cowboy

05-31-2010, 17:33

That's your own fault for not building enough hydro-electricity.

Here, almost all the electricity comes from hydro-electricity. Which is completely clean.

Your clearly know nothing about Hydro-Power it's not suitable everywhere

gaelic cowboy

05-31-2010, 17:37

EDIT: And at any rate, even if the electricity comes from a coal plant, an electric car would still be better. It costs about a dollar for enough electricity to drive some 100km. Think you can do that with a combustion engine...?

Petrol is still more efficient way to generate energy to drive the car, electricity will not generate enough charge to match a full tank of petrol in speed or distance

HoreTore

05-31-2010, 17:37

Your clearly know nothing about Hydro-Power it's not suitable everywhere

Is it my fault your country didn't have the sense to get yourself some big mountains and some proper rivers....?

Petrol is still more efficient way to generate energy to drive the car, electricity will not generate enough charge to match a full tank of petrol in speed or distance

Depends on where you're driving. An electric car is more than sufficient for what 90% of us drive in a day.

gaelic cowboy

05-31-2010, 17:39

Is it my fault your country didn't have the sense to get yourself some big mountains and some proper rivers....?

obviously they were stolen by the Vikings so we got Brian Boru to kick your asses

Crazed Rabbit

05-31-2010, 18:49

That's your own fault for not building enough hydro-electricity.

Here, almost all the electricity comes from hydro-electricity. Which is completely clean.

EDIT: And at any rate, even if the electricity comes from a coal plant, an electric car would still be better. It costs about a dollar for enough electricity to drive some 100km. Think you can do that with a combustion engine...?

In Washington state the stupid hippies got a referendum passed that classified hydro-power (which we've got a lot of, but the hippies dislike it because it's harder for some fish) as a non-renewable energy source. So instead electric companies will have to invest in much less efficient wind and solar power to get the renewable energy quota.

Oh, and as for what I can do with a combustion engine; drive more than 100 miles in a day. Turns out that's quite useful in America.

CR

HoreTore

05-31-2010, 19:29

Oh, and as for what I can do with a combustion engine; drive more than 100 miles in a day. Turns out that's quite useful in America.

CR

Most of the worlds population live in big cities, and we do not care about that.

And what's stopping you from having two cars; one electric for driving short distances, and one petrol/hybrid for longer trips...?

Ser Clegane

05-31-2010, 19:53

And what's stopping you from having two cars; one electric for driving short distances, and one petrol/hybrid for longer trips...?

Are you also getting free cars in Norway?

Tellos Athenaios

05-31-2010, 19:55

HoreTore

05-31-2010, 19:56

Are you also getting free cars in Norway?

I'm sorry, do you live in a third world country?

ajaxfetish

05-31-2010, 19:59

Nope, just one where cars cost big money.

Ajax

HoreTore

05-31-2010, 20:05

Nope, just one where cars cost big money.

Ajax

Heck, even I had two cars when I lived with my ex. On a student loan. And I live in a country where cars are at least twice as expensive as in yours. Get real, we can all afford both an electric car and a petrol car - assuming you can afford a car in the first place.

Tellos Athenaios

05-31-2010, 20:06

Second try; for some reason the forum/internets ended up eating my previous post. @Mods: please do not delete the empty post, because it points to a problem with the forum software -- the forum should've rejected my empty post for not containing the minimum of required characters. I'll tell Tosa in a minute.

Petrol (internal combustion) engines are in fact terribly inefficient compared to electric engines -- both at delivering speed and at delivering torque. Diesels are significantly better than petrol engines, but still not nearly as good as electric engines. The one thing petrol and diesel engines have going for them is that you can store a lot of energy in a relatively small form-factor: say a car-tank. This is much more difficult with batteries or capacitators (much the same): it is not possible to store those amounts of energy in this fashion in a similar volume.

Incidentally diesel power locomotives are usually a hybrid: diesel powered generators to run the electric engines which run the train.

HoreTore

05-31-2010, 20:11

gaelic cowboy

05-31-2010, 20:19

And who on earth said that you had to buy that Audi instead of a Prius, eh?

Why Jeremy Clarkson of course who else?????

Crazed Rabbit

05-31-2010, 20:27

Most of the worlds population live in big cities, and we do not care about that.

And what's stopping you from having two cars; one electric for driving short distances, and one petrol/hybrid for longer trips...?

You mentioned America:

Tougher envorimental restrictions on american cars would've prevented this, as that's the only way to get a prohibition on drilling.

And in America, even in large cities, it matters. And buying two cars because one is useless for long trips is stupid.

CR

HoreTore

05-31-2010, 20:50

You mentioned America:

And in America, even in large cities, it matters. And buying two cars because one is useless for long trips is stupid.

CR

....And could you please explain why you can't buy a hybrid....?

And why on earth is it stupid to have a second car you can use back and forth to work and the grocery store at almost zero cost...? most families already have two cars, one of which is usually a small one, like a Micra, yaris or Corsa. I see no reason why that one can't be replaced by an electric car.

Hosakawa Tito

05-31-2010, 21:04

Electric cars at this time are:
1. Too expensive compared to the petrol models.
2. The few I've seen are ugly little tin cans that most people in the US don't want to drive.
3. The electric grid to support, and the maintenance facilities to sustain them is non-existent.

Tellos Athenaios

05-31-2010, 21:08

Well yes. It'd be a tricky bit in New York, where complete backbone grid blackouts due to a failing piece of equipment are part of a good summer's day*.

* Or rather: the grid isn't exactly as solid and reliable as what one would wish.

HoreTore

05-31-2010, 21:10

Electric cars at this time are:
1. Too expensive compared to the petrol models.

Nonsense, they're cheaper than a Micra.

2. The few I've seen are ugly little tin cans that most people in the US don't want to drive.

They look about the same as a Micra, Yaris or Corsa. And yes, those cars are sold in the US, believe it or not.

3. The electric grid to support, and the maintenance facilities to sustain them is non-existent.

You can plug it in your outlet at home at night, and it has the capacitity to store enough to last throughout the day. No problems.

Beskar

05-31-2010, 21:35

There are also the SMART cars which are hybrids and have something like 180 miles to the gallon, compared to a typical cars 30 miles to the gallon. It makes no sense not to adopt at least hybrids, if not hydrogen or electric.

The thing is, it is the oil companies which doesn't want the consumers to actually get these types of cars, and thus invest bribe the automobile manufactures into not simply rolling out alternative types.

And people argue we should give these companies more power with a "Free-r" market because they will obviously act in our interests and not their own. :rolleyes: :laugh4:

HoreTore

05-31-2010, 22:04

Marshal Murat

05-31-2010, 22:46

As someone on the Gulf Coast, there is alot of anger at both the administration and at BP. From what I've read off of BBC articles, it seems that the Brits are indignant that the Americans are heaping so much blame on a "foreign" rather than a "domestic" company, but that's not what I wanted to write about.

Personally I don't really see too much point in blaming anyone for the situation, because I don't think anyone at BP or Admin. really had any "choice" in this accident. I don't blame BP at all, not because they've dug into their coffers to try and stop this situation. Instead I believe it was the individual contractor's fault in this situation but the easy sell is "big oil company screws up environment", which plays well. It's irresponsible for the government to really try and expedite a process that is already being expedited. BP is trying everything they can to solve the situation, which is a no-win for them. I think the problem needs to be fixed, ASAP, with no mark on BP.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-01-2010, 04:19

Horetore:

Hydro-electric power is good stuff, I wish we had more of it. Even with our limited percentage of hyrdo-generated power, we generate twice what you do in Norway. Regrettably, that is only about 7% of our need.

We will not be building hydro-electric projects because they involve building dams that block the natural flow of rivers, change wildlife habitats, and flood tracts of land upstream from the dam. No larger dams equals no channeled, gravity-powered water for hydroelectric power generation. At the moment, there is a growing movement to dismantle existing dams and even smaller dams designed to create drinking water resevoirs are not being built due to political opposition. Locally, the new proposed resevoir that all civil engineers say is necessary was fought for 15 years and now seems likely to be cancelled. Between NIMBYs and "don't you dare alter the environment" types, the court battles at every step make it a waste of time to try.

We are also, in practical terms, prohibited from using nuclear power. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, people became so scared of nuclear power plants that all construction of them stopped until 2006. We generate an appallingly low percentage of our power this way, with little chance to see in increase for decades as: court fights slow the building of each individual reactor and aging reactors go off line, forcing new ones to replace rather than increase power generated in this category.

Windfarms get hammered by high generation costs, environmentalist opposition (mostly to land-based windfarms), and NIMBYs. The cost per megawatt is way over that of other sources. The same is even truer for solar power.

Geothermal plants run into trouble from environmentalists and scarcity. We don't have all that many places where it would be viable, and some of them are effectively untouchable (they're not gonna cap and use Old Faithful for example).

Electric cars? Nice idea, but CR and Hosa are right about the reactions of most Americans. Hybrids are appealing, but the current added cost of a hybrid when compared to a standard ICE often leaves the total consumer cost higher because the savings in gas costs aren't enough to offset the added purchase price and financing price over the use-life of the vehicle.

The economics don't add up. Short of government fiat, it isn't happening here anytime soon.

Beskar

06-01-2010, 04:43

Electric cars? Nice idea, but CR and Hosa are right about the reactions of most Americans. Hybrids are appealing, but the current added cost of a hybrid when compared to a standard ICE often leaves the total consumer cost higher because the savings in gas costs aren't enough to offset the added purchase price and financing price over the use-life of the vehicle.

The economics don't add up. Short of government fiat, it isn't happening here anytime soon.

That makes no sense, I could go out and buy a brand new hybrid car at a price cheaper than most people buy their non-hybrid type cars at, even if it was used.

However, in the UK, there is a trend to buying second/third hand cars, unless you are a doctor or similar, at which you constantly have brand-new cars every year, as it turns out being cheaper to drive it for a year, then sell it on, then to buy it and keep it for a few years, or something similar to that.

Then there are those who won't buy as hybrid car due to illogical reasons like "It isn't manly".

So ultimately, unless Britain for instance has a secret recipe which the Americans don't have, it makes no sense for every new car to be a hybrid car. Being honest, if I was the government/regulator, I would ban the production and selling of non-Hybrid cars, which will make the market full of hybrids, while the old guzzlers die out due to age. There is no reason for progress to be stalled due to corperate interests from multinationals.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-01-2010, 21:41

That makes no sense, I could go out and buy a brand new hybrid car at a price cheaper than most people buy their non-hybrid type cars at, even if it was used.

However, in the UK, there is a trend to buying second/third hand cars, unless you are a doctor or similar, at which you constantly have brand-new cars every year, as it turns out being cheaper to drive it for a year, then sell it on, then to buy it and keep it for a few years, or something similar to that.

Then there are those who won't buy as hybrid car due to illogical reasons like "It isn't manly".

So ultimately, unless Britain for instance has a secret recipe which the Americans don't have, it makes no sense for every new car to be a hybrid car. Being honest, if I was the government/regulator, I would ban the production and selling of non-Hybrid cars, which will make the market full of hybrids, while the old guzzlers die out due to age. There is no reason for progress to be stalled due to corperate interests from multinationals.

An example (http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/escape/):

Ford Escape lists at $21,020; Ford Escape Hybrid lists at $ 29,860. Increased cost of Hybrid = $8,840

Ford Escape mileage is 22/28; Ford Escape Hybrid is 34/31.

Average gas price is about $2.85/gallon.

Now, assume a service life of 150,000 miles (ten years average useage, though most Americans do not keep their cars a full ten years).

Gas costs for traveling 150,000 miles would be: $19,432.82 for the Escape and $12,573.53 for the hybrid version. Hybrid Savings = $6859.29

Choosing the hybrid costs you nearly $2,000 more over the service life of the vehicle.

This is usually made worse by the typical 60-month financing arrangement whereby most Americans purchase their vehicles. The higher up-front cost of the hybrid translates into much greater interest payments on the loan and an even more horrific overall price of ownership (Note: if you put $5000 down on the above Escape or Escape hybrid, after 60 months financing at 7% the total cost would actually be: $24020 for the Escape and $34,520 for the hybrid version. This would make the functional price $10,500 LESS for the standard vehicle, upping the vector to more than $3600.)

Personal property taxes are assessed on the re-sale value of the vehicle. Hybrids have a higher cost even in re-sale, so the tax assessment and tax cost is likely to be higher throughout the life of the car, again, exacerbating the functional cost.

Because of their higher dollar value and higher repair costs, hybrids are also slightly more expensive to insure (though liability insurance costs are the same for both at present. NOTE: some folks are suggesting that hybrids are more likely to kill pedestrians due to their low noise levels at under 40mph not providing pedestrians with enough warning.).

The concept is neat, but at current costs the hybrid is a poor economic choice for a family. You only buy it if you are willing to personally sacrifice in order to reduce your carbon footprint.

HoreTore

06-01-2010, 21:47

Seamus Fermanagh

06-01-2010, 22:07

A Ford Escape is an american-made car. American cars are completely irrelevant when it comes to hybrids.

Check again using either japanese or german cars as your basis.

The Prius costs about the same as other cars in the same class, ditto for the blue motion Passat.

And cars last at least 15 years. The engine doesn't start to fail until well into 300.000km.

Setting aside the snide comment regarding American Auto design.....

Honda (http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-sedan/) Civic and Civic Hybrid

Price: Standard = $15,655, Hybrid = $23,800 Hybrid "extra" cost = $8,145

Mileage: Standard = 26/34, Hybrid = 40/45; gallon of gas $2.85

10 Years at 15k/year = 150,000 miles; 15 years at 15k/year = 225,000

Fuel cost Standard: $16,442.31 for 10 years; $24,663.46 for 15 years.

Fuel cost Hybrid: $10,687.50 for 10 years; $16,031.25 for 15 years.

Hybrid Fuel Savings: $5,754.81 for 10 years; $8,632.21 for 15 years.

Less "extra" cost at 10 years: $2,390.19 additional cost over 10 years.

Less "extra" cost at 15 years: $487.21 savings

Average length of car ownership (http://usa.polk.com/News/LatestNews/201003-Scrappage.htm) in USA = 49.9 months.

