Oil Spill

[DeletedUser20269]

.

 

[DeletedUser]

Great to see you're back

Anyway, the reasons might include the fact that right now, there's a lot more finger pointing going on than problem solving (looking at you, Obama h34r . It just seems that nobody wants to focus on plugging the d@mn hole. Now that I think about it, it might be because of Haiti. Maybe we're still occupied with that, and have the new disaster on a back burner. That's just speculation, of course.

 

[DeletedUser]

What gets me is that the people who work with ocean industries in my area are going to get hit hard, and BP, who have claimed that they would pay those claims, have paid less than half of those claims that they promised to those who are affected by the spill.

Here is some statistics from http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/07/bp-payout-claims/.

– As of May 29, only $22.5 million had been paid on 6,997 claims; 51 percent remain pending, at least one for as long as 33 days. The majority of paid claims are property damage.

– Only one of 118 bodily injury claims has been paid.

– Of $9.1 million in claims for loss of income in Louisiana, 54 percent were pending as of May 29. Of 7,469 claims filed by individuals and businesses for loss of income, BP has paid just 3,438 claims.

– Of 37 claims categories ranging from loss of income for shrimpers, crabbers, oyster processors and fishermen to loss of rental property income and damage to animals and property, 26 categories have 70 percent or more of unpaid claims. For commercial loss of income, 57 percent of claims are unpaid.

– Less than 25 percent of business interruption claims have been paid.

Its just a huge mess down where I live in Mississippi. The air reeks of oil, shirimpers and fishermen are losing their jobs, beaches are being closed down, and we just don't know whats going to happen next.

 

[DeletedUser]

So where are all the "Save the Gulf" concerts?
Where are the TV benefits with celebrities and musicians giving heart felt speeches on the poor fishermen, wildlife, beaches, loss of income and sabotaged gulf economy? I find it rather strange how these people (including our own ...government) are so quick to help Haiti and
other countries, yet sit on their A$$e$$ for this one!

Perhaps the Stars haven't showed up because of a lack of "Cute" oil slicked otters to parade across our TV screens.
Showing them holding up some Sick and dying Pelicans or shrimp just doesn't cut it as a photo op.

Other than some globs floating below the surface everything looks 'normal'. The old 'If it bleeds it leads' press attitude prevails.
The Gulf has no masses of rubble, or screaming half dead people running around, like in Haiti.

The Press has chosen to "Televise" the Politics, play the 'Blame Game' because the images of the gulf just aren't that 'visually' shocking.
The blame game gets a bigger audience. even though on a whole it is just as big a disaster!

Who are we to blame for that?

 

[DeletedUser]

, there's a lot more finger pointing going on than problem solving (looking at you, Obama h34r .

Exactly how could be be Obama's fault??? If anything it is entirely BP fault, it is there oil well after all, and quite frankly they have the moral obligation to clear it up, at what ever cost. When a oil tanker leaks oil, it causes a major ecological disaster, and I feel this disasters consequences have been down played, does anyone know how much oil could possibly spew from this well?? From what I am aware they are only capturing 10'000 barrels of oil a day and that is only a small proportion of what is coming out of the hole.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, we thought we could drive our Hummers and fly, fly, fly and have a/c all summer and c/h all winter and that it would never, ever come back and bite us in the ass.

Well, guess what?

I reckon we've been lucky so far, with only a few Exxon Valdez's and Torrey Canyon's as warning shots across the bows. This was an accident waiting to happen. And before blaming Obama, who's been in office nary half a year, think about the 2 big-oil enthusiasts called Bush who put the US into hock with the oil companies for 16 glorious years - deregulating, calling open season on Alaska and turning a blind eye to good practice. Oh yeah, them.

 

[DeletedUser]

Exactly how could be be Obama's fault???

The disaster itself is not Obama's fault. Where Obama is screwing up is putting off addressing the problem and doing little to solve it. Perhaps it should be BP's responsibility to plug the hole, but they're gonna need help, and lots of it, to fix the environmental damage.

