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

[Beskar]

So.... you wanted to use sarcasm to snare a Brit.

Severe tactical error there, what?

He is American, over there, they cannot comprehend it. So Lemur giggles to himself at their expense. Also the concept of Irony is lost on them.

[Vladimir]

He is American, over there, they cannot comprehend it. So Lemur giggles to himself at their expense. Also the concept of Irony is lost on them.

This American, in particular, comprehends and appreciates your tasteful and erudite comments.

[Centurion1]

This American, in particular, comprehends and appreciates your tasteful and erudite comments.

wot wot.

I daresay this whole oil crisis is a bit of a bother tisn't it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

UK backing loans for 'risky' offshore oil drilling in Brazil
Documents show the UK government ignored risks in subsidising oil extraction from nearly 2,000m deep in Atlantic waters

The British government is subsidising one of the world's largest and riskiest oil-drilling projects in the Atlantic Ocean and would be liable for tens of millions of pounds if a major accident took place.
Documents seen by the Guardian show that UK trade ministers underwrote loans taken out by the Brazilian state-run energy company Petrobras in 2005 in order that Rolls Royce and other companies could contribute to the building of the giant P-52 platform.

The platform is now operating 125km off the coast of Brazil in 1,798 metres (5,900 feet) of water - deeper than BP's Deepwater rig that exploded in April and led to the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
But the 14-page environment report prepared by the UK's Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) and obtained under freedom of information rules by watchdog group Corner House, makes no mention of blowouts or the equipment needed to prevent them. Ministers have edited out all ECDG's comments assessing the risks involved in deep-sea drilling in the Atlantic.

The oil and gas reservoirs of the Campos basin are considered some of the most hazardous in the world to access, pushing offshore technology to the limit. The P-52 rig replaced one that exploded and sank due to human error in 2001, killing 11 people.
Environmental groups today accused the government of forcing British taxpayers to underwrite a project that could lead to a disaster similar to the spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...shore-drilling

Are the Bitish taxpayers giving the right incentives to their companies? That's a lot of subsidies for dangerous drilling. This time, the British taxpayer appears liable for damages too.



Also, what level of governmental involvement! Creating an excellent opportunity for a semi-random rant:
Free market? What free market? Oil exploitation is all about intense government involvement. It is all about subsidies, regulations, concessions, and a society geared in general towards oil consumption. Free market is only ever invoked when regulation gets in the way.
Free market is what they have in the Angola diamond industry, bit still only free in the sense that there is no discernable first world-like government, only rudimentary governmental tasks performed by (semi)private warlords.
'Free' market is an activist word. Used deceptively. It means 'government geared towards immediate private interest'. Give me an 'unfree' market, because it is this well regulated market that creates a functioning open market, advanced economic exchance, and a first world country
/statist rant

[Beskar]

Americans are praising BP -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_...a/10481558.stm

[CountArach]

Everyone is missing the most important news item to come out about this:

Vuvuzela assault planned on BP Hq

Look out BP, the vuvuzelas are coming.

A US video producer is raising money to have 100 people play the horns, which have provided the World Cup soundtrack, outside BP's headquarters in London to protest the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Adam Quirk, of Brooklyn, New York, has appealed for funds for his 'Vuvuzelas for BP' scheme on Kickstarter.com, a website which accepts donations from the public for a variety of projects.

As of mid-day Thursday, Quirk had already surpassed his goal of raising $US1000 ($A1188) for the vuvuzela concert and $US1000 for the Gulf Disaster Fund.

A total of 316 people had donated $US3388 ($A4025) for his quirky plan.

The page featuring Quirk's appeal for donations features a picture of a smiling BP chief executive Tony Hayward surrounded by vuvuzelas.

'BP is not feeling the pain they are causing in the Gulf,' Quirk wrote in his fund-raising call. 'BP is spending millions on PR.

'In order to put a bit of public pressure on them, we plan to buy 100 vuvuzelas and hire 100 vuvuzela players off Craigslist to play in front of BP's International Headquarters in London for a one-day flash mob,' he said.

Quirk said the money will go to buying 100 vuvuzelas at $US6.50 each and hiring some people for crowd control.

He also put out an appeal for volunteer vuvuzela players - 'no special skills required'.

'Hopefully (and likely) we can find people to play for free (plus they get a free vuvuzela),' he said.

'I know this isn't going to change anything, but it will draw attention back to BP after the inevitable 24hr news cycle finds some celebrity sex scandal to distract us with,' Quirk said.

[Furunculus]

The Red Adair of relief well drilling is on the case, hooray:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...l-outcome.html

[Hax]

Your all a bunch of damn Communist foreigners trying to take over the good old us of a

No, we just here so we can make great benefit for glorious country of the Netherholes.