Sorry Horetore, it still isn't an economically sound idea here even if I did accept your premise regarding manufacturer quality.

Lemur

06-01-2010, 22:16

And there's always the question of those hundreds of pounds of toxic batteries (http://www.hybridcars.com/battery-toxicity.html). I never feel as though that gets addressed.

If you want to make a real personal difference, go diesel (http://blogs.dieselpowermag.com/6236516/diesel-news/does-diesel-make-more-sense-in-small-cars/index.html). But the big savings in transportation would be switching commercial trucks over to natural gas (http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/04/16/switching-3-5m-commercial-trucks-to-natural-gas-would-save-1-2m-bbl-of-oil-a-day/). That would be worth getting uppity about.

-edit-

Getting back on-topic for a moment, here's a good article (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/ixtoc_oil_spill.php?ref=fpi) about the last major spill in the Gulf of Mexico:

The Mexican company running the Ixtoc I rig attempted a slew of now-familiar remedies --- they pumped mud into the well, capped it with a metal "sombrero," shot lead balls into the well and drilled relief wells -- but it took 10 months to stop the leak even though the drilling was taking place just 160 feet below the surface.

The Deepwater Horizon, which blew on April 20, was drilling 5,000 feet underwater.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-02-2010, 00:51

Tellos Athenaios

06-02-2010, 01:57

PanzerJaeger

06-02-2010, 02:39

Fortunately for the rest of us, however, in 10 years nobody will dream of buying an american car, and the Japanese make greener and greener cars.

Slightly disagree. In 10 years no one will be buying a Chrysler or GM. Ford has taken the necessary steps to maintain global competitiveness.

Also, unless the Japanese can slow down the Yen, they'll soon be overcome by Korea.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-02-2010, 03:32

Bio-diesel is quite cost-effective: sunflower oil costs about $0.02/L. You require a darned lot of the stuff, though; so you really do need to have a network of bio-diesel pumps to get anywhere with it.
So it pre-requires a well-established culture of using diesels in personal vehicles, so that the niche of bio-diesel is economically viable for individual pump owners. That's the real issue with them; and it pretty much the same issue with newfangled hydrogen based engines, too: you need a market large enough that even small market share can be profitable.

That is, of course, the biggest limitation on bio-diesel -- you have to have your own refining station (http://www.homebiodieselkits.com/)in your garage. While not ridiculously expensive, these things aren't cheap at $3500. Still, $3500 is much cheaper than $8k plus for a hybrid engine. Moreover, even if you have to purchase cooking oil as opposed to obtaining used oil for free, wholesalers make it available for roughly .08 USD/liter (.31 a gallon). Even with shipping and storage, you're talking less than .50/gallon. The stuff even has the same cetane ratings as European diesel -- better than most US petroleum diesel brands. Its Achillles heel is its performance in cold weather -- biodiesel is much more prone to clogging things up as temperatures get really cold.

Lemur

06-02-2010, 03:35

Heard from a journo friend that CNN is circulating a memo requesting "positive stories" about the oil spill. Yeah, gotta get both sides of that story, CNN. Wouldn't want anyone saying you were being unfair. To the oil spill. And they wonder why they're bleeding viewers.

Looks like somebody came through:

Website Offers Betting on Spill-Related Extinctions of Gulf Species (http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05/24/24greenwire-website-offers-betting-on-spill-related-extinc-84733.html)

Think the spreading oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico could drive some species to extinction? Put your money where your mouth is.

The gambling website PaddyPower.com placed odds today on what species would be first to become extinct as a result of crude belching from BP PLC's ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Odds are the Kemp's ridley turtle, and endangered species that migrates to the Gulf this time of year, would go first. A $5 bet on the turtle would win $9 if it's listed as extinct at any time because of the spill. Less likely species -- the gulf sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish and elkhorn coral -- have payout rates of 20-to-1. [...]

Marine biologists have said that tuna are at risk from oil and dispersants (Greenwire, May 14). There are two populations of bluefin tuna: One spawns in the Mediterranean and the other in the Gulf of Mexico. The center wants endangered status for both.

Bluefin tuna is second on the bookies' list in the PaddyPower.com pool, with a payout rate of 6-to-4.

Beskar

06-02-2010, 04:51

drone

06-02-2010, 06:11

What is strange is your comparisons. You can see the companies trying to purposefully fiddle the consumer with "Hybrid extras". Compare across company, for example SMART do both Electric and Hybrid cars. How much are they compared to your Ford Vector? I believe they are cheaper.
There is nothing strange about his comparisons. Smart Cars only come in 1.0L ICE over here. And what is a Ford Vector? You need to look at the US-specific websites for various auto makers. You will find that models offered are very different.

Hybrids are not worth it. Pure electrics would be better for short, in-town commuting, but they just aren't widely available, and without the range/quick recharge, they will not be practical for many Americans. We would do better to just downsize out of the SUV insanity and get more fuel efficient sedans/coupes.

HoreTore

06-02-2010, 10:03

Setting aside the snide comment regarding American Auto design.....

Honda (http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-sedan/) Civic and Civic Hybrid

Price: Standard = $15,655, Hybrid = $23,800 Hybrid "extra" cost = $8,145

Mileage: Standard = 26/34, Hybrid = 40/45; gallon of gas $2.85

10 Years at 15k/year = 150,000 miles; 15 years at 15k/year = 225,000

Fuel cost Standard: $16,442.31 for 10 years; $24,663.46 for 15 years.

Fuel cost Hybrid: $10,687.50 for 10 years; $16,031.25 for 15 years.

Hybrid Fuel Savings: $5,754.81 for 10 years; $8,632.21 for 15 years.

Less "extra" cost at 10 years: $2,390.19 additional cost over 10 years.

Less "extra" cost at 15 years: $487.21 savings

Average length of car ownership (http://usa.polk.com/News/LatestNews/201003-Scrappage.htm) in USA = 49.9 months.

Sorry Horetore, it still isn't an economically sound idea here even if I did accept your premise regarding manufacturer quality.

Funny how you didn't touch on the market leader; the Toyota Prius.

The cheapest Prius costs 272.300NOK, while the cheapest Corolla costs 230.800NOK. HOWEVER, the cheapest corolla is a really strapped car, nobody buys that modell without pimpin' it(the smallest eninge is like 2% of total sales), AND the cheapest Prius has a wide range of extra stuff, as well as a bigger engine. To make it a fair comparison, one would have to add at least 25K to the Corolla. The diffence now? 17k. And that's a little over a years worth of gas, so.... within 3 years you'll have that money back.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway; I never made the argument that the hybrid is cheaper. I made the argument that you can afford it. And yes, you bloody well can. If you have the money to buy that new Honda Civic, or even that Ford, then you can afford to buy a 3-5 years old hybrid of the same model.

So no, this oil spill still wouldn't have happened if you people had some sense and drove economically. And you can all afford it.

And there's always the question of those hundreds of pounds of toxic batteries (http://www.hybridcars.com/battery-toxicity.html). I never feel as though that gets addressed.

Irrelevant. 1. Since when did anyone start preserving their use of batteries? Are we buying fewer computers? 2. You don't care about scrapping the car 10 years before its lifetime ends, why on earth do you care so much about it in this particular case? You don't think there's any enviromental damage from producing twice as many cars as is needed...?

Ser Clegane

06-02-2010, 10:36

You don't think there's any enviromental damage from producing twice as many cars as is needed...?

Hey - you're the one promoting the idea that we should have two cars instead of one...

HoreTore

06-02-2010, 10:50

Hey - you're the one promoting the idea that we should have two cars instead of one...

You already own two cars. The other one might as well be a green one.

Ser Clegane

06-02-2010, 10:58

You already own two cars. The other one might as well be a green one.

I only own one car. When some patrons pointed out the disadvantages of the green car you first mentioned you argued that people should have two cars and that everybody can afford two. Then you complain that there are too many cars anyway.

HoreTore

06-02-2010, 11:00

I only own one car. When some patrons pointed out the disadvantages of the green car you first mentioned you argued that people should have two cars and that everybody can afford two. Then you complain that there are too many cars anyway.

Not a family man, then?

Ser Clegane

06-02-2010, 11:36

Not a family man, then?

Two person household. As I prefer to use public transportation to get to work I see no point in having a second car (and this would not change if we had kids).

So, do you think people should have one car or two cars?

Beskar

06-02-2010, 12:28

Two person household. As I prefer to use public transportation to get to work I see no point in having a second car (and this would not change if we had kids).

Everyone pretty much has 2 cars, with older children, it shoots up to 3 and possibly a 4th.

You commuting on the bus/etc, is instead of the second car. Therefore you wouldn't need one. (Thus you rule yourself out)

Seamus Fermanagh

06-02-2010, 12:35

Two person household. As I prefer to use public transportation to get to work I see no point in having a second car (and this would not change if we had kids).

So, do you think people should have one car or two cars?

Depends entirely on their situation. If you live and work in Manhattan, you probably don't need a car at all and can easily rent one for those rare occasions that you do. The public transportation system there is reasonably efficient and a good cost alternative given the costs of car ownership in NYC. On the other hand, in a typical U.S. suburb and with the typical activities of a family of four, having only one car would create a deal of inconvenience. With some larger families, it would be outright counter-productive. Our suburbs have public transportation, but the density required to make cars irrelevant would be cost prohibitive.

Horetore:

What you suggest is unworkable on a mass level. Car manufacturers do not manufacture 3-5 year old hybrid cars. While it may be an excellent personal choice for any indvidual to do so, SOMEONE will have to buy the new cars and absorb the comparatively high front-end cost of vehicle purchase -- or there will be no new cars.

I didn't do a Prius to non-Prius comparison because I wanted a direct parallel for "side-by-side" comparison. Once you go that route, you need to spend forever making "what's comparable" decisions on loadout as well as mileage modifications for those loadouts -- and I only had a few minutes.

Ser Clegane

06-02-2010, 12:38

Everyone pretty much has 2 cars, with older children, it shoots up to 3 and possibly a 4th.
Does everyone pretty much need two cars (let alone 3 or 4 so that the "older children" all have their own cars)?

You commuting on the bus/etc, is instead of the second car. Therefore you wouldn't need one. (Thus you rule yourself out)
I am not sure if I see the point you are trying to make ...
Are you saying that everybody who has 2 cars needs 2 cars (or 3 or 4)?

EDIT: Just for clarification - my response about the 1 vs 2 car point is based on these two statements from HoreTore

And what's stopping you from having two cars; one electric for driving short distances, and one petrol/hybrid for longer trips...?

You don't think there's any enviromental damage from producing twice as many cars as is needed...?

Neither has anything to do with a family needing more than one car to better organize logistics.

Beskar

06-02-2010, 13:06

Does everyone pretty much need two cars (let alone 3 or 4 so that the "older children" all have their own cars)?
They don't, but they do. So unless you want to simply go into Public Transport investment debate.

I think HoreTore was more on about using Green cars opposed to a 2nd guzzler which the vast majority own. You say you don't have a 2nd car and don't need one, so his comment isn't directed at you at particular.

HoreTore

06-02-2010, 14:37

Horetore:

What you suggest is unworkable on a mass level. Car manufacturers do not manufacture 3-5 year old hybrid cars. While it may be an excellent personal choice for any indvidual to do so, SOMEONE will have to buy the new cars and absorb the comparatively high front-end cost of vehicle purchase -- or there will be no new cars.

I didn't do a Prius to non-Prius comparison because I wanted a direct parallel for "side-by-side" comparison. Once you go that route, you need to spend forever making "what's comparable" decisions on loadout as well as mileage modifications for those loadouts -- and I only had a few minutes.

Irrelevant.

The point was that we can all drive more economically.

And this was never about saving money. This was about avoiding an oil spill like the one we're seeing.

EDIT: Just for clarification - my response about the 1 vs 2 car point is based on these two statements from HoreTore

If you look at my first post in this thread, you'll see that my point is that we can all drive greener, even you. For some, that means swapping one car for an electric car. For others it may mean selling all the cars and take the bus instead, etc etc.

Ser Clegane

06-02-2010, 15:23

If you look at my first post in this thread, you'll see that my point is that we can all drive greener, even you. For some, that means swapping one car for an electric car. For others it may mean selling all the cars and take the bus instead, etc etc.

And as one option you suggested to buy a second car to counter the argument that an e-car would not be suitable for long distances - certainly not a very good choice from an environmental/sustainability perspective (as you yourself noted in the second quote I gave and which I now responded to).

I appreciate any attempt to move to more sustainable solutions in e.g, transportation which is why I like to use public transportation wherever possible (with the additional benefit of being able to read something while commuting), I just have the feeling that flippant remarks about access to hydropower and the feasibility to buy a second car to make your average fuel footprint greener help a lot to promote the switch to laternative energy sources.

HoreTore

06-02-2010, 16:30

And as one option you suggested to buy a second car to counter the argument that an e-car would not be suitable for long distances - certainly not a very good choice from an environmental/sustainability perspective (as you yourself noted in the second quote I gave and which I now responded to).

Most people who have bought an electric car have been in a position where they already own two cars, and they swap one of them with an electric one. That's the situation I've tried to describe. But in a country where people scrap their cars before they reach 10 years, having a second car may not be all that bad, if you buy one about to get scrapped....

I appreciate any attempt to move to more sustainable solutions in e.g, transportation which is why I like to use public transportation wherever possible (with the additional benefit of being able to read something while commuting), I just have the feeling that flippant remarks about access to hydropower and the feasibility to buy a second car to make your average fuel footprint greener help a lot to promote the switch to laternative energy sources.

:2thumbsup:

drone

06-02-2010, 19:40

So random, and the mental imagery is tremendous.
http://www.xkcd.com/748/

Please note that the cite linked has a warning for strong language etc. (on occasion at least).

PanzerJaeger

06-08-2010, 03:11

Uh oh...

BP Oil Spill Response Rated Worse than Katrina
(http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Media/poll-bp-oil-spill-rated-worse-katrina-criminal-charges/story?id=10846473)

Idaho

06-08-2010, 10:22

Haven't read the thread, so no doubt many astute orgahs have already pointed this out. But aren't you glad it is happening near the US? That way something will actually get done about it. If something like this happened in Nigeria, for example, it could theoretically* be left to leak for months oir even years.