 

[DeletedUser]

And before blaming Obama, who's been in office nary half a year,

Thats funny, I thought that he was sworn into office in 2009?

And yes, you could put some blame on him. Like how he was in California campaigning for Blanche Lincoln's senate primary instead of trying to do better with adressing the oil spill.

You can blame Bush and oil companies all you want, but this is his responsability now as president. He seems to be doing very little other than blaming BP.

 

[DeletedUser]

And yes, you could put some blame on him. Like how he was in California campaigning for Blanche Lincoln's senate primary instead of trying to do better with adressing the oil spill.

You don't know the half of it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Blame:

1. Bush Administration for allowing the drilling in the first place, without verifying the claims of "proven" stop gaps.
2. Louisiana administration for allowing the drilling off their coast.
3. BP for mishandling the fire and causing the rig to collapse due to all the water, making it top-heavy and collapsing, which resulted in the pipe itself collapsing and leaking from three different places.
4. BP for not ensuring the stop gaps actually worked.
5. BP for cutting back on staff and reducing safety measures, resulting in this incident.
6. BP for lieing to the Coast Guard and the U.S. government about the severity of the problem once it began.
7. BP for continuing to downplaying the severity of the problem.
8. BP for failing to make a larger effort to resolve the problem, and skimping on clean up efforts.
9. Obama administration for not sending half or more of the U.S. Navy to assist in the clean up efforts, which of course BP would be responsible for paying, but won't, so we'll end up paying for it.

It is not reasonable to assume the government can do a better job of resolving the leak, simply because they don't have the ability to do so. But they have provided plenty of experts to advise BP in resolving this, for which BP has been largely unsuccessful. The clean up part is where I feel the Obama administration needs to work harder at, sending more hands to manage the issue. However, the scale of this problem is being hardshiped by the lack of supplies, not the lack of manpower. They just don't have enough prepared equipment to soak up this amount of oil, and thus there is a dependency on production. That's where the bottleneck is, not the Obama administration.

Pointing at what Obama is doing elsewhere is a crap tactic of trying to act like he's not doing anything, when he has. Do you actually think he's supposed to go there, park a tent, and soak up the oil himself? If you knew anything about leadership, it's about giving orders and getting others to do the work, not doing it yourself. Exactly how do you think Obama is supposed to do this? Exactly what do you think he hasn't done that he should do? And more, what do you think he should do about all the other things he's responsible for while this is happening? Put the world on hold as he pulls out a shovel and digs up tar balls from the beaches?

It is typical mudslinging and blame gaming to try and point at Obama as the one at fault here, or for making this problem so big. He had nothing to do with any of it, but Republicans are sure quick to blame him, aren't they? Exactly what has the Louisiana, Texas, and Florida Republican Governors done about their beaches? Exactly, nothing. Why? Because they don't believe BP will pay them back.

And that's the real problem here, BP. They created the problem, their so-called "proven" techniques to fix the problem have been "proven" to have been a lie, and their efforts to resolve this issue have been substandard at best. But there's the thing. The U.S. government can't do much more than they already have been doing. BP is likely not going to pay the U.S. Government back for all the expenses the U.S. has put forth to resolve this, so it's coming out of our pockets. And you can be sure that BP will raise their gas prices to cover the expense of all this, bringing the whole cost, every bit of it, to us, the consumers.

This is definitely a horrible scene, but if you care to look at some of my other posts in this forum, you'll see I was raging against all these "drill, baby, drill" idiotic arguments posed here by anti-Obama advocates, precisely about the potential catastrophic effects of drilling offshore. And now that it's demonstrated just how foolish such ventures are, you guys think to blame Obama?!?!