[Lemur]

Three cheers for rectal bleeding!

Toxicologist: Oil/Corexit mix caused heart trouble, organ damage, rectal bleeding. Shrimpers who were exposed to a mixture of oil and Corexit dispersant in the Gulf of Mexico suffered severe symptoms such as muscle spasms, heart palpitations, headaches that last for weeks and bleeding from the rectum, according to a marine toxicologist who issued the warning Friday on a cable news network.

Dr. Susan Shaw, founder and director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute, said during a CNN broadcast that after personally diving the oil spill in late May, a "very fiery sore throat" plagued her from inhaling fumes coming off the water. Because she was covered from head to toe in a protective suit, Dr. Shaw was spared direct exposure.

Shrimpers who had bare-skin contact with the mixture of oil and Corexit, she said, were not so lucky.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Ah well, nevermind 2012, killer meteorites, solar storms or global warming or even octosquids of doom. The end of life as we know it: . (Article found via: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07...ubble_of_doom/)

Or as we say in Dutch: “BP bedankt!”.

[Lemur]

If this bears out, it's huge news.

BP says it has temporarily stopped oil flowing into the Gulf of Mexico from its leaking well.

It is the first time the flow has stopped since an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig on 20 April.

The well has been sealed with a cap as part of a test of its integrity that could last up to 48 hours.

[rory_20_uk]

Good to hear. Fingers crossed it holds.

No longer...



Lessons learnt? I hope so. Fingers crossed that this helps increase the attractiveness of other forms of energy. OK, they might be expensive to start up but the risks are much smaller...

[Myrddraal]

Today's headlines:

US President Barack Obama warns BP oil leak crisis will not end until BP is in the hands of American share holders.

[Lemur]

US President Barack Obama warns BP oil leak crisis will not end until BP is in the hands of American share holders.

Source? Google is failing me.

[Incongruous]

Source? Google is failing me.

He's taking the piss, after news came out that the White House is supporting an American bid on BP http://countusout.wordpress.com/2010...f-bp-takeover/ and playing on the British suspicion that this was Obama's plan since the pipe blew.

[Vladimir]

Hope and change?

[Myrddraal]

BP was never in any real danger of going bankrupt because of this crisis. Quite simply because BP is worth much more to the American People as a functioning company which employs many Americans and provides profits to a significant American share ownership. The only current serious threat to BP is how much money the US government extracts from them, and the US government knows all to well the consequences would be bad for them if they pushed just a little too hard and pushed BP over the brink. Because of this, the very loud and open (and perhaps even hypocritical, see Bhopal number crunching above) criticism of the company from the US administration, which has certainly contributed to the fall in the share price of BP, seem counter intuitive.

That is, until you realise that just as the denouncing of BP reaches fever pitch, and share prices reach rock bottom, American investors seem to fully understand the true value of BP, and are more than happy to snap up this government sponsored special offer on BP shares. One could even speculate that the US government was encouraged down the merry path of preaching the end of BP by these well connected and certainly very wealthy investors, but that would be pure speculation.

[Lemur]

One could even speculate that the US government was encouraged down the merry path of preaching the end of BP by these well connected and certainly very wealthy investors, but that would be pure speculation.

Wow, could one? Could one really?

If one cannot make a case, one can say most anything as long as one attributes it to a numinous third-person singular.

Wouldn't one agree? Or would one care to quibble with one's assertions?

[Myrddraal]

Jeeze, if someone using 'one' offends you that much, you might want to consider anger management courses.

I can rephrase it into any tense you care to mention, I could even rewrite it in French if it floats your boat. I presented my thoughts, make of them what you will. I admitted that it's pure speculation, but that doesn't make it invalid. Next time try addressing the content of my posts rather than the delivery.

Edit:

Here, take your pick:

I could even speculate that the US government was encouraged down the merry path of preaching the end of BP by these well connected and certainly very wealthy investors, but that would be pure speculation.

You could even speculate that the US government was encouraged down the merry path of preaching the end of BP by these well connected and certainly very wealthy investors, but that would be pure speculation.

Someone could even speculate that the US government was encouraged down the merry path of preaching the end of BP by these well connected and certainly very wealthy investors, but that would be pure speculation.

[Lemur]

One would suggest that the subject of a sentence is not the tense, but perhaps that would be pedantic of one.

One's thoughts may wander off into the paranoid speculation of massive national conspiracies, but so long as one feels no need to provide source, links or backup data of any sort, one can make such allegations as one wills.

One can talk about "the content of [one's] posts," but so long as one's posts are both fat- and content-free, consisting of one's fevered speculations with zero back-up of any sort, one must accept the response one is likely to generate.