*Niger Delta Oil Spills (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell)

Husar

06-08-2010, 11:20

Uh oh...

BP Oil Spill Response Rated Worse than Katrina
(http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Media/poll-bp-oil-spill-rated-worse-katrina-criminal-charges/story?id=10846473)
Some guy on the BBC said a leak off the mexican coast was spilling for 11 months before they managed to close it, the BP leak is about half that magnitude in terms of oil leaked so far IIRC. I didn't know you guys hated corporations that much in the US, just imagine how bad the response had been, had the government tried to fix it. :laugh4:

Haven't read the thread, so no doubt many astute orgahs have already pointed this out. But aren't you glad it is happening near the US? That way something will actually get done about it. If something like this happened in Nigeria, for example, it could theoretically* be left to leak for months oir even years.

*Niger Delta Oil Spills (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell)
Oh, I hadn't noticed*

*I've actually posted this at least once in this thread already, but your link could well be more informative so I applaud the effort.

Vladimir

06-08-2010, 15:34

Who does this guy sound like? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2451

PanzerJaeger

06-08-2010, 15:45

Who does this guy sound like? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2451

What a cowboy. Next he'll want BP execs drug in for prosecution, dead or alive.

Vladimir

06-08-2010, 16:10

What a cowboy. Next he'll want BP execs drug in for prosecution, dead or alive.

You're either with us or you're with BP. I support the President on his boot-wearing, ass-kicking crusade. :yes:

PanzerJaeger

06-08-2010, 17:21

As far as I'm concerned, BP can bring it on. We're ready for their virtual corporate insurgency (http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m6d6-BP-buys-Google-Yahoo-search-engine-words-to-keep-people-away-from-real-news-on-Gulf-oil-spill-disas).

In other news, it is looking like it will take more than cowboy rhetoric to keep this thing from turning on Obama, and turning fast.

Spill Reveals Obama's Lack of Executive Experience (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Spill-reveals-Obama_s-lack-of-executive-experience-95819074.html)

In mid-February 2008, fresh from winning a bunch of Super Tuesday primaries, Barack Obama granted an interview to "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Croft. "When you sit down and you look at [your] resume," Croft said to Obama, "there's no executive experience, and in fact, correct if I'm wrong, the only thing that you've actually run was the Harvard Law Review."

"Well, I've run my Senate office, and I've run this campaign," Obama said.

Seven months later, after receiving the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama talked with CNN's Anderson Cooper. At the time, the news was dominated by Hurricane Gustav, which was headed toward New Orleans and threatening to become a Katrina-like disaster. "Some of your Republican critics have said you don't have the experience to handle a situation like this," Cooper said to Obama. "They in fact have said that Governor Palin has more executive experience. ..."

"Governor Palin's town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees," Obama answered. "We have got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So, I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute, I think, has been made clear over the last couple of years."

Obama ignored Palin's experience as governor of Alaska, which was considerably bigger than the Obama campaign. But his point was clear: If you're worried about my lack of my executive experience, look at my campaign. Running a first-rate campaign, Obama and his supporters argued, showed that Obama could run the federal government, even at its most testing moments. He could set goals, demand accountability, and, perhaps most importantly, bend the sprawling federal bureaucracy to his will.

Fast forward to 2010. The oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico is gushing out of control. The Obama administration is at first slow to see the seriousness of the accident. Then, as the crisis becomes clear, the federal bureaucracy becomes entangled in itself trying to deal with the problem. "At least a dozen federal agencies have taken part in the spill response," the New York Times reports, "making decision-making slow, conflicted and confused, as they sought to apply numerous federal statutes."

For example, it took the Department of Homeland Security more than a week to classify the spill as an event calling for the highest level of federal action. And when state officials in Louisiana tried over and over to win federal permission to build sand barriers to protect fragile coastal wetlands from the oil, they got nowhere. "For three weeks, as the giant slick crept closer to shore," the Times reports, "officials from the White House, Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Environmental Protection Agency debated the best approach."

The bureaucracy wasn't bending to anyone's will. The direction from the top was not clear. And accountability? So far, the only head that has rolled during the Gulf crisis has been that of Minerals Management Service chief Elizabeth Birnbaum. But during a May 27 news conference, Obama admitted he didn't even know whether she had resigned or been fired. "I found out about it this morning, so I don't yet know the circumstances," the president said. "And [Interior Secretary] Ken Salazar's been in testimony on the Hill." Obama's answer revealed that he hadn't fired Birnbaum, and he couldn't reach a member of his Cabinet who was a few blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue.

Given all that, perhaps candidates in future presidential races will think twice before arguing that running their campaign counts as executive experience.

A few days before Obama won the White House, Bill Clinton joined him for a late-night rally in Kissimmee, Fla. Clinton, who became president after 12 years as a governor, told the crowd not to worry about Obama's lack of executive background. Given the brilliance of Obama's campaign, Clinton said -- and here the former president uncharacteristically mangled his words a bit -- a President Obama would be "the chief executor of good intentions as president."

Chief executor of good intentions? Perhaps that's what Obama is now. But with oil gushing into the Gulf, that's just not good enough.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-08-2010, 20:39

What a cowboy. Next he'll want BP execs drug in for prosecution, dead or alive.

Congress certainly wants to have a "chat (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2010/06/bp_ceo_tony_hayward_to_testify.html?hpid=topnews)" with them....

Lemur

06-09-2010, 14:13

More bad news (http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/06/rigs-fire-i-told-you-was-gonna-happen) for BP:

[A witness] who Buzbee refuses to name for fear of costing him his job, was on the ship's bridge when Deepwater Horizon installation manager Jimmy Harrell, a top employee of rig owner Transocean, was speaking with someone in Houston via satellite phone. Buzbee told Mother Jones that, according to this witness account, Harrell was screaming, "Are you ******* happy? Are you ******* happy? The rig's on fire! I told you this was gonna happen."

Whoever was on the other end of the line was apparently trying to calm Harrell down. "I am ******* calm," he went on, according to Buzbee. "You realize the rig is burning?"

At that point, the boat's captain asked Harrell to leave the bridge. It wasn't clear whether Harrell had been talking to Transocean, BP, or someone else. [...]

During hearings held late last month by the Coast Guard and the Minerals Management Service, Harrell denied any conflicts with his BP or Transocean bosses. He said that he did not feel pressured to rush the completion of the well, even though the rig had fallen behind schedule.

Yet Buzbee's claims add weight to other statements that contradict Harrell's version of events. Testifying before the Coast Guard and MMS panel last month, Douglas Brown, the chief mechanic on the Deepwater Horizon, said that on the morning of the day that the rig exploded Harrell had a "skirmish" over drilling procedures during a meeting with BP's "company man," well site leader Robert Kaluza. "I remember the company man saying this is how it's going to be," Brown told the panel. As Harrell was leaving the meeting, according to Brown, "He pretty much grumbled, 'I guess that's what we have those pincers for,'" referring to the blowout preventer on the sea floor that is supposed to be the last resort to prevent a leak in the event of an emergency.

Beskar

06-09-2010, 14:49

In some ways, I am glad the British government under Thatcher sold off BP, so we aren't blamed.

In othernews, don't trust private companies as they are greedy profit mongers.

Vladimir

06-09-2010, 14:58

In some ways, I am glad the British government under Thatcher sold off BP, so we aren't blamed.

In othernews, don't trust private companies as they are greedy profit mongers.

Place your trust solely in government. They're the ones who don't care about profit.

Ser Clegane

06-09-2010, 15:20

Place your trust solely in government. They're the ones who don't care about profit.

Yep (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/corporate-criminals-arrested-i/) (I am aware you are not serious but I could not resist)

NB: Enichem is/was part of the Italian oil major ENI which is still 30% state owned

Beskar

06-09-2010, 15:32

Place your trust solely in government. They're the ones who don't care about profit.

Companies with government stakes in them have far greater accountability and have to serve a mandate. This is also further enforced by public will, as those in a democratic society will force the government to take actions.

Compared to private interest who only care about money and nothing else, they attempt to cover-up, cheat, backhanded deallings and don't face any real accountability for their actions.

Which would you trust more? The answer is pretty obvious.

Furunculus

06-09-2010, 15:58

Which would you trust more? The answer is pretty obvious.

which would i trust more to generate a profit that both allows tax revenue and dividends to pension funds?

the private one of course.

Lemur

06-09-2010, 16:23

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-09-2010, 16:53

Crazed Rabbit

06-09-2010, 19:11

Companies with government stakes in them have far greater accountability and have to serve a mandate. This is also further enforced by public will, as those in a democratic society will force the government to take actions.

Compared to private interest who only care about money and nothing else, they attempt to cover-up, cheat, backhanded deallings and don't face any real accountability for their actions.

Which would you trust more? The answer is pretty obvious.

:laugh4::laugh4:

Oh man, that's great.

In the US, the government sponsored enterprises of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, who bought packages of mortgages from banks, got much less accountability than the private banking firms before the crash - because they were affiliated with the government, which meant many in the government favored them.

Even now, after the crash, while regulations have been put on the banking and hedge fund firms, with the Democrats in charge there's been no new regulations on Fanny and Freddie.

Firms affiliated with the government get it much easier in terms of accountability than private firms. In short, the facts support the exact opposite of what you claim.

As for BP, they've been a supporter of government regulation (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Once-a-government-pet-BP-now-a-capitalist-tool-95942659.html):

As BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig was sinking on April 22, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was on the phone with allies in his push for climate legislation, telling them he would soon roll out the Senate climate bill with the support of the utility industry and three oil companies — including BP, according to the Washington Post.

Kerry never got to have his photo op with BP chief executive Tony Hayward and other regulation-friendly corporate chieftains. Within days, Republican co-sponsor Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., repudiated the bill following a spat about immigration, and Democrats went back to the drawing board.

But the Kerry-BP alliance for an energy bill that included a cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gases pokes a hole in a favorite claim of President Obama and his allies in the media — that BP’s lobbyists have fought fiercely to be left alone. Lobbying records show that BP is no free-market crusader, but instead a close friend of big government whenever it serves the company’s bottom line.

While BP has resisted some government interventions, it has lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels.

Now that BP’s oil rig has caused the biggest environmental disaster in American history, the Left is pulling the same bogus trick it did with Enron and AIG: Whenever a company earns universal ire, declare it the poster boy for the free market.
...
There’s a problem: BP was a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a lobby dedicated to passing a cap-and-trade bill. As the nation’s largest producer of natural gas, BP saw many ways to profit from climate legislation, notably by persuading Congress to provide subsidies to coal-fired power plants that switched to gas.

In February, BP quit USCAP without giving much of a reason beyond saying the company could lobby more effectively on its own than in a coalition that is increasingly dominated by power companies. Theymade out particularly well in the House’s climate bill, while natural gas producers suffered.

But two months later, BP signed off on Kerry’s Senate climate bill, which was hardly a capitalist concoction. One provision BP explicitly backed, according to Congressional Quarterly and other media reports: a higher gas tax. The money would be earmarked for building more highways, thus inducing more driving and more gasoline consumption.

Elsewhere in the green arena, BP has lobbied for and profited from subsidies for biofuels and solar energy, two products that cannot break even without government support. Lobbying records show the company backing solar subsidies including federal funding for solar research. The U.S. Export-Import Bank, a federal agency, is currently financing a BP solar energy project in Argentina.

CR

Lemur

06-09-2010, 22:06

Well, not to distract from the statist/Randoid dichotomy that's providing so much comedy material back here, but can we all agree on a simple proposal?

Don't open any holes you can't close (http://www.slate.com/id/2255929/pagenum/2)

Of all the lessons we can learn from the BP fiasco, the simplest, and the first we should apply to offshore-drilling laws, is this: Don't open any holes you can't close. If the well site is too deep for humans to reach, drill a simultaneous relief well so you can plug a blowout promptly. If a relief well is too expensive, don't drill at all. Or you can keep robots on hand to shut down leaks. But they'll have to be better robots than the ones we're now watching.

Today's laws don't come anywhere near this standard.

Xiahou

06-10-2010, 01:45

Of all the lessons we can learn from the BP fiasco, the simplest, and the first we should apply to offshore-drilling laws, is this: Don't open any holes you can't close.You'd think that would be common sense. :shrug:
I think most anyone would support a government policy that requires firms to submit plans on how they would cap the well in case of a blowout before they are issued a drilling permit. Unfortunately, Congress will never produce anything so simple and straightforward. Instead, we'll probably get a new maze of unnavigable regulations that create a near defacto ban on offshore drilling- thus increasing our dependence on imported oil.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-10-2010, 04:05

Crazed Rabbit

06-10-2010, 06:09

So how far should BP's liability extend? Having them pay for environmental cleanup and compensation to fishermen and the like, etc., seems reasonable.

But now the government (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6582NC20100609) wants them to pay the salaries of workers laid off on other oil rigs because the government declared a halt to oil rig exploratory drilling.

So, should BP have to pay workers hurting because of government decisions? I think that goes to far, and such a pronouncement is the government trying to have its cake and eat it to, in terms of stopping drilling but not hurting workers.

Really, they should just halt BP rigs - it's BP's fault, again, but the whole industry pays the price.

CR

Furunculus

06-10-2010, 08:03

Lemur

06-10-2010, 12:10

don't include me in your self-drawn conclusions, because they aren't relevant.

i never argued in favour of a laissez-faire free-market, ergo i am not advocating a regulation free business environment.
Sorry, Furunculus, I'm having difficulty relating what you say here to what I wrote earlier. Could you re-phrase and help a lemur understand?

Furunculus

06-10-2010, 12:22

Honestly, I think blanket faith in public or private institutions is a form of derangement. All have the same weakness: people. Best to set up overlapping fields of supervision, as America's founders did with the tripartite government. You need watchmen to watch the watchmen, and some watchmen to watch them. Yay for the circular firing squad.

Unsupervised private industry leads to horrible abuses. Overweening government leads to horrible abuses. All things in moderation, eh?

came right after my comment and was pertinent to it, which would not normally necessitate a response, but given that your next post consisted of:

Well, not to distract from the statist/Randoid dichotomy that's providing so much comedy material back here, but can we all agree on a simple proposal?

i thought i'd clarify the matter...........