Talk about crap pan, tar ball tactics. The only mistake he made was to actually reconsider his initial stance against offshore drilling. Now, of course, he'll return to his original stance, the logical one, which is to ban it outright. Stupid GOP and their greed factor. That's what is destroying this country, not the present administration. From the GOP's efforts to allow drilling in government protected forests, to allowing drilling offshore, to removing safety measures, regulations, and inspections, you're coming around and trying to blame Obama because BP has turned out to have taken advantage of the GOP's hospitality.

This is a problem that needs to be, and is being, addressed, but it's not a simple fix and anyone who thinks Obama could do a better job of fixing this issue is grossly misinformed.

 

[DeletedUser]

Blame:

1. Bush Administration for allowing the drilling in the first place, without verifying the claims of "proven" stop gaps.
2. Louisiana administration for allowing the drilling off their coast.
3. BP for mishandling the fire and causing the rig to collapse due to all the water, making it top-heavy and collapsing, which resulted in the pipe itself collapsing and leaking from three different places.
4. BP for not ensuring the stop gaps actually worked.
5. BP for cutting back on staff and reducing safety measures, resulting in this incident.
6. BP for lieing to the Coast Guard and the U.S. government about the severity of the problem once it began.
7. BP for continuing to downplaying the severity of the problem.
8. BP for failing to make a larger effort to resolve the problem, and skimping on clean up efforts.
9. Obama administration for not sending half or more of the U.S. Navy to assist in the clean up efforts, which of course BP would be responsible for paying, but won't, so we'll end up paying for it.

I agree with all those points.

It is not reasonable to assume the government can do a better job of resolving the leak, simply because they don't have the ability to do so. But they have provided plenty of experts to advise BP in resolving this, for which BP has been largely unsuccessful. The clean up part is where I feel the Obama administration needs to work harder at, sending more hands to manage the issue. However, the scale of this problem is being hardshiped by the lack of supplies, not the lack of manpower. They just don't have enough prepared equipment to soak up this amount of oil, and thus there is a dependency on production. That's where the bottleneck is, not the Obama administration.

Then why didn't the government spend our tax dollars on the technology to build up better equipment in the first place? And Im not talking about just the Obama administration doing that, I'm talking about the Bush administration, and the Clinton, etc. all the way from when we first had a major oil spill catastrophe in 1989. You would think that we would of been more better off since then, but it seems that we have hardly jumped the gap.

Pointing at what Obama is doing elsewhere is a crap tactic of trying to act like he's not doing anything, when he has. Do you actually think he's supposed to go there, park a tent, and soak up the oil himself? If you knew anything about leadership, it's about giving orders and getting others to do the work, not doing it yourself. Exactly how do you think Obama is supposed to do this? Exactly what do you think he hasn't done that he should do? And more, what do you think he should do about all the other things he's responsible for while this is happening? Put the world on hold as he pulls out a shovel and digs up tar balls from the beaches?

I don't think he should go there, but work on the problem. Working on the problem doesn't mean flying there, it means actually finding out how to stop it and getting the government involved to its fullest as fast as you can to go and fix the problem, instead of relying on an oil company. You ask what he was supposed to do, I say he should do what you yourself state in your own points at number 9. Send in more of the navy to help. Thats how he can use the leadership that you know about more than me and give out orders.

It is typical mudslinging and blame gaming to try and point at Obama as the one at fault here, or for making this problem so big. He had nothing to do with any of it, but Republicans are sure quick to blame him, aren't they? Exactly what has the Louisiana, Texas, and Florida Republican Governors done about their beaches? Exactly, nothing. Why? Because they don't believe BP will pay them back.

Liberals were quick to blame Bush after Katrina didn't they? I see no differance here from Liberals and Republicans here, Obama didn't cause the oil spill and Bush didn't cause the hurricane, yet both get blamed and slandered.