One could speculate, for example, that the one calling itself Myrddraal is actually an octosquid agent sent to sow confusion amongst us "four-limbed freaks." Since one is not obligated to provide any evidence or backing data of any sort, this speculation is exactly as valid as one's speculation about how the government of the United States is engaged in a massive securities fraud. Wouldn't one agree?

[Myrddraal]

Sure, I agree. Thanks for your help, thanks to you I understand that since you are ridiculing this idea, it must be ridiculous! I'm indebted to you.

It's been in the news here that apparently the US government has told ExxonMobil that they "will not stop" (or something like that) a takeover bid for BP, despite the consequences for monopoly and competition. BP have been meeting 'friendly' investors in the hope that they will also increase their share holdings to prevent a takeover by ExxonMobil. I am suggesting that the US government's tireless attacks on BP seem to go against US interests, unless you consider the possibility that they may support the American take over of a very profitable company.

Is that enough for you to chew on, or are you going to continue with empty posts mocking my grammatical style?

[Lemur]

It's been in the news here that apparently [...]

This phrase contains everything I find offensive. Something about the mixture of the passive voice with unsourced assertions ...

Is that enough for you to chew on, or are you going to continue with empty posts mocking my grammatical style?

Is what enough to chew on? Source! Please, Myrddraal, provide a source! Otherwise debating your points is like boxing a cloud.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

People should use "one" and the like much more often. To do otherwise is arrogance when talking about very complicated subjects like politics and economics where certainty would require years of study, and where we are usually going of the word of various journalists (or bloggers :p ).

"The government did this because..." makes an almost omniscient claim. In most cases it's use is not justified. "I think the government did this because..."--well, at least they aren't making an outright claim, but why do they think it if they aren't justified in doing so? "It seems to me" or "I guess" are appropriately weaker. Although I have no objection to "I think" because it's just a handy way of speaking.

So "one could speculate" and "some people say" allow us to honestly talk about a subject as best we can, without acting like we have insider knowledge.

(Not that any of us really do this, I usually don't. But it some cases it is prudent, and thus admirable).

But lemur you usually approach these debates in a different way, so you object to someone "hiding" behind weak language. Sarcasm is the same kind of "hiding" though It doesn't require you to zero in on what's wrong about a persons post, it just exaggerates.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Thanks for your help, thanks to you I understand that since you are ridiculing this idea, it must be ridiculous!

Exactly!

Lemur is doing exactly what he criticized you for.

Except not even. While "one could speculate that the US government was manipulated by investors" is a more modest statement than "the us government was manipulated by investors", being sarcastic about an idea makes the claim that it is so obviously false as to be ridicule worthy. Sometimes this is the case. But mostly not, which is why those who use it frequently tend to see politics as the grown up version of a food fight (no offense lemur).

[Myrddraal]

If you feel incapable of discussing possibilities which you haven't read about in the newspapers, I fully understand why you resort to ridicule, and you have my sympathies. If, on the other hand, you are capable of more constructive debate, perhaps you could explain to me why the idea is ridiculous? Who knows, perhaps if you'd started out with this approach, I wouldn't be feeling so hostile to your opinions, and you might even have persuaded me without testing my humility.

[Myrddraal]

Here, take this and it might loosen your tongue:

BP was at the centre of fresh takeover speculation after weekend reports suggested the Obama administration has told ExxonMobil – the world's largest oil firm – that it would not stand in the way of a takeover bid for the stricken British rival.

Before the Gulf of Mexico oil spill BP was Britain's biggest company with a stock market value of £121bn. Since then more than £50bn has been wiped off its share value and a number of potential bidders are rumoured to be circling to take advantage of its weakened state.

Oil industry sources were quoted as saying that ExxonMobil had been given a green light by the US government to "take a look" at BP. A merger would create a group with a stock market value of $400bn (£265bn). Both firms refused to comment on the speculation.

BP's chief executive, Tony Hayward, is well aware of the threat of a hostile bid and last week held a series of meetings with potential "friendly" investors including the Kuwait Investment Office. A big strategic investor would make it harder for the likes of ExxonMobil or China's National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC) to win control in a hostile takeover bid.

The Kuwaitis already have a 1.75% stake, but BP would like it to increase that to as much as 10%. Hayward is also understood to have met with another sovereign wealth fund, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA).

The cost of the spill to BP has already past $3.1bn (£2bn), and the company has pledged some of its assets as security to the US government while it builds up a promised $20bn compensation fund. Analysts at Goldman Sachs estimate the final bill for the disaster caused by the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig, which killed 11 workers, could run to $70bn.

BP has already began talks with rivals about selling off assets to help bolster its financial position. CNOOC is interested in buying the Argentinian gas businesses partly owned by BP. The UK oil firm's joint Russian venture TNK-BP has also opened talks about buying assets outside Russia.