Lemur

06-10-2010, 12:48

came right after my comment and was pertinent to it, which would not normally necessitate a response, but given that your next post consisted of:
Ah, unfortunate timing on my part. I did not intend to specifically comment on your posts, or ascribe a position to you. Rather, I was reacting more to the Beskar-v-world dialogue that was developing, and trying to be lighthearted about it. No offense meant.

Vladimir

06-10-2010, 12:58

Shows you how perceptions can differ. I was upset at "simple proposal" but thought it could be lighthearted as well.

Furunculus

06-10-2010, 13:03

Ah, unfortunate timing on my part. I did not intend to specifically comment on your posts, or ascribe a position to you. Rather, I was reacting more to the Beskar-v-world dialogue that was developing, and trying to be lighthearted about it. No offense meant.

np.

Lemur

06-10-2010, 13:39

Big, long article over at Rolling Stone about this (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965). Summary: "The inside story of how Obama failed to crack down on the corruption of the Bush years – and let the world's most dangerous oil company get away with murder." Haven't had a chance to read it yet, but figured I'd supply the link anyway.

Sigurd

06-10-2010, 15:04

I have not participated in this thread as we just had our own "situation" in the North Sea.

Gullfaks C is the rig and one of her wells got unstable and spewed out Mud (well counterweight liquid). The BOPs (blow out preventers - yes we have several for each well) took care of the situation and temporarily "plugged" the well. It is now under control and has two cemented plugs, one deep in the well and one a bit higher. Last Sunday the string (pipe string) was cut and the second cement plug was installed Monday.
The cement will need harden sufficiently (full hardening process takes 28 days) before making a final analysis and declare the well safe.

I am involved with the maintenance of the equipment (owned by Statoil) used by drilling contractors on 6 oil platforms in the North Sea.

The big oil companies usually don't have their own drilling crews. They are contracted and the contractors have names like KCADeutag, SeaWell, Odfjell drilling etc... Most of them are local to the area we operate in.

The PTIL (governmental petroleum supervision agency) discovered discrepancies regarding maintenance routines on drilling equipment owned by Statoil but operated by drilling contractors and charged Statoil with the responsibility to fix it.
I am in the middle of a two year long project taking drilling into the Statoil system. I could tell a few horror stories but will refrain from doing so.

It is imperative that drilling equipment is sufficiently maintained. A BOP whether it is a 200 ton monster or smaller versions of it, needs a 5 year certification. It is dismantled from the rig and sent ashore every 5 years. It is probably the most expensive piece of equipment onboard an oilrig and the recertification cost a buck load.
It is very tempting to let the BOP run on overtime considering the expenses of stopping the drilling, get the thing off the rig, sent into shore and replaced with a spare BOP.
We have however in place a system where PTIL watchdogs can close the entire platform down if it operates with any equipment that has certification requirements and the recertification is overdue. But even so, I have discovered equipment that somehow has slipped through controls. Finding no previous recorded maintenance on critical equipment is rather disturbing.

I haven’t checked the APOS for our operations in the gulf, but I suspect there are governmental systems in place to oversee the oil operations in the US EEZ and make sure they operate according to procedures.

drone

06-10-2010, 15:30

I haven’t checked the APOS for our operations in the gulf, but I suspect there are governmental systems in place to oversee the oil operations in the US EEZ and make sure they operate according to procedures.
US government systems (MMS)? :laugh4:

Seamus Fermanagh

06-10-2010, 16:25

Tellos Athenaios

06-10-2010, 19:09

Kadagar_AV

06-10-2010, 19:16

As to the floated idea of backup/relief wells being mandatory for each (new) site: wouldn't that kind of be counter-productive? I imagine that the only reason the wells work (at first) is because of pressure from the oil/gas, so drilling relief wells would cut such pressure by more than half.

You don't drill the last bit, IIRC :)

You just have it on stand-by in case of, so it doesn't take months to drill, but rather days.

Tellos Athenaios

06-10-2010, 19:17

Ah must've missed the crucial bit. The light is firmly switched on now. :idea2:

Sigurd

06-10-2010, 23:08

Sigurd:

Sea Depth of wellheads? Any other insights into BP's efforts in the Gulf? I'm well aware you bring a different knowledge base to this -- and a much better one -- than I can get in an "in-depth" piece on MSNBC.

The Sea depth of our well heads are not that great. We have done exploring wells into deep sea, but I can't think of any well heads in production below 700 feet. There is yet much oil and gas in the fairly shallow North Sea for us to seek deeper and more difficult locations.

Gullfaks C is a concrete pillars platform and sits on the sea bottom at 711 feet (the structure is 1250 feet tall from bottom to the top of the drilling tower) below sea surface.

Regarding the situation with BP in the Gulf...
Statoil has muzzled its experts and has taken a "don't want to participate in the debate" stand on this issue. Statoil has two deep sea wells in the gulf and are currently drilling one well 6666 feet below sea level (Tucker).

Drilling on such depths requires floaters. And floaters drill wells which has little gas. The reason for this is the fact that gas leakage into the sea removes the ability of the water to carry the floater (A gas blowout under water surface will swallow the floater).
The deep water reservoirs in the Mexico Gulf is supposed to have very scant amounts of gas. The Deepwater Horizon well was throwing out surprisingly high amounts of gas in the leakage.

I am working with IT systems and not with actual drilling. I can't give an expert commentary on the situation in the Gulf and people are not discussing it openly at the local water holes.
There are a few complaints about the licences international companies get in the Gulf. They seem to be all in challenging areas and requires a relatively high technological capability to operate.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-11-2010, 01:23

Sigurd:

My thanks. That does help to explain things for me.

al Roumi

06-11-2010, 15:13

Wot, no Brit bashing here? How surprising, especially on a day when this happens:

Cameron steps into fray to defend BP

BP shares rallied on Friday after David Cameron, the British prime minister, leapt to the defence of the embattled oil group, emphasising the “economic value” it brings to the UK and US, in a clear signal of British concerns over the rhetoric about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/21a94114-74d0-11df-aed7-00144feabdc0.html

Louis VI the Fat

06-11-2010, 18:35

Beskar

06-11-2010, 18:39

Well, Obama said he wanted to stop the contractual agreement involving BP, as in, British Pensioners, by stopping Beyond-Petroleums dividends.

He also called it British Petroleum, when 2/3rd's of its staff are American, even the board of the directors, trying to sweep up an anti-British mood to look though and gain support for the November elections and other such popularist American rabble nonsense.

Vladimir

06-11-2010, 18:52

He also called it British Petroleum, when 2/3rd's of its staff are American, even the board of the directors, trying to sweep up an anti-British mood to look though and gain support for the November elections and other such popularist American rabble nonsense.

Now you're getting it.

drone

06-11-2010, 19:05

I, for one, applaud Britain for showing the uppity natives what exploitation and Empire are all about.

Colonists, not natives. You are going to send Megas into a fit. ~;)

Crazed Rabbit

06-11-2010, 19:18

Beskar

06-11-2010, 20:21

Oh, not like Obama's rhetoric so much any more now that you're on the receiving end? :evil:

CR

You mean, using the same rhetoric Bush used?

Plus, your point is invalid as it assumes I loved his rhetoric when I haven't, I only said it is a positive improvement over Bush in the past.

seireikhaan

06-11-2010, 20:29

How is it "rhetoric" to refer to BP as British Petroleum?

al Roumi

06-11-2010, 20:29

Oh, not like Obama's rhetoric so much any more now that you're on the receiving end? :evil:

CR

Populism, of any kind, suxxorz.

IMHO

Crazed Rabbit

06-11-2010, 20:40

How is it "rhetoric" to refer to BP as British Petroleum?

They changed their name, officially, to just 'BP' a while back.

You mean, using the same rhetoric Bush used?

Well that's got nothing to do with anything.

Plus, your point is invalid as it assumes I loved his rhetoric when I haven't, I only said it is a positive improvement over Bush in the past.

No, I said 'liked', not loved. And it was not intended as serious debate.

Populism, of any kind, suxxorz.

Generally yes.

CR

Tellos Athenaios

06-11-2010, 21:32

Colonists, not natives. You are going to send Megas into a fit. ~;)

Whatever, it's not like the exploitation cares very much who is being exploited as long as it got some good ROI?

Beskar

06-11-2010, 21:52

Well that's got nothing to do with anything.

Much like your snippy backhanded 'contribution' which was inaccurate in the first place?

No, I said 'liked', not loved. And it was not intended as serious debate.

I could call you out on this, but I will just say you ill-advisely stated it, simply because I have a preference for Democrat over Republican in the two-party state or think he is currently doing a better job than Bush jr did.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-11-2010, 23:00

I could call you out on this, but I will just say you ill-advisely stated it, simply because I have a preference for Democrat over Republican in the two-party state or think he is currently doing a better job than Bush jr did.

Actually, to be fair to you Beskar, you've always struck me as one of those Euros who prefer Obama to Bush and the American Right, while at the same time classifying Obama as a Moderate or Moderate-Conservative by your own standards/goals.

Now, on to the other hat:

CR, Beskar:

If you two simply must continue to snipe at one another, take it to PM please.

Beskar

06-11-2010, 23:27

Actually, to be fair to you Beskar, you've always struck me as one of those Euros who prefer Obama to Bush and the American Right, while at the same time classifying Obama as a Moderate or Moderate-Conservative by your own standards/goals.

I can't argue with that, it seems pretty accurate to a tee.

I think I once spoke to Lemur about it, and we joked that Maggie Thatcher was classed as a Socialist by American standards.

If you two simply must continue to snipe at one another, take it to PM please.

:bow:

That reminds me actually, I am not sure if there is a way for the American viewers to see it, but Obama's remarks were brought up on Question Time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ss43w/b00ss43c/Question_Time_10_06_2010/

What is also interesting, Ideological wise, I would describe Katie Hopkins as having similar views to Crazed Rabbit (Very Pro-Privatisation and Free-Market). Unfortunately, if I had to classify myself some one there, the closest would be Salma Yaqoob based on the talk itself.

PanzerJaeger

06-12-2010, 01:13

Yikes. When even die-hard bastions of liberalism like Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=0) are after you, you know you've got a serious PR problem if you're working for the Obama administration.

Like the attacks by Al Qaeda, the disaster in the Gulf was preceded by ample warnings – yet the administration had ignored them. Instead of cracking down on MMS, as he had vowed to do even before taking office, Obama left in place many of the top officials who oversaw the agency's culture of corruption. He permitted it to rubber-stamp dangerous drilling operations by BP – a firm with the worst safety record of any oil company – with virtually no environmental safeguards, using industry-friendly regulations drafted during the Bush years. He calibrated his response to the Gulf spill based on flawed and misleading estimates from BP – and then deployed his top aides to lowball the flow rate at a laughable 5,000 barrels a day, long after the best science made clear this catastrophe would eclipse the Exxon Valdez.

Even after the president's press conference, Rolling Stone has learned, the administration knew the spill could be far worse than its "best estimate" acknowledged. That same day, the president's Flow Rate Technical Group – a team of scientists charged with establishing the gusher's output – announced a new estimate of 12,000 to 25,000 barrels, based on calculations from video of the plume. In fact, according to interviews with team members and scientists familiar with its work, that figure represents the plume group's minimum estimate. The upper range was not included in their report because scientists analyzing the flow were unable to reach a consensus on how bad it could be. "The upper bound from the plume group, if it had come out, is very high," says Timothy Crone, a marine geophysicist at Columbia University who has consulted with the government's team. "That's why they had resistance internally. We're talking 100,000 barrels a day."

The median figure for Crone's independent calculations is 55,000 barrels a day – the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez every five days. "That's what the plume team's numbers show too," Crone says. A source privy to internal discussions at one of the world's top oil companies confirms that the industry privately agrees with such estimates. "The industry definitely believes the higher-end values," the source says. "That's accurate – if not more than that." The reason, he adds, is that BP appears to have unleashed one of the 10 most productive wells in the Gulf. "BP screwed up a really big, big find," the source says. "And if they can't cap this, it's not going to blow itself out anytime soon."

Even worse, the "moratorium" on drilling announced by the president does little to prevent future disasters. The ban halts exploratory drilling at only 33 deepwater operations, shutting down less than one percent of the total wells in the Gulf. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the Cabinet-level official appointed by Obama to rein in the oil industry, boasts that "the moratorium is not a moratorium that will affect production" – which continues at 5,106 wells in the Gulf, including 591 in deep water.

Most troubling of all, the government has allowed BP to continue deep-sea production at its Atlantis rig – one of the world's largest oil platforms. Capable of drawing 200,000 barrels a day from the seafloor, Atlantis is located only 150 miles off the coast of Louisiana, in waters nearly 2,000 feet deeper than BP drilled at Deepwater Horizon. According to congressional documents, the platform lacks required engineering certification for as much as 90 percent of its subsea components – a flaw that internal BP documents reveal could lead to "catastrophic" errors. In a May 19th letter to Salazar, 26 congressmen called for the rig to be shut down immediately. "We are very concerned," they wrote, "that the tragedy at Deepwater Horizon could foreshadow an accident at BP Atlantis."

The administration's response to the looming threat? According to an e-mail to a congressional aide from a staff member at MMS, the agency has had "zero contact" with Atlantis about its safety risks since the Deepwater rig went down.

It only gets worse from there... :shame:

What is truly fascinating to me is that unlike Bush with Katrina, where the media immediately seized on a narrative of incompetence regardless of the facts, Obama went into this disaster with quite a bit of support from both the Left and the Right. Through sheer incompetence, both in actually managing the disaster and in PR, he squandered that initial good will and is suffering the worst poll numbers of his presidency. As much as I dislike the man's policies, I was prepared to give him a pass on this, but he has actually been a highly ineffectual leader. Very disconcerting, although not surprising I suppose.

Kadagar_AV

06-12-2010, 02:00

How is it "rhetoric" to refer to BP as British Petroleum?

Very easy to answer.