And that's the real problem here, BP. They created the problem, their so-called "proven" techniques to fix the problem have been "proven" to have been a lie, and their efforts to resolve this issue have been substandard at best. But there's the thing. The U.S. government can't do much more than they already have been doing. BP is likely not going to pay the U.S. Government back for all the expenses the U.S. has put forth to resolve this, so it's coming out of our pockets. And you can be sure that BP will raise their gas prices to cover the expense of all this, bringing the whole cost, every bit of it, to us, the consumers.

BP should of done better to prevent this and to stop this. I agree that most of their promises are most likely going to turn out to be broken and the people that are going to pay for it the most are us.

This is definitely a horrible scene, but if you care to look at some of my other posts in this forum, you'll see I was raging against all these "drill, baby, drill" idiotic arguments posed here by anti-Obama advocates, precisely about the potential catastrophic effects of drilling offshore. And now that it's demonstrated just how foolish such ventures are, you guys think to blame Obama?!?!

So are we supposed to stop drilling and rely more on foriegn oil to run our cars? I think that we need the oil thats being drilled offshore badly, but first we need to upgrade the safety and technology on these drills to the best of our abilites so that something like this never happens again. Better safe than sorry.

Talk about crap pan, tar ball tactics. The only mistake he made was to actually reconsider his initial stance against offshore drilling. Now, of course, he'll return to his original stance, the logical one, which is to ban it outright. Stupid GOP and their greed factor. That's what is destroying this country, not the present administration. From the GOP's efforts to allow drilling in government protected forests, to allowing drilling offshore, to removing safety measures, regulations, and inspections, you're coming around and trying to blame Obama because BP has turned out to have taken advantage of the GOP's hospitality.

This is a problem that needs to be, and is being, addressed, but it's not a simple fix and anyone who thinks Obama could do a better job of fixing this issue is grossly misinformed.

So now the GOP are a bunch of forest burning, enviorment killing, oil lovers? That sounds much more like big oil companies and their owners, not republicans, not democrats, not liberals, and not conservatives, but the big oil companies that are more greedier than most all of those groups. I will say that the GOP should of done better on the oil safety regulations and that it making them more loose turuned out to be a very bad decision.

Although I do think that Obama has been doing better lately, like directing that no new offshore oil drilling leases be issued unless rigs have new safeguards to prevent a repeat of this mess, but he does have a problem with following things through. Lets see if he proves me wrong.

 

[DeletedUser]

Then why didn't the government spend our tax dollars on the technology to build up better equipment in the first place?

Because previous administrations (particularly the Bush Administration) believed the lies presented by companies like BP that they already had "proven" technology in place.

Liberals were quick to blame Bush after Katrina didn't they? I see no differance here from Liberals and Republicans here, Obama didn't cause the oil spill and Bush didn't cause the hurricane, yet both get blamed and slandered.

Here's just one reason why Bush IS to blame for Katrina --- http://www.factcheck.org/article344.html

Basically, he cut funding, for building up the levees, by 80%, preventing the U.S. Army corp of engineers from building up the levees to prevent the flood in the first place. Why? So he can pay for his war in Iraq.

And after it happened? Was Bush still to blame? Yes, of course. Plenty of evidence in support of how poor a response he provided on the issue, which was fully the responsibility of the U.S. and Louisiana governments and not, as in this case, a corporation's responsibility.

So are we supposed to stop drilling and rely more on foriegn oil to run our cars? I think that we need the oil thats being drilled offshore badly, but first we need to upgrade the safety and technology on these drills to the best of our abilites so that something like this never happens again. Better safe than sorry.

Lets face it, even if we tapped all the oil in United States, in all available locations, it would last only 6 more years. United States is already full-up on extricating oil and no matter how you want to cut it, the situation requires us to rely on Mexico or Canada as our next best options for obtaining oil (now you know one of the main reasons why the U.S. government is making so many deals with these two countries, who have far greater oil reserves than the U.S.). Endangering all other economic resources (fishing, tourism, etc) to pull in one more year of oil is just not reasonable, and thus the need for us to make a hurried transition away from our dependency on oil.