Today Apache Corporation, the US's largest independent oil group, was named as being in exclusive talks to buy investments worth $12bn from BP, including the stake in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, the largest oil field in North America.

Neither BP nor Apache would comment. "We've said we're going to be divesting about $10bn over the next 12 months as a result of the spill, but we have no comment on specific deals," said a BP spokesman.

BP is hoping to have some firm sales to announce before 27 July when it must release its first-half financial results and give a strategic update about the scale of liabilities faced in America.

The oil spill – and BP's handling of it – has made the firm public enemy number one in the US, with Barack Obama leading the call for blood. Such is the level of vitriol, that business groups claim American protectionism is on the rise and it is affecting other British firms. Foreign companies have already been restricted from access to US government bailout money and some important federal contracts.

This week the Washington-based Organisation for International Investment will meet a handful of British business groups including the CBI, the Chartered Institute of Taxation and Business International to discuss the rise in anti-British rhetoric and how to counter it.

[Lemur]

If you feel incapable of discussing possibilities which you haven't read about in the newspapers, I fully understand why you resort to ridicule, and you have my sympathies.

In fairness, I asked you for some sort of source when you first asserted that the US government was engaged in a conspiracy to absorb BP, and got bupkiss for a response. A source need not be a newspaper. Any sort of analysis, reportage or original material would give us a basis for discussion.

If, on the other hand, you are capable of more constructive debate, perhaps you could explain to me why the idea is ridiculous?

I'd argue that the more outlandish the assertion, the stronger the evidence ought to be. You have asserted not once but twice that the US Government is attempting to destroy BP for a very specific motivation. I object to the fact that you have provided nothing to back this up. I'm sorry if my jokes offend, and I certainly don't mean to give you personal grief. My message is unchanged: Source, please.

Sasaki, as per usual, engages in meta-conversation rather than conversation. Note the post-modernism and indirection of his discourse; not only does he not address your points, he doesn't address mine either, instead engaging on a purely semiotic level.

-edit-

Ah, sorry, I was typing while you posted. I'll read and comment in a bit. Thank you!

-edit of the edit-

Okay, had a chance to read the entire article. Thoughts:

There is no indication that the US Government is involved in anything to do with ExxonMobil's takeover considerations, beyond indicating that they prolly wouldn't oppose it. This means EM is most likely talking to some investment banks about the possibility of making a hostile bid.

A couple of points: (1) I don't know that it's legitimate to call BP a British company any more than it's accurate to call a monster conglomerate like EM an American company. Large multinational firms generally act in their own interest, not in any particular nationality's. (2) Big firms mull takeover/merger bids all the danged time. And when they're not mulling it over, the investment banks are mulling it over for them, drawing up proposals more or less constantly. I would hesitate to put a lot of weight on anything less than a formal bid to shareholders.

The last paragraph that you highlight, the one about the "level of vitriol," is a bit of saber-rattling, to be honest. And I'm deeply confused by the sentence about "Foreign companies have already been restricted from access to US government bailout money and some important federal contracts." Is the author suggesting that US bailout money should have been made available to more foreign firms? That the lack of bailout money for foreign firms is a sign of American protectionism? That there has been a measurable shift in federal contract restrictions? There's nothing of substance in that paragraph, and yet it is crucial to understanding the situation as a conspiracy to absorb BP.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Prosimian & Eyeless:

Either of you could do a turn in the Senate...such genteel yet cutting parsiflage......

[Lemur]

I have so much parsiflage I need a cream or ointment of some sort.

Re-reading my earlier posts, I think I indulged in grammar mockery a little too hard. Please accept my apologies, Myrddraal, and I hope you can accept when I say I did not mean to make you feel personally attacked. In my clumsy way I was attempting to debate your assertion, not your person.

[drone]

In fairness, I asked you for some sort of source when you first asserted that the US government was engaged in a conspiracy to absorb BP, and got bupkiss for a response. A source need not be a newspaper. Any sort of analysis, reportage or original material would give us a basis for discussion.

I don't think Myddraal was saying the US government was trying to take over BP, but that the US government was being used by those who want to take over BP.

That is, until you realise that just as the denouncing of BP reaches fever pitch, and share prices reach rock bottom, American investors seem to fully understand the true value of BP, and are more than happy to snap up this government sponsored special offer on BP shares. One could even speculate that the US government was encouraged down the merry path of preaching the end of BP by these well connected and certainly very wealthy investors, but that would be pure speculation.

I stated some time back in this thread that BP would be an excellent investment option at the moment. I stand by that statement. But you probably want to get in before the relief well is finished and the complete seal is in place.