BP is known as BP. And yes indeed, they used to be named British Petroleum, but no more. BP is nowadays very "multinational", and I do believe it is more US controlled (don't have exact figures at hand, so might be wrong, anyone?).

However, by using the phrase British Petroleum instead of BP he tried to shift the burden of guilt over to jolly good old England. A jab in the nuts for the commonwealth.

Basically, cheap rhetorics to blame-shift - "Don't look at me, they did it!"

The sad thing is that many (if not most?) Americans will fall into such cheap traps, and disregard questions such as how could WE have let this happen in the first place. Please do bear in mind exactly where this happened and under what legislation, to try to blame-shift Britain seems feeble, to say the least.

Lemur

06-12-2010, 02:54

Yikes. When even die-hard bastions of liberalism like Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=0) are after you, you know you've got a serious PR problem [...]
Skimming the thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?128339-The-Dead-Zone-(or-BP-and-the-Oil-Well-That-Keeps-on-Giving)&p=2504339&viewfull=1#post2504339), are we?

Secondly, I realize that playing the ref is a thirty-year tradition in the rightwing playbook, but don't you ever get tired of declaring every news source that isn't WorldNetDaily or National Review to be a Tool of Teh Evil Libruls? I know you're young, but you have heard of P.J. O'Rourke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._J._O%27Rourke), yes? I'll let you take guesses as to who published him for the majority of his career. Yes, the "die-hard bastion of liberalism." Not that this will cause you cognitive dissonance, but still, it bears mentioning.

PanzerJaeger

06-12-2010, 03:22

Skimming the thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?128339-The-Dead-Zone-(or-BP-and-the-Oil-Well-That-Keeps-on-Giving)&p=2504339&viewfull=1#post2504339), are we?

Very much so. I've drifted in and out between the hybrid discussion and the spat over whether the B in BP is "beyond" or "British". My apologies, of course.

Secondly, I realize that playing the ref is a thirty-year tradition in the rightwing playbook, but don't you ever get tired of declaring every news source that isn't WorldNetDaily or National Review to be a Tool of Ten Evil Libruls?

You must be confusing me with someone else.

I know you're young, but you have heard of P.J. O'Rourke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._J._O%27Rourke), yes? I'll let you take guesses as to who published him for the majority of his career. Yes, the "die-hard bastion of liberalism." Not that this will cause you cognitive dissonance, but still, it bears mentioning.

O'Rourke? Really? He's your example of balance at RS? In any event, you are aware that he left RS a decade ago, correct?

As for my claim of a liberal slant at RS, and especially an affinity towards Obama, I'll let you be the judge...

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/rolling_stone_obama.jpg

seireikhaan

06-12-2010, 03:34

Very easy to answer.

BP is known as BP. And yes indeed, they used to be named British Petroleum, but no more. BP is nowadays very "multinational", and I do believe it is more US controlled (don't have exact figures at hand, so might be wrong, anyone?).

However, by using the phrase British Petroleum instead of BP he tried to shift the burden of guilt over to jolly good old England. A jab in the nuts for the commonwealth.

Basically, cheap rhetorics to blame-shift - "Don't look at me, they did it!"

The sad thing is that many (if not most?) Americans will fall into such cheap traps, and disregard questions such as how could WE have let this happen in the first place. Please do bear in mind exactly where this happened and under what legislation, to try to blame-shift Britain seems feeble, to say the least.
What's a TV? Its a television. What's a PC? Its a personal computer. What's a BP? Why, sir, its British Petroleum. Everyone knows this, its not a secret. Regardless of what they are "officially" called, BP still stands for British Petroleum. They are one and the same, and anyone trying to look into more into the phrasing is doing so with an agenda at heart. Tell me, have you seen anyone blame the commonwealth for the spill? Any? And yes, I believe this is at the fault of BP. Their property, not the US Gov't. Blaming legislation for the what was a failure by the company is a cheap cop-out.

Kadagar_AV

06-12-2010, 04:13

What's a TV? Its a television. What's a PC? Its a personal computer. What's a BP? Why, sir, its British Petroleum. Everyone knows this, its not a secret. Regardless of what they are "officially" called, BP still stands for British Petroleum. They are one and the same, and anyone trying to look into more into the phrasing is doing so with an agenda at heart. Tell me, have you seen anyone blame the commonwealth for the spill? Any? And yes, I believe this is at the fault of BP. Their property, not the US Gov't. Blaming legislation for the what was a failure by the company is a cheap cop-out.

Where to start on this one...

A TV is a television, I give you that one. Well done you! I applaud your effort.

However, BP is not a short form of British Petroleum, although it was up until the year 2000.

BP became very much international, currently only 40% (http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9010453&contentId=7019612) of shareholders are British.

As they changed the name from British Petroleum to BP they also coined a new corporate slogan, "Beyond Petroleum". Short form of that would be BP.

So, so much for your endearing claim.

As to the second part of your post, the one in bold - one might argue that legislation exist to put a leash on company's such as BP, you know, to keep them from (as a strictly theoretical example, of course) cause huge amounts of damage.

Thank you for your time though, it is refreshing to hear from someone else than my intellectual friends.

Centurion1

06-12-2010, 05:17

You really are a mean person aren't you kadagar. And a very self sure one as well. If you thought about what you said you would probably realize that 40 percent of a companies shares is often a controlling margin disbarringeveryone else who owns stock being against you.

Furthermore bp is in fact an international company with operations in far more than just the usa.

Finally my "most brained" (as you would so eloquently say) friend there who says bp didn't work around the legislation. We already know they weren't really prepared for something like this despite what they say.

The new question is, "should the us ban off shore drilling"

Hell no possibly the most kneejerk reaction I have ever seen absolute rubbish "solution"

seireikhaan

06-12-2010, 05:17

Where to start on this one...

A TV is a television, I give you that one. Well done you! I applaud your effort.

However, BP is not a short form of British Petroleum, although it was up until the year 2000.

BP became very much international, currently only 40% (http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9010453&contentId=7019612) of shareholders are British.

As they changed the name from British Petroleum to BP they also coined a new corporate slogan, "Beyond Petroleum". Short form of that would be BP.

So, so much for your endearing claim.
Google search: British Petroleum. First hit? www.bp.com (http://www.bp.com)
Yahoo search? www.bp.com/gulfofmexicoresponse (http://www.bp.com/gulfofmexicoresponse)
Bing? www.bp.com (http://www.bp.com)

British Petroleum = BP. :book: Also, you seem to have this odd fixation with the national makeup of the company. How exactly is that relevant to the oil spill? Do you actually think people would be less upset if it was an American based company who screwed up? Or have you been sleeping through the financial crisis? Forget about Enron? Or, for a more pertinent example, Exxon?

As to the second part of your post, the one in bold - one might argue that legislation exist to put a leash on company's such as BP, you know, to keep them from (as a strictly theoretical example, of course) cause huge amounts of damage.So, legislation should be there to prevent a company from doing damage? So you're next leap in logic is that it is not the company's fault for doing damage?

Thank you for your time though, it is refreshing to hear from someone else than my intellectual friends.Clearly.

Incongruous

06-12-2010, 05:24

Google search: British Petroleum. First hit? www.bp.com (http://www.bp.com)
Yahoo search? www.bp.com/gulfofmexicoresponse (http://www.bp.com/gulfofmexicoresponse)
Bing? www.bp.com (http://www.bp.com)

British Petroleum = BP. :book: Also, you seem to have this odd fixation with the national makeup of the company. How exactly is that relevant to the oil spill? Do you actually think people would be less upset if it was an American based company who screwed up? Or have you been sleeping through the financial crisis? Forget about Enron? Or, for a more pertinent example, Exxon?

I believe that in Britain, it seems to have become something of a national concern, the idea that Obama and co. are happily Brit bashing is starting to take hold especially after the percieved insult he did us when returing the bust of Churchill to the British embassy. I suppose if anything it may now be simply a matter of diplomacy and statesmanship if Obama were to cease calling BP British Petroleum and stop making statements like the one in which he said he wanted to "kick ass", it comes across as infantile.
It may also be advisable if the American media stopped pandering to hysteria and perhaps shut up a bit, especially after what happened at Bhopal, looks highly ridiculous.

seireikhaan

06-12-2010, 05:41

I believe that in Britain, it seems to have become something of a national concern, the idea that Obama and co. are happily Brit bashing is starting to take hold especially after the percieved insult he did us when returing the bust of Churchill to the British embassy. I suppose if anything it may now be simply a matter of diplomacy and statesmanship if Obama were to cease calling BP British Petroleum and stop making statements like the one in which he said he wanted to "kick ass", it comes across as infantile.
It may also be advisable if the American media stopped pandering to hysteria and perhaps shut up a bit, especially after what happened at Bhopal, looks highly ridiculous.
And I would say that Britain has little to fear- I see little possibility that the two countries will cease their "special" relationship. I haven't been keeping super close tabs exactly on the number of times he's specifically said "British petroleum", but I seem to recall most of the references in fact being BP. Its fuss over nothing.

As for the media and Bhopal... well, telling the media to quiet down, regardless of how silly they might look is a fruitless endeavor. One only needs to oggle at Glenn Beck's ratings to see that the silly and preposterous is extremely profitable... somehow. Obviously this doesn't compare at all to Bhopal, but it is a disaster in its own right. That it doesn't compare to one of the worst disasters ever(if not worst) does not mean its utterly unimportant either. Plus, with 24 hour news, agencies are dying for time to fill. Its either the oil spill, or the 79th annual Clarke county frisbee competition. Blame Ted Turner, if you wish.

Kadagar_AV

06-12-2010, 05:46

Google search: British Petroleum. First hit? www.bp.com (http://www.bp.com)
Yahoo search? www.bp.com/gulfofmexicoresponse (http://www.bp.com/gulfofmexicoresponse)
Bing? www.bp.com (http://www.bp.com)

Thanks for linking to first hits on the internet. Now, if we could discuss Obama's rhetorical use of British Petroleum... ... ... Re-read what I said in my previous posts, and then decide if you really think "I am lucky" on Google is enough of a source to prove me wrong.

British Petroleum = BP. :book: Also, you seem to have this odd fixation with the national makeup of the company. How exactly is that relevant to the oil spill? Do you actually think people would be less upset if it was an American based company who screwed up? Or have you been sleeping through the financial crisis? Forget about Enron? Or, for a more pertinent example, Exxon?

Uh... My point was that Obama tried to blame-shift. He was the one who brought up nationality, and wrongly so I might add. I just questioned it.

So, legislation should be there to prevent a company from doing damage? So you're next leap in logic is that it is not the company's fault for doing damage?

You are right and wrong. Yes, legislations are meant to keep company's from doing damage. But nuh uh, I do believe the company should pay for causing damage. Just like the state who allowed it to happen. Just like companies should have their backs against the wall for the damage they made, the state should have their back against the wall as to how they let the company's do it, get my point?

my answer in bold.

Centurion1

06-12-2010, 05:55

What I don't deserve a response ;) I accept that as an admission of defeat :clown:

seireikhaan

06-12-2010, 05:57

Prove you wrong? What's to prove wrong?

Obama referred to BP as British Petroleum, which they are commonly known by. You are the one assigning connotation. Now, since you seem to love proof, can you prove to me that the connotation was that the British are all at fault?

Could the government have done more? Sure, that's possible. By requiring the proper valve-thingy or whatever that safety hatch device was that BP didn't install, damage could have been lessened. However, blame first and foremost lies with the company.

Kadagar_AV

06-12-2010, 06:12

What I don't deserve a response ;) I accept that as an admission of defeat :clown:

Yes you obviously won. Well done you!

Prove you wrong? What's to prove wrong?

Obama referred to BP as British Petroleum, which they are commonly known by. You are the one assigning connotation. Now, since you seem to love proof, can you prove to me that the connotation was that the British are all at fault?

Could the government have done more? Sure, that's possible. By requiring the proper valve-thingy or whatever that safety hatch device was that BP didn't install, damage could have been lessened. However, blame first and foremost lies with the company.

Well, either my connotations were wrong, or you have a president who go by 10 year old facts. Either or would be quite scary, no?

And no, the point you should take from previous thread was not that the connotation was that the British were all at fault, rather an attempt to shift the burden from legislation to... ... (wont repeat myself, re-read my post).

seireikhaan

06-12-2010, 06:26

Well, either my connotations were wrong, or you have a president who go by 10 year old facts. Either or would be quite scary, no?

And no, the point you should take from previous thread was not that the connotation was that the British were all at fault, rather an attempt to shift the burden from legislation to... ... (wont repeat myself, re-read my post).
Really?

Very easy to answer.

BP is known as BP. And yes indeed, they used to be named British Petroleum, but no more. BP is nowadays very "multinational", and I do believe it is more US controlled (don't have exact figures at hand, so might be wrong, anyone?).

However, by using the phrase British Petroleum instead of BP he tried to shift the burden of guilt over to jolly good old England. A jab in the nuts for the commonwealth.

Basically, cheap rhetorics to blame-shift - "Don't look at me, they did it!"

The sad thing is that many (if not most?) Americans will fall into such cheap traps, and disregard questions such as how could WE have let this happen in the first place. Please do bear in mind exactly where this happened and under what legislation, to try to blame-shift Britain seems feeble, to say the least.
Looks like the point was that he was shifting the blame to Britain to me. Oh, and a cheap snipe at Americans. :book: Anyways, yeah, legislation probably could have done something. But, like I said, and the point you refuse to admit to, is that BP is ultimately the ones who bear the most responsibility. Their handicraft was ultimately what failed to prevent the spill, not the laws.

Oh, and 10 year old facts? More like 10 year old name. People refer to old names all the time. Hell, my dad still calls the White Sox ballpark Comiskey, even though that concept died under corporate sponsorship long ago. So, hardly concerning.

PanzerJaeger

06-12-2010, 06:30

Well, either my connotations were wrong, or you have a president who go by 10 year old facts. Either or would be quite scary, no?

Not really. Amazingly, most Americans don't keep up with annual corporate rebranding efforts. Obama was reflecting how most Americans view BP, based on nearly 50 years of the old name.

Incongruous

06-12-2010, 06:34

And I would say that Britain has little to fear- I see little possibility that the two countries will cease their "special" relationship. I haven't been keeping super close tabs exactly on the number of times he's specifically said "British petroleum", but I seem to recall most of the references in fact being BP. Its fuss over nothing.