So now the GOP are a bunch of forest burning, enviorment killing, oil lovers?

Umm, yes. The GOP's track record on all these issues is self-evident.

Although I do think that Obama has been doing better lately, like directing that no new offshore oil drilling leases be issued unless rigs have new safeguards to prevent a repeat of this mess, but he does have a problem with following things through. Lets see if he proves me wrong.

Gee, I wonder why:

 

[Deleted User - 1278415]

What always gets me is that the news says it will be months before it will be cleaned up

Well the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska happened in 89. I checked and the fact of the matter is they are still turning over rocks and finding oil on the shores. and it has been 2 decades now since that disaster and they are still cleaning up.

You ask where are the Save the Gulf concerts.. why wasnt there one for Alaska oh so many years ago. Alaska oil spill has been the bench mark for many years... and now it will be forgotten due to the Gulf Oil spill of Deep horizon.

The only postive that may come out of this is that like the residents of Alaska people of Texas, Louisanna, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida might start getting $$$ checks or IRS breaks for living in those states like the citzens of Alaska got/get just for living in the damaged by oil state. Makes me want to consider moving to one of those states to get a $$$ check from BP after the govt lawsuits get paid.

 

[DeletedUser]

So now the GOP are a bunch of forest burning, enviorment killing, oil lovers? That sounds much more like big oil companies and their owners, not republicans, not democrats, not liberals, and not conservatives, but the big oil companies that are more greedier than most all of those groups.

How do those big oil company leaders vote?

 

[DeletedUser]

BP price hasn't gone down either. You would think it might because the decrease of popularity.

 

[DeletedUser]

These oil companies have no business drilling in the ocean at these depths because they don't know how to work at these depths.They are learning and experimenting as they go.The main problem is the extreme environment particularly the technical challenge of overcoming the incredible pressures.

If you think about it by the time this is over the damage to the regional economies (tourism/fishing/compensation/liability ect..) will be in the tens of billions of dollars if not 100's,countless ruined lives,unknown health issues ect..

All of this essentially because they don't know how to plug a pipe.
The sad part is there are regions of the world that have environmental disaster worse than this that hardly even draw a headline.Perhaps the best example of this if the Niger delta in Nigeria Africa that pollute the land and the people to a degree far greater than the catastrophe of the US gulf.

The scary part of this is that we still have relatively plenty of oil in the world.what do you think will happen when eventually there will be huge shortages of oil on a massive scale before the world has an alternative energy plan? these disaster the scale of the gulf will become normal and just be the "cost of doing business" .

On topic:Celebrities are in shock just like everyone else,and the drama is still unfolding also the catastrophe been at sea mostly and people are just starting to really see the impact.

There has been some celebrities taking actions though and getting involved like Kevin Costner/Victoria principal just to name a couple.Also there was some sort of a concert on may 16th in New Orlean ect..

More here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/06/03/celebrities.oil.spill/index.html

 

[DeletedUser]

Thats funny, I thought that he was sworn into office in 2009?

And yes, you could put some blame on him. Like how he was in California campaigning for Blanche Lincoln's senate primary instead of trying to do better with adressing the oil spill.

You can blame Bush and oil companies all you want, but this is his responsability now as president. He seems to be doing very little other than blaming BP.

Well, I'll be danged - I lost a year somewhere. Musta been playing this stupid game too much.

Let's deal with reality. You're saying the pres shouldn't be glad-handing for the party that put him into office on top of his other responsibilities? Well, it's a nice idea but it's never gonna happen - for either party, for any president - as long as the political system works as it does now.

What else could he be doing? He can't fix the leak - that's best left to BP anyway. Why carry the can for them? He can either throw tax money at the problem or let BP bear the cost. Sure, there'll be a haggle at the restaurant when the bill arrives, but we won't know how he did till it does.