As for the media and Bhopal... well, telling the media to quiet down, regardless of how silly they might look is a fruitless endeavor. One only needs to oggle at Glenn Beck's ratings to see that the silly and preposterous is extremely profitable... somehow. Obviously this doesn't compare at all to Bhopal, but it is a disaster in its own right. That it doesn't compare to one of the worst disasters ever(if not worst) does not mean its utterly unimportant either. Plus, with 24 hour news, agencies are dying for time to fill. Its either the oil spill, or the 79th annual Clarke county frisbee competition. Blame Ted Turner, if you wish.

Actually, many in Britain do have alot to fear, and many also wish for us to finally start talking to the U.S as equals, something which has not be seen to be done since Suez, I must admit that this issue of the endandgerment of the special relationship comes more from Britain than the U.S, I think many do actually wish for our PM to do what Hugh Grant did in Love Actually.
Obama's rhetoric. although helping to stem a tide of, unfair, anger directed at him, is nonethless endagering the willingness of his nation's closest ally to remain just that.

seireikhaan

06-12-2010, 07:17

Actually, many in Britain do have alot to fear, and many also wish for us to finally start talking to the U.S as equals, something which has not be seen to be done since Suez, I must admit that this issue of the endandgerment of the special relationship comes more from Britain than the U.S, I think many do actually wish for our PM to do what Hugh Grant did in Love Actually.
Obama's rhetoric. although helping to stem a tide of, unfair, anger directed at him, is nonethless endagering the willingness of his nation's closest ally to remain just that.
I think, ultimately(although certainly I have no proof either way), that Obama's reference is explained by PJ. Americans don't keep up on re-branding efforts for the most part, especially when they're so vague- BP becoming... BP. Yes, a different BP, but there's really not much of a connection to "Beyond Petroleum". I really don't have much more to offer than that and to say that its not something to be looked into too much. Now, what does bear watching are the possible stock and dividend consequences. From what I've heard, a fair number of UK citizens have a vested interest in the company. My guess is that's the more immediate source of concern. Last I heard, BP stock is not taking this well. (http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/investing/bp-puzzled-by-big-drop-in-stock-price/19510758/) Not that I'm accusing people of the UK of being greedy- but if you've invested money, you certainly wouldn't want to see it disappear because of what could possibly be perceived as the interference of a foreign gov't.

Beskar

06-12-2010, 08:58

Not really. Amazingly, most Americans don't keep up with annual corporate rebranding efforts. Obama was reflecting how most Americans view BP, based on nearly 50 years of the old name.

Reminds me of the innocent Germans getting blamed for something before they were even born.

Husar

06-12-2010, 10:29

What is truly fascinating to me is that unlike Bush with Katrina, where the media immediately seized on a narrative of incompetence regardless of the facts, Obama went into this disaster with quite a bit of support from both the Left and the Right. Through sheer incompetence, both in actually managing the disaster and in PR, he squandered that initial good will and is suffering the worst poll numbers of his presidency. As much as I dislike the man's policies, I was prepared to give him a pass on this, but he has actually been a highly ineffectual leader. Very disconcerting, although not surprising I suppose.

So you think he should have made the entire national guard dive down to the leak right away? I think there is a difference between sending aid to a city and fixing a leak 1500 hands (feet?) below sea level when not even the experts have any idea or equipment to do it. What exactly can he do? Dive down himself and tell the oil that by presidential edict it has to stop coming out of the pipe? Sending helicopters to evacuate people sounds a lot easier to me. I don't even get what they criticise now about his "crisis management"? What can he manage? Should he have the BP executives and their scientists tortured until they come up with a way to stop the leak?
Seriously, what can he really do to stop the leak? Or should he have the navy collect all the oil? Does the Navy even have any means to handle oil leaks other than firing tons of explosives into it?
I mean just tell me WHAT he should do? With Katrina that was pretty clear and simple but here I seriously have no idea? :inquisitive:

And concerning the name, I also thought it was British Petroleum, and I work for Aral, which is their brand in Germany. :laugh4:

tibilicus

06-12-2010, 12:52

So the American leadership resorts the the usual tactic, blame someone other than yourself. The situation would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. Successive US administrations have invited oil companies to come and drill up their shore line, all for the lust of that black substance which keeps America moving. Quite frankly, it was only a matter of time till something like this happened. Let me guess, if it was Dutch Shell at the other end and not BP, would the Dutch leader be receiving a phone call? Or is it just those damn colonials which did it to undermine American interests?

But alas, Obama puts on his mean face and lashes out at "those British". If one good thing will come from the spill, hopefully its a complete collapse of the "special relationship", better known as the "you jump, we say how high relationship". Quite frankly this relationship has been pretty rotten since Suez and the only time its ever been working properly is the Maggie and Ronnie show. You might say Blair and Bush worked well if they weren't both idiots and weren't disliked by the majority of their respective electorate.

So maybe the spill might cause a rift which means we don't have to talk for a few months, you know, till your begging us for more troops in Afghanistan. Of course, will do as your say and everything will be restored in this world. All this depends on Mr Cameron having the balls to stand up to Obama, which of course, he wont. I feel I speak on the part of perhaps a majority of Britain's when I say the attempts to incriminate us are ridiculous and hopefully this will cause the rift in the relationship many desire. I personally don't want anything to do with the special relationship. I deplore it, I think we get shafted by it and quite frankly it completely undermines what little dignity we have left as a country. Funnily enough, "those Europeans" are a lot more sound than the Yanks these days. Hopefully we'll wake up and see that soon.

Lemur

06-12-2010, 12:59

So maybe the spill might cause a rift which means we don't have to talk for a few months, you know, till your begging us for more troops in Afghanistan. Of course, will do as your say and everything will be restored in this world. All this depends on Mr Cameron having the balls to stand up to Obama, which of course, he wont. I feel I speak on the part of perhaps a majority of Britain's when I say the attempts to incriminate us are ridiculous and hopefully this will cause the rift in the relationship many desire. I personally don't want anything to do with the special relationship. I deplore it, I think we get shafted by it and quite frankly it completely undermines what little dignity we have left as a country. Funnily enough, "those Europeans" are a lot more sound than the Yanks these days. Hopefully we'll wake up and see that soon.
I'm sorry, is this all in reaction to the President saying "British Petroleum," or is there more to it?

tibilicus

06-12-2010, 13:14

I'm sorry, is this all in reaction to the President saying "British Petroleum," or is there more to it?

Another notch to add to the belt of years of being degraded as a country in the name of the "Atlantic Alliance". Tell me, how would you feel to the relationship if you were on the other side of the ocean? In all fairness to Obama however he isn't worse than the last guy. It was a complete outrage that as millions marched in London in protest to a war that easily the majority of British people didn't want, our respective leaders were snuggling up on the sofa, claiming it was in both our countries interests.

As I said, I think the relationship is completely unhealthy and should be ditched. It's almost a totally one way thing. Then again, that's just my opinion. I'm sure many will feel differently but I cant help but feel this recent attempt by Obama to blame someone shows a complete lack of disregard for what's supposedly meant to be "Americas best ally". You are aware he's ringing Cameron today to give him a talking down? What exactly does that aim to serve other than appealing to what seems to be quite a healthy anti-British sentiment by some within the US who are more than happy to see us as culpable and responsible.

Maybe Obama should do his homework. There's nothing Cameron or any other British person can do. The majority of BP share holders are, surprise, surprise, are Americans.

Ser Clegane

06-12-2010, 13:22

tibilicus

06-12-2010, 13:31

I wonder, would anybody hesiate to call ExxonMobil or Chevron US companies?

No matter how global BP is - it is headquartered in the UK and I think it paid 6 billion USD of corporate taxes in the UK last year.
What would the raection have been if BP had decided 1 or 2 years ago to move headquarters to the US? would there have been an outcry about a "British" company leaving the country?

Or maybe its to do with the fact phoning our PM to take action is futile because BP is a private country. Its irrelevant where the headquarters is, the only reason its still here is because BP could never be bothered to move it. And no, there wouldn't of been an outcry if BP did relocate to America. Over the last 20 years nearly all the major industries which were once state owned in this country have become privatised, usually being bought out by the far East. Most people don't seem to mind this and acknowledge that as companies become privatised, a burden is taken off the state and as responsibility for the company moves from the public into the hands of private investors, it means the state, as a whole, which Obama's phone call to the PM seeks to highlight, has no further responsibility for that company or its actions.

The only thing possibly connecting BP to the state is that a tiny majority of its shareholders are "ordinary people", encouraged by Mrs Thatcher to buy up shares as part of the "share-owning democracy". They account for a tiny % of the company however and most of their money has gone into pensions which will probably be hit quite heavy when the bill for BP's clean-up arrives.

Ser Clegane

06-12-2010, 14:30

The majority of BP share holders are, surprise, surprise, are Americans.

BP ownership structure December 31, 2009 (http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9010453&contentId=7019612)

(assuming the data is correct as BP apparently is not able to get its pie charts right...)

KukriKhan

06-12-2010, 14:50

BP ownership structure December 31, 2009 (http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9010453&contentId=7019612)

(assuming the data is correct as BP apparently is not able to get its pie charts right...)

Yanno what'd be funny? The White House sends 10 Downing a bill for BP cleanup, and The Brits mail back some of their US 30-year Treasuries - of which they are the #2 holders in the world (after China).

tibilicus

06-12-2010, 14:50

BP ownership structure December 31, 2009 (http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9010453&contentId=7019612)

(assuming the data is correct as BP apparently is not able to get its pie charts right...)

So the % difference in terms of companies/ institutions with a stake in BP is 1%.

All this still doesn't take away from my main point. What does the British Government have to do with this? Or do you believe somehow that because BP pays taxes to the UK government, the UK government some how has responsibility? When an individual pays taxes to the government does that make them responsible for the actions of the government? Or does that make the state responsible for actions of the individual as they pay taxes to the government?

The answer is no. Its privately owned and thus not our PM's responsibility. Obama needs to go find someone else to attack his fire at to help take the heat of the Gulf fishermen off his back. I heard there were some Chinese guys working on the rig when this all went off. Maybe we can blame them. Or here's a better idea. Keep to vocal criticism up on BP but leave the PM out of it. The last thing we need from the US is another b-slap to make us look even more incapable of forging our own direction as a country than we already are.

Hosakawa Tito

06-12-2010, 15:05

Yanno what'd be funny? The White House sends 10 Downing a bill for BP cleanup, and The Brits mail back some of their US 30-year Treasuries - of which they are the #2 holders in the world (after China).

Hehehe, I guess the hopey-changey honeymoon is over.

Ser Clegane

06-12-2010, 15:17

All this still doesn't take away from my main point. What does the British Government have to do with this? Or do you believe somehow that because BP pays taxes to the UK government, the UK government some how has responsibility? When an individual pays taxes to the government does that make them responsible for the actions of the government? Or does that make the state responsible for actions of the individual as they pay taxes to the government?.

OK, perhaps I am missing something here. Did Obama ask the British Government to take responsibility? From what I gathered in this thread and in the news the discussion was about Obama refferring to "British Petroleum" instead of just BP. The reaction here seemed to be that not only stopped BP referring to itself as British Petroleum but that it also actually should not be considered a British company. The latter is clearly wrong.

tibilicus

06-12-2010, 15:41

OK, perhaps I am missing something here. Did Obama ask the British Government to take responsibility? From what I gathered in this thread and in the news the discussion was about Obama refferring to "British Petroleum" instead of just BP. The reaction here seemed to be that not only stopped BP referring to itself as British Petroleum but that it also actually should not be considered a British company. The latter is clearly wrong.

He didn't ask them to take responsibility, but he is certainly looking to shift some of the blame onto them. What other reason does he have to phone "call me Dave"? As a general rule of thumb too, the Americans never ring us unless they want something.

Ser Clegane

06-12-2010, 16:08

He didn't ask them to take responsibility, but he is certainly looking to shift some of the blame onto them. What other reason does he have to phone "call me Dave"? As a general rule of thumb too, the Americans never ring us unless they want something.

I thought that call was a call that had been arranged anyway and that the BP situation would be one topic (especially as the tensions grew in the last days). Is there any source for "Obama calling Cmaeron about BP" (to shift blame to the British Government)?

There seemed to be some furor about the demand that BP should cut dividend to pay for the damage. Anything unreasonable about that?

Beskar

06-12-2010, 19:08

I thought that call was a call that had been arranged anyway and that the BP situation would be one topic (especially as the tensions grew in the last days). Is there any source for "Obama calling Cmaeron about BP" (to shift blame to the British Government)?

There seemed to be some furor about the demand that BP should cut dividend to pay for the damage. Anything unreasonable about that?

It greatly affects British pensioners who are dependant on the dividend.

So you are actively punishing poor old people.

Ser Clegane

06-12-2010, 19:31

It greatly affects British pensioners who are dependant on the dividend.

So you are actively punishing poor old people.

So it seems BP is very British after all.

Sorry, but if you are investing in a company you are not only participating in their profits, you also take the risk if the company messes things up and has to pay for it.

Beskar

06-12-2010, 19:36

So it seems BP is very British after all.

Sorry, but if you are investing in a company you are not only participating in their profits, you also take the risk if the company messes things up and has to pay for it.

The risk was in the privatisation, it was one of the clauses tied into it. Then I disapproved the privatisation in the first-place.

Ser Clegane

06-12-2010, 20:54

The risk was in the privatisation, it was one of the clauses tied into it. Then I disapproved the privatisation in the first-place.

Please elaborate - how would British pensioners have fared better without the privatisation?

Justiciar

06-12-2010, 20:56

Meh. I really don't get the kaffuffle. There may be one or two ejits pointing fingers in this general direction, but unless I'm mistaken none of them are in office. And it's hardly surprising. Were the tables turned and a largely (if not wholely, or technically) American company behind an ecological disaster at our shores we'd probably be burning American flags and shouting anti-US slogans at every opportunity. It's a none issue, with tempers raised by the populist press and bumbling politicians.

That said, I'd be chuffed to see Anglo-American relations cool a tad, and our government pluck up the balls to break with past policy of clinging so tightly to Washington's skirts. This, however, is not a good reason to do so. A desire to pursue an independent foreign policy? A good reason. Anger at their even handedness (how dare they!) in a heated diplomatic exchange re: our territorial claims? Yeah, I'd go with that. Some important fellow in a monochrome mansion making use of an unofficial yet appropriate name? That, I'm afraid, is just pathetic.

Beskar

06-12-2010, 21:07

Ser Clegane

06-12-2010, 21:14

thus, it wouldn't have occured in the first place.

Pure conjecture. Is there anything tangible to back up this claim? I think there are are plenty of examples that companies with a significant shares held by the government mess up as well

PanzerJaeger

06-12-2010, 23:43

Wow. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1285716/Obamas-BP-oil-spill-ire-Americas-ALWAYS-tried-Britain.html)

Has the worm turned at last? As the oil continues to gush in the Gulf of Mexico, angry rhetoric has gushed from President Barack Obama's lips. His rabid denunciations of BP have damaged the interests not only of that company but of most British people, in a way that must make us wonder whether he leads a friendly country.

Vince Cable, the new Business Secretary, calls Obama's rhetoric 'extreme and unhelpful'; London mayor Boris Johnson says it's 'anti-British', adding that 'BP is paying a very, very heavy price indeed'.
Bemusingly, David Cameron says only that he understands the U.S. administration's 'frustration', although he promises to take up the matter with Obama, after the Prime Minister returns from Afghanistan - where British troops are fighting and dying on behalf of the United States, it may be recalled.

'Extreme and unhelpful' is no exaggeration. Obama has played to the gallery by saying that he would like to sack Tony Hayward, head of BP; the president talks in a cheap way about 'kicking ass'. Whether or not the American president can kick our asses, he can certainly hurt our wallets and purses.

As BP's share price has plummeted, it has lost £55billion of its market value, and the company's entire outlook is very bleak, which affects most of us. Every British insurance company, building society and pension fund has large holdings of BP shares in its portfolio.
If you have a pension, at present or in prospect, your income falls with every sour word Obama speaks. It's a fine way for a friend to behave, if indeed we should regard the president as a friend.
His rhetoric is repellently hypocritical as well as demagogic. Quite apart from the fact that Hayward and his colleagues have every interest in plugging the spill, for years past BP has filled Washington's coffers with tax revenue, and fed the American people's unquenchable thirst for cheap petrol.

When Obama continually refers to BP as 'British Petroleum', which is no longer its formal name, he is saying something revealing about himself, and his Anglophobic spite will come as no surprise to those who have followed his career, and read his memoir Dreams From my Father.

He seems to have made up the part about his father being tortured by the British in Kenya, but there's no question that Obama nurses a disdain for and even dislike of this country.

All this because President Obama referred to a company that operated in America for 56 years as British Petroleum as.... British Petroleum? Such outrage might be valid if they had changed their name to something completely different, but what exactly is BP supposed to reference? Does FedEx not mean Federal Express anymore?

And if Obama had set out to malign Britain over some deep seeded hatred, according to the shareholder percentages by nationality, he is hurting Americans just as much.

There are plenty of substantive issues with the way the Obama administration is handling this. Read the article Lemur posted and I unthinkingly reposted. This, however, is not one of them - and such attacks against Obama are asinine and hopefully not supported by the majority.

Myrddraal

06-13-2010, 01:41

Couldn't agree more. I'm surprised that so many brits are getting worked up about this. BP must accept responsibility for the oil spill, but what's that got to do with the responsibility of the British people?

Beskar

06-13-2010, 02:00

Wow. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1285716/Obamas-BP-oil-spill-ire-Americas-ALWAYS-tried-Britain.html)

All this because President Obama referred to a company that operated in America for 56 years as British Petroleum as.... British Petroleum? Such outrage might be valid if they had changed their name to something completely different, but what exactly is BP supposed to reference? Does FedEx not mean Federal Express anymore?

And if Obama had set out to malign Britain over some deep seeded hatred, according to the shareholder percentages by nationality, he is hurting Americans just as much.

There are plenty of substantive issues with the way the Obama administration is handling this. Read the article Lemur posted and I unthinkingly reposted. This, however, is not one of them - and such attacks against Obama are asinine and hopefully not supported by the majority.

You are linking the Daily Mail again :whip:, everyone who is British on this forum depises it. It is a hate mongering paper. It is the British version of fox news and should be flushed down the toliet.

BBC news, Independent, Guardian, Telegraph, kin, there are new sources out there which are respectable opposed to tabloid trash.

Hosakawa Tito

06-13-2010, 02:21

Obama, Cameron discuss BP. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703433704575302813841948780.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories#articleTabs%3Dcomments) Me thinks there's some hysterical politics being played in the UK and US. It's all about the pr. Many US pension funds also stand to lose a bundle. BP can generate huge amounts of revenue and is worth far more alive than dead (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704463504575300911366398920.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories). Let's see, create fear in BP's ability to survive this disaster and drive down the price. Government then eases up on the rhetoric just after the Titans of Industry & Finance snap up those cheap shares and shazam.

KukriKhan

06-13-2010, 03:33

Government then eases up on the rhetoric just after the Titans of Industry & Finance snap up those cheap shares and shazam.

By George, I think 'e's got it.

So: lesson learnt, eh? Money will always out.

One-one tie in the WC for US V UK. Sportsman's result or Political ploy? You be teh judge.

Cynicism aside. Really. Thanks for all you Laddies have given. Your Grampas' lives, your heritage, your money, your tendency toward shucking it all and starting anew. We picked those up and ran with them, like a schoolboy with the newly-found ball (a bit uncertain in which way to run... but running for Hell nevertheless!).

Beskar

06-13-2010, 03:35

Let's see, create fear in BP's ability to survive this disaster and drive down the price. Government then eases up on the rhetoric just after the Titans of Industry & Finance snap up those cheap shares and shazam.

Glad I am not the only one who thinks this/ :bow:

Xiahou

06-15-2010, 02:50

After delays, U.S. begins to tap foreign aid for gulf oil spill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/13/AR2010061304232.html)

Four weeks after the nation's worst environmental disaster, the Obama administration saw no need to accept offers of state-of-the-art skimmers, miles of boom or technical assistance from nations around the globe with experience fighting oil spills. I've heard a lot of talk about foreign help being turned down- glad to see they finally ended that stupidity.

Furunculus

06-15-2010, 12:24

assumption of guilt/liability coloured by political views?

interesting article:

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/10012/bp_divides_public_along_party_lines.html

Beskar

06-15-2010, 18:22

assumption of guilt/liability coloured by political views?

interesting article:

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/10012/bp_divides_public_along_party_lines.html

The Conservatives are at it again, sucking on the teet of big oil, greasing up on the ol' backhanded funnelling of money.

Vladimir

06-15-2010, 18:28

The Conservatives are at it again, sucking on the teet of big oil, greasing up on the ol' backhanded funnelling of money.

And what are you sucking on?

Ser Clegane

06-15-2010, 19:52

The Conservatives are at it again, sucking on the teet of big oil

Just like the poor old pensioners, huh?

Furunculus

06-15-2010, 22:55

The Conservatives are at it again, sucking on the teet of big oil, greasing up on the ol' backhanded funnelling of money.

when BP pays pensions pensions privately which the gov't cannot afford to pay publicly, and when they pay tax that allows our wonderful social security system to function, i damn well expect them suck HARD on that teat, even if it's the hindmost one!

Crazed Rabbit

06-15-2010, 23:10

The Conservatives are at it again, sucking on the teet of big oil, greasing up on the ol' backhanded funnelling of money.

Could you detail how the average conservative poll respondent is getting greased up on money funnelled from big oil?

I don't know if the poll responses are so much colored by political views as a person's base values that form their political beliefs also form their responses to stuff like this. Of course the option that BP is not at fault - that this could have happened to anyone - is incorrect. Such incidents of late have only happened to them because of how they operate.

In related news, I was much amused by the 'deadline' for BP to come up with a new plan to contain the oil. As though they were just lollygagging before and a government official saying there's a deadline will make them suddenly work harder.

Also, one city gets fed up (http://www.thedestinlog.com/news/pass-30005-nwfdn-command-plans.html) with the unified command buearacracy in responding to the oil spill:

Curry said what the commissioners did Monday was “send a loud and clear message” to the Coast Guard, the state Department of Environmental Protection and others that Okaloosa County’s permit requests should be acted on immediately.

The commission met in an emergency meeting alongside the Destin City Council. The two governing bodies confronted a full room of obviously frustrated people, many of whom advocated filling in the entrance of the pass to close it down completely.

It was agreed that filling in the pass was a bad idea that could have serious environmental impacts.

Jay Prothro, BP’s representative for Okaloosa County, and two representatives of the Coast Guard were also present.

While Martha LaGuardia, a commander with the Coast Guard, argued that moving ideas and plans through the chain of command was the proper way to do things, Harris made it known the County Commission was tired of the often tedious and sometimes unproductive bureaucracy.

“We’ve played the game. We’re done playing the game,” he said.

CR

Beskar

06-15-2010, 23:17

Could you detail how the average conservative poll respondent is getting greased up on money funnelled from big oil?

Are you suggesting they give such responses without having to be bribed? It is a crime! these poor conservatives choosing the stupid incorrect choices without having be paid.

Just like the poor old pensioners, huh?

when BP pays pensions pensions privately which the gov't cannot afford to pay publicly, and when they pay tax that allows our wonderful social security system to function, i damn well expect them suck HARD on that teat, even if it's the hindmost one!

Both irrelevant points. Pension has nothing to do with the poll responses, which even as CR said:
"Of course the option that BP is not at fault - that this could have happened to anyone - is incorrect."

So the fact conservative respondants are putting that down as their answer? It isn't pensions, and accusing them of being bribed is me being nice, because the alternative is that they must be....

Feel free to finish off that sentence.

PanzerJaeger

06-16-2010, 01:30

Seamus Fermanagh

06-16-2010, 01:37

And the president politicizes the disaster in the Gulf to push cap and tax... Unbelievable. :furious3: (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704009804575308782107364538.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories)

Not at all, it is an intelligent political move. He IS rather adroit at Chicago-school politics, PJ, and this is one example of maximizing the political gain from a situation. What do you think his career is, anyway?

Remember, Obama is part of the camp that believes government control is as good or better than private control of resources in many ways -- notably equitable distribution; that only government mandate can initiate change in time to avert a crisis as the free market is responsive and not proactive; and, that only a strong central government is positioned to make the necessary changes and therefore needs to acquire the power necessary to fulfill its responsibilities.

From that rubric, how could he NOT leverage this issue to achieve the end state he and his peers believe to be in the best interests of the USA?

Louis VI the Fat

06-16-2010, 02:02

Thomas Friedman disagrees (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/opinion/13friedman.html?ref=thomaslfriedman).

Come to think of it, I too disagree. Yet again free enterprise shows itself willing to have America's children wallow in polluted filth, like some nine-year old Indian girls recycling batteries, or Niger delta dwellers.
But shame on the government for interfering with it. Such power-grabbing. What nerve to protect the health, safety and environment of American citizens.

Poor HoreTore thought I was having a stab at Norway in that other thread, whereas I was really being quite complimentary: the difference between Venezuela or Nigeria and Norway is a strong state, ran by and for its citizens, instead of operating for big oil, letting itself be exploited for the benefit of private interest. America, I am not so sure. Not quite sure where on the line running from Nigeria to Norway it sits.

Crazed Rabbit

06-16-2010, 02:55

Thomas Friedman disagrees (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/opinion/13friedman.html?ref=thomaslfriedman).

Come to think of it, I too disagree. Yet again free enterprise shows itself willing to have America's children wallow in polluted filth, like some nine-year old Indian girls recycling batteries, or Niger delta dwellers.
But shame on the government for interfering with it. Such power-grabbing. What nerve to protect the health, safety and environment of American citizens.

It was the government that capped certain damages at $75 million, not the free market.

And aside from the hyperbole, that's why we have the legal system and class action lawsuits.

CR

PanzerJaeger

06-16-2010, 04:43

Not at all, it is an intelligent political move. He IS rather adroit at Chicago-school politics, PJ, and this is one example of maximizing the political gain from a situation. What do you think his career is, anyway?

Remember, Obama is part of the camp that believes government control is as good or better than private control of resources in many ways -- notably equitable distribution; that only government mandate can initiate change in time to avert a crisis as the free market is responsive and not proactive; and, that only a strong central government is positioned to make the necessary changes and therefore needs to acquire the power necessary to fulfill its responsibilities.

To the contrary, I think this was a clumsy, highly transparent move, and very obviously political. I don't see it changing any mind either. He didn't adequately connect the oil spill to cap and tax (which would bend logic more than even his impressive rhetorical skills could manage). And on a completely different level, it takes quite a bit of gall, while the oil is still pouring into the Gulf, to seize on these people's misfortune to pimp stillborn legislation that can only be tangentially linked to the disaster.

If I was a resident of the area, I would be pretty pissed off if the president used what had to be between a third and a half of his time that was billed as an update on the oil spill situation to push legislation with a primary focus on taxing coal.

I guess it doesn't matter though, they're already beyond angry (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/06/fallout-from-spill.html) at Obama's response.

Tellos Athenaios

06-16-2010, 04:45

@CR: except that it assumes everyone involved has sufficient financial backbone to see through a 10 year legal battle against BP? Not to mention that there is damage which is not quite as easily repaired by a big, fat stash of greasy banknotes or the equivalent of a class action lawsuit victory settlement.
With a bit of bad luck 50 years from now the local inhabitants will still be dealing with the environmental (and by extension financial) backlash.

Ser Clegane

06-16-2010, 08:32

Both irrelevant points. Pension has nothing to do with the poll responses

It is not relevant to the poll results - it is a response to your post which was not at all relevant to the poll either but rather seemd to be a cheap shot without any facts behind it.
You are implying that the conservative responses were driven by benefits they receive from "big oil", while before you were lamenting that it would be poor pensioners who would suffer if BP would be forced to cut the dividend.