Maybe he should have embargoed deep-water drilling - but the howls of pain and betrayal from the oil/business lobby would have been MUCH worse than anything he's copping now - and with no proven benefit.

Why does BP not have insurance cover? Because the risks were far too great for anyone to provide it. Given that, it should never have been allowed in the first place. When it was allowed, it should never have been allowed to continue. I blame every administration since this practice started and every voter who didn't register a complaint about it. That's you and me buddy - we're just paying the price of our OWN stupidity, shortsightedness and selfish behaviour.

Still, it feels better to blame someone else, doesn't it?

 

[DeletedUser]

What always gets me is that the news says it will be months before it will be cleaned up

Well the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska happened in 89. I checked and the fact of the matter is they are still turning over rocks and finding oil on the shores. and it has been 2 decades now since that disaster and they are still cleaning up.

You ask where are the Save the Gulf concerts.. why wasnt there one for Alaska oh so many years ago. Alaska oil spill has been the bench mark for many years... and now it will be forgotten due to the Gulf Oil spill of Deep horizon.

The 'Exxon Valdez' occurred in polar latitudes... the degradation of oil by micro-organisms is much slower in such a climate - because the temperature inhibits the action of enzymes. So, it is no surprise that oil is found under rocks near the site of the 'Exxon Valdez' disaster two decades later.

If BP, or it's contractors (who, incidentally are responsible for the accident in the first place), undertake a clean-up operation, then there will be an environmental disaster. The usual practice for cleaning beaches after a small slick is to use high pressure steam washers filled with detergent. This can often be far more damaging to the biota on a beach than the oil itself - if the steam doesn't cook it, then the detergents are bound to kill. (for more information - Whitfield, (2003), How to Clean a Beach, Nature, 422, 464- 466). The main reason you would clean a beach is to prevent it affecting seabird and sea mammal populations - or for amenity value.

As for this oil spill being the worst environmental disaster that the USA has ever had to face... that is complete rubbish! The worst environmental disaster in the USA is entirely man-made and it will continue to be a severe problem for many thousands of years - it is know as the Hanford Site, and it was where the US processed nuclear material to provide plutonium for their nuclear arsenal. In fact, any of the 'Superfund' sites pose far more concern to the environment than this oil spill.

Yes, this spill is a terrible thing to happen, but finger pointing and incrimination, such as being conducted by everyone, can only get you so far. Many people in the affected area will find that their livelihoods are damaged by this. However, the environment itself is surprisingly robust when it comes to this sort of thing. Do not think this is the first time that a slick of oil has ever washed up on the shore... I'm certain that geological events have triggered such occurrences in the past!

I'm not trying to talk down this disaster, but it is important to retain a sense of realism. This disaster will affect several thousands of people directly, and a lot more via the complex system of economics that surround the oil industry (British Pensioners have their National Pensions invested heavily in BP). But, it is nothing like the scale of the devastation that occurred in Haiti, where over a million people were affected and they lost everything - not just their income for a few seasons...

If you want any more information, just ask - my name isn't green for nothing!

GreenMeany

 

[DeletedUser]

:dry:, very one sided. Sadly i dont have the time to write up a counter argument (though its floating round in my head) so first i suppose ill have to finish reading the massive amounts written already and then well see.

A REAL DEBATE - coming soon.

(looking at you, Obama h34r

Is that meant to be a black man!

 

[DeletedUser]

It's ironic that when a US company destroys the environment and lives in poorer countries (such as Union Carbide in Bhopal) they seem to nickel and dime on picking up the bill, but when it happens in their own backyard they are (or pretend to be) outraged and think that full compensation is due.

I think BP SHOULD pay, and the regulators should pay, and the US company that made the faulty fail-safe device should pay and there should be an extra penny of tax on every litre of petrol to pay for the mess and mistakes that are inevitable in the future.

In the language of economics, all the external costs should be internalised in the price of the product. Just imagine the furor that would create.