So what is your view on BP's responsibility? I think I made clear that I believe that they are very much responsible for the current mess and that they should pay for it.
What is your view? Should they pay or should they not (to protect the interests of British pensioners). It is somewhat difficult to eat the cake and keep it.

Idaho

06-16-2010, 10:26

I completely agree with the principle and practice of seizing corporate assets of companies who screw up big time. However I wonder if this is going to be an 'exceptional case' because it's a British sounding company doing something bad near/in the US.

Will the same principle be applied if, for example, Namibia wanted to seize US company assets if they caused an ecological disaster? I very, very, very much doubt it.

Ser Clegane

06-16-2010, 11:14

Will the same principle be applied if, for example, Namibia wanted to seize US company assets if they caused an ecological disaster? I very, very, very much doubt it.

Hah - of course not. One of my colleagues in India was actually quite puzzled to see how the very existance of BP seems to be jeopardized (considering e.g., the reactions on the stock market) while Union Carbide got away with a rather "mild" settlement of 470 mUSD 5 years (!) after Bhopal

gaelic cowboy

06-16-2010, 11:19

Hah - of course not. One of my colleagues in India was actually quite puzzled to see how the very existance of BP seems to be jeopardized (considering e.g., the reactions on the stock market) while Union Carbide got away with a rather "mild" settlement of 470 mUSD 5 years (!) after Bhopal

The Bhopal disaster was complicated by the ownership structure of the site if I remember correctly but I could be wrong.

Idaho

06-16-2010, 11:27

The Bhopal disaster was complicated by the ownership structure of the site if I remember correctly but I could be wrong.

Deliberately obfuscated, rather than complicated I would say.

Louis VI the Fat

06-16-2010, 11:32

And aside from the hyperbole, that's why we have the legal system and class action lawsuits.

CRHyperbole? What hyperbole? I was being perfectly nuanced and rational. :tongue:

The problems with litigation management of risk instead of solid regulation are twofold:

Enterprise becomes a casino. Environmental and safety measures are costly. Thus, by necessity, a corporation must operate at the limit of what is legally allowed, lest a cheaper competitor moves in. Operating in this manner, odds are greatly enhanced that something will go wrong. In which case disaster ensues, and the corporation is sued into oblivion. This does not create a functioning market, it creates a casino.
(Government is not anti-market. A government creates a market, decides the kind of market. In resource and oil, roughly: strong refulation, strictly enforced, creates a market in which corporations compete on innovation and efficiency (Nordic market). Weak regulation, strictly enforced, creates a casino (US market). Weak regulation, wantonly enforced, creates exploitation and corruption (Nigeria market).)

Litigation happens after the fact. The idea is not to find compensation for damages, the point is to prevent damages. Environenmental and health disasters have effects that can not be undone, regardless of the size of financial compensation.

Beskar

06-16-2010, 12:33

You are implying that the conservative responses were driven by benefits they receive from "big oil", while before you were lamenting that it would be poor pensioners who would suffer if BP would be forced to cut the dividend.

They don't need to cut the dividend in order to exact a punishment on BP, since BP doesn't get hurt by dividends anyway, and shareholders who would benefit from dividends already experienced a over 40% loss on their stocks. There is no need to punish pensioners of both British and Americans nations on-top and contribute to the governments of both nations deficiet, as the government will have to get the money from elsewhere to account for it.

So in reality, do you actually want to pay money instead of BP actually paying it? Tell me, I want to know. Do you want a larger deficit, bigger budget, for a cheap shot which only punishes the tax-payers more?

So what is your view on BP's responsibility? I think I made clear that I believe that they are very much responsible for the current mess and that they should pay for it.

What is your view? Should they pay or should they not (to protect the interests of British pensioners). It is somewhat difficult to eat the cake and keep it.

There are other ways to pay, just simply cutting the dividend payout means we get getting nothing from it, and end up just experiencing budget crisis elsewhere. You should extract additional payment or longterm deals for BP to deal with the mess.

Beskar

06-16-2010, 12:38

The problems with litigation management of risk instead of solid regulation are twofold:

Enterprise becomes a casino. Environmental and safety measures are costly. Thus, by necessity, a corporation must operate at the limit of what is legally allowed, lest a cheaper competitor moves in. Operating in this manner, odds are greatly enhanced that something will go wrong. In which case disaster ensues, and the corporation is sued into oblivion. This does not create a functioning market, it creates a casino.
(Government is not anti-market. A government creates a market, decides the kind of market. In resource and oil, roughly: strong refulation, strictly enforced, creates a market in which corporations compete on innovation and efficiency (Nordic market). Weak regulation, strictly enforced, creates a casino (US market). Weak regulation, wantonly enforced, creates exploitation and corruption (Nigeria market).)

Litigation happens after the fact. The idea is not to find compensation for damages, the point is to prevent damages. Environenmental and health disasters have effects that can not be undone, regardless of the size of financial compensation.

Agreed, Enterprising cowboys who want to do everything as cheap and nasty as possible. What is even worse, when they relocate public sector duties to the private because it is cheaper, which makes me always wonder "Why are they cheaper? How can it actually be cheaper to pay someone to do something yourself?". It is because the private sector does a terrible job at it, and can get away with the taking blame as they get a pocketful compared to a public sector body which would affect polls, etc.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-16-2010, 13:09

To the contrary, I think this was a clumsy, highly transparent move, and very obviously political. I don't see it changing any mind either. He didn't adequately connect the oil spill to cap and tax (which would bend logic more than even his impressive rhetorical skills could manage). And on a completely different level, it takes quite a bit of gall, while the oil is still pouring into the Gulf, to seize on these people's misfortune to pimp stillborn legislation that can only be tangentially linked to the disaster.

If I was a resident of the area, I would be pretty pissed off if the president used what had to be between a third and a half of his time that was billed as an update on the oil spill situation to push legislation with a primary focus on taxing coal.

I guess it doesn't matter though, they're already beyond angry (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/06/fallout-from-spill.html) at Obama's response.

PJ:

Most politics is not subtle, despite our romanticized view of the process. At its core it boils down to: "help my supporters who got me this gig" and/or "now that I have the power, I'm gonna do what's right (definition almost always subjective on this last)." Chicago school politics is even more bluntly in this category. Incumbents brag about the pork they've brought home and, when opposition rears its head, they squelch it by whatever means available. THAT is where President Obama learned his business. The folderol over Blagovich's apparent retailing of the Senate Seat makes me laugh -- people are reacting as though that WASN'T S-O-P for the area. It was really more of the same-old, same-old and I suspect none of the parties truly thought that it was particularly unethical. Same with the "jobs to stay out of the primary" thing -- that's the way the game is played.

I thought the speech fell short because he didn't take full advantage of the opportunity to hammer the "Make BP pay" theme. THAT is what his supporters and many of those affected want to hear most. He did some of that, but many folks want to hear that BP will be taxed/fined to cover all of the cost of recovery as well as providing subsistence payments to all those impacted by the spill. In addition, the more ardent lefties WANT "cap-and-trade" as a first step to dramatically reducing our carbon output and shifting towards wind, solar, and geo-thermal energy sources (and some of them want that to segway even further into a shift in energy consumption that puts us more in line with other developed nations on a per capita basis).

Obama's goal was to say enough to placate those on his side of the aisle regarding these issues, while not being so overtly anti-corporate as to antagonize the mugwumps and the semi-involved/semi-ignorant who are the mass of the US voting pool. They want the problem to be dealt with decisively (mostly unaware as to what that entails), so he wants to appear decisive on this issue, while still focusing on the leadership goals with which he began his presidency.

All-in-all, he really wasn't speaking to me. After Axelrod's comments on Sunday, I knew they were doing what the government could do: insisting on two relief wells as added safety, providing an ideas group, keeping the pressure on the BP team, and bringing in (however late) others with needed resources. It's not like the government has the tools to do more, the rest is just political agendaneering -- which is what I expected to hear and what I heard last night. Again, I'm a voter but I vote for candidates in the other half of the economic/conservatism end of the scale, so he really has written me off already.

Leadership? A bit, though not ringingly. Effective Politics? Yeah, probably....I just wish he was working towards an end-state I preferred.

Ser Clegane

06-16-2010, 13:33

They don't need to cut the dividend in order to exact a punishment on BP, since BP doesn't get hurt by dividends anyway, and shareholders who would benefit from dividends already experienced a over 40% loss on their stocks. There is no need to punish pensioners of both British and Americans nations on-top and contribute to the governments of both nations deficiet, as the government will have to get the money from elsewhere to account for it.

So in reality, do you actually want to pay money instead of BP actually paying it? Tell me, I want to know. Do you want a larger deficit, bigger budget, for a cheap shot which only punishes the tax-payers more?

There are other ways to pay, just simply cutting the dividend payout means we get getting nothing from it, and end up just experiencing budget crisis elsewhere. You should extract additional payment or longterm deals for BP to deal with the mess.

I actually believe that cutting the dividend is not meant as "punishment" for BP (this would indeed be silly), but as a means to pay for the damage. Instead of distributing profits among shareholders these profits should be used to pay for the damage - sounds fair to me.
This is certainly not about BP cutting the dividend instead of paying for the damage - this would not make any sense (and I am not sure what makes you think that this would be an option)

Beskar

06-16-2010, 15:00

I actually believe that cutting the dividend is not meant as "punishment" for BP (this would indeed be silly), but as a means to pay for the damage. Instead of distributing profits among shareholders these profits should be used to pay for the damage - sounds fair to me.
This is certainly not about BP cutting the dividend instead of paying for the damage - this would not make any sense (and I am not sure what makes you think that this would be an option)

Most of the cutting dividend talk was simply that, to cut it. Which is obviously stupid and only hurts the taxpayers and investment into projects such as pensions.

Now, redistributing the dividend is another thing.

Ser Clegane

06-16-2010, 15:40

Most of the cutting dividend talk was simply that, to cut it. Which is obviously stupid and only hurts the taxpayers and investment into projects such as pensions.

Now, redistributing the dividend is another thing.

Actually it was pretty clear that the purpose of cutting the dividend would be to set aside cash to pay for the damage. This is mentioned in pretty much every news report on the topc.

Just one randon example (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10291371.stm)

BP directors will meet on Monday to discuss whether to suspend dividends to shareholders, the BBC has learned.

Executives will then meet US President Barack Obama on Wednesday, but no announcement on the payments is expected in the near future.

BP has been under intense pressure from the US government, which wants BP to use the money to pay for the Gulf of Mexico clean-up.

drone

06-16-2010, 15:43

Most of the cutting dividend talk was simply that, to cut it. Which is obviously stupid and only hurts the taxpayers and investment into projects such as pensions.

Now, redistributing the dividend is another thing.
Corporate profit can be spent in two ways, corporate reinvestment or dividends. Lower the profit, and one or both of these two get reduced. The cost of the cleanup and potential lawsuits will lower the company's profit. From a political standpoint, BP will need to upgrade equipment and procedures to comply (or at least appear to comply) with regulations. The amount of money available for dividend payouts will therefore be reduced.

And BP shareholders have not had 40% losses on their stocks. If a shareholder held 100 shares of BP stock before the leak, they still hold 100 shares of BP stock. They only lost money if they sold their shares, in which case they are no longer shareholders and are just idiots.

Vladimir

06-16-2010, 15:52

And BP shareholders have not had 40% losses on their stocks. If a shareholder held 100 shares of BP stock before the leak, they still hold 100 shares of BP stock. They only lost money if they sold their shares, in which case they are no longer shareholders and are just idiots.

So...Time to buy then?

Banquo's Ghost

06-16-2010, 16:19

So...Time to buy then?

Yes, for the longer term, most certainly. Not if you're a skittish market player.

BP is an excellent company with good infrastructure and reserves but a short term problem. At the very worst, it will soon be the subject of a bid from the Chinese. Either way, there's a very good argument for buying now or soon at the bottom of the graph.

President Obama is going to make me some people even richer with his aggressive rhetoric directed at the American Oil Company-British Petroleum. :thumbsup:

drone

06-16-2010, 16:44

So...Time to buy then?

Indeed. ~D As a whole, BP prints money and should recover from this fairly easily. 2010 Q1 profits were $6 billion. There are 2 items of concern. One, will they take a public relations hit that hurts them through boycotts? Exxon shrugged off Valdez, but the Gulf is more tangible to the general US population. I foresee another name change/rebranding in their future. Two, will they restructure/split to isolate the cleanup and litigation costs?

Louis VI the Fat

06-16-2010, 18:30

Crazed Rabbit

06-16-2010, 19:24

The hottest investment strategy of the last few years has been: Buy Companies You Hate. That is, get BP while you can!

Dilbert Scott ran a very entertaining column about it in the WSJ last week, pretty much summing the mechanism up. Required reading for anybody holding any stock: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704025304575285000265955016.html

It is not new. It is the curse of capitalism - the incentives are to behave badly. BP has been acting perfectly rational. Unfortunately, acting rationally in the oil market means ruining the world.

There are incentives to play for keeps and increase profit. That's often not appreciated by consumers.

Look at Activision. They increased the price of PC games from $50 to $60 because they could. They charge $15 for map bundles for COD:MW2. And they make money.

Now, in terms of oil drilling having the potential for environmental damage, we need to make sure that oil companies will pay for the cleanup and damages. If they can't, hold the executives personally liable, which ought to balance risk and reward properly.

From the little I've read about the rig in the days before it exploded, BP did not consider an explosion a real possibility while justifying going against contractor recommendations for safety equipment. I don't think they were looking rationally at the danger. I consider as well the fact that BP has a history of deadly accidents at their refineries in the US in the past few years. Company wide, they don't seem to properly evaluate risk and weigh safety too lightly against costs.

Oh, and it's Adam Scott, the cartoon is Dilbert. :smug:

Let's talk about morality. Can you justify owning stock in companies that are treating the Earth like a prison pillow with a crayon face? Of course you can, but it takes some mental gymnastics. I'm here to help.

If you buy stock in a despicable company, it means some of the previous owners of that company sold it to you. If the stock then rises more than the market average, you successfully screwed the previous owners of the hated company. That's exactly like justice, only better because you made a profit. Then you can sell your stocks for a gain and donate all of your earnings to good causes, such as education for your own kids.

CR