The Gulf Oil Spill in a Nutshell

Forums: Politics, Oil Spill, Gulf Oil Spill
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 26 • Views: 18,109 • Replies: 211

[+4] - Robert Gentel - 05/05/2010They will pay billions in the cleanup effort itself, they will pay billions in damages, and the US is trying to pass a law with retroactive effect to raise the direct damages they are liable for to...
[+3] - Robert Gentel - 05/05/2010Yes, but they do in Brazil and other countries with better regulation as well. I understand the basic conflict of interest, I'm saying that the American people should care about this more than they...
[+3] - eoe - 05/06/2010[quote="ebrown p"]This is a rather funny quote (considering compared to China and India... there is no poverty here).[/quote] Try telling that to the people right here who live on the...
[+3] - Robert Gentel - 05/06/2010I've been homeless and lived on the streets in America. I considered myself one of the luckiest men alive to have been born with the lottery ticket that is first-world citizenship even then and...
[+3] - Robert Gentel - 05/06/2010I've been that poor in America dys. You don't get poorer than I have been in America where I can't even prove I'm poor (a minor alone in the country and parents never filed for taxes) for any aid....
[+3] - dyslexia - 06/01/2010[quote]Surely popping off a nuke has to be considered an absolute last resort[/quote] seems to me (no expert on much of anything) we are at the last resort.
[+3] - djjd62 - 06/02/2010some more tweets from the twitter account BP loves to hate @BPGlobalPR Just got 100k followers and our oil is headed to Florida. You know what this means... WE'RE GOING TO DISNEYWORLD!...
[+3] - DrewDad - 06/03/2010I think that man-made disasters are man-made disasters, and comparing them to natural disasters is pointless. Next time someone burns down a building, we can just say "well, it's no worse...
[+3] - farmerman - 06/22/2010There is NO abionic oil. That is a rdeam state of a few fringey Luddites who dont know how the process is completed. The chemical processes and the polymerization of methane can make several long...

In my house if you spill something you clean it up. Making the oil company pay is the least that should happen. But for what and how should they pay ? How about restoring the wild life to its previous numbers ...

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

If we make the company responsible for paying damages, will they then be eligible for a bailout?

0 Replies

@Ionus,

They will pay billions in the cleanup effort itself, they will pay billions in damages, and the US is trying to pass a law with retroactive effect to raise the direct damages they are liable for to make it all happen.

I think this can easily cost them something like $10 billion. So I'm not too worried about them getting stuck for the bill, I'm pretty sure it will happen.

But more importantly why aren't Americans asking why they don't better regulate this off-shore drilling? Brazil requires remotely-controlled valves that can be shut off in exactly such a case but in the US oil companies are allowed to operate without such restrictions.

3 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

But more importantly why aren't Americans asking why they don't better regulate this off-shore drilling? Brazil requires remotely-controlled valves that can be shut off in exactly such a case but in the US oil companies are allowed to operate without such restrictions.

Probably because 'regulations are bad for business!' was the motto of the last administration, and the new one is constantly being attacked for proposing new ones.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

because "regulation" is the slippery slope to socialism. Drill baby drill.

0 Replies

Because the Oil Companies have tons of $$, great lobbyists, and no ethics.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Probably because 'regulations are bad for business!' was the motto of the last administration, and the new one is constantly being attacked for proposing new ones.

What's the connection to the last administration other than that you didn't like it?

1 Reply

@Mame,

Yes, but they do in Brazil and other countries with better regulation as well. I understand the basic conflict of interest, I'm saying that the American people should care about this more than they do just a black/white of drill or no drill.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Probably because 'regulations are bad for business!' was the motto of the last administration, and the new one is constantly being attacked for proposing new ones.

What's the connection to the last administration other than that you didn't like it?

The last admin was the one who decided that the very valves you mention were not, in fact, necessary, as at 500k each they were 'too big a burden' for the oil companies to shoulder.

It has nothing to do with my personal dislike for them, Robert.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

" major oilspill ? = " it'll never happen "

" another major oilspill ? " = " it'll never happen - case closed - let's move on "
......................................................................................................................

remember : if we want better protection against oilspills , it'll likely drive oil prices up ( perhaps a penny a gallon ? )
" gasoline is already expensive enough . who wants to see the price increased ?
please raise your hand ! no one ? o.k. - keep drilling ! " .

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The last admin was the one who decided that the very valves you mention were not, in fact, necessary, as at 500k each they were 'too big a burden' for the oil companies to shoulder.

It has nothing to do with my personal dislike for them, Robert.

I was under the impression that this happened long before the last administration, but I'll take your word for it.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The last admin was the one who decided that the very valves you mention were not, in fact, necessary, as at 500k each they were 'too big a burden' for the oil companies to shoulder.

It has nothing to do with my personal dislike for them, Robert.

I was under the impression that this happened long before the last administration, but I'll take your word for it.

As you may know, I always consider it appropriate to ask someone for their sources in online conversations. It's the only way to move forward with confidence.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html

Quote:

The oil well spewing crude into the Gulf of Mexico didn't have a remote-control shut-off switch used in two other major oil-producing nations as last-resort protection against underwater spills.

The lack of the device, called an acoustic switch, could amplify concerns over the environmental impact of offshore drilling after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig last week...

... regulators in two major oil-producing countries, Norway and Brazil, in effect require them. Norway has had acoustic triggers on almost every offshore rig since 1993.

The U.S. considered requiring a remote-controlled shut-off mechanism several years ago, but drilling companies questioned its cost and effectiveness, according to the agency overseeing offshore drilling. The agency, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, says it decided the remote device wasn't needed because rigs had other back-up plans to cut off a well.

The U.K., where BP is headquartered, doesn't require the use of acoustic triggers.

The Minerals Management service under Bush was one of the most incredibly corrupt departments ever - literally trading permits for sex and drugs. They are still being investigated by the current congress; and there is plenty of evidence that Cheney and other highly-ranked Bush admin officials were directly involved in telling them what to do, as part of the secret 'energy task force' that Cheney held in 2001 and 2002.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/sex-lies-and-oil-spills_b_564163.html

More info on Bush, Cheney & Co.'s involvement in present oil industry's drilling regulations.

0 Replies

"SEATTLE " Desperate Gulf Coast leaders are turning to the Pacific Northwest for help in battling the incoming oil spill. A pipeline of Northwest equipment and expertise is already flowing south."

"This area has spent millions of dollars on equipment and training to become the most oil spill-ready region in the country, and has already begun sending tools and people to the Gulf."

http://www.nwcn.com/news/washington/Northwest-sending-oil-spill-resources-to-Gulf-92727884.html

Hoping people will learn from this disaster and do what it takes to not let it happen again.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Absolutely they should care more but until your politicians get some teeth, cojones or a conscience, I don't see too much changing. This isn't any different than North American companies farming out their manufacturing to Chinese, Indian, etc companies to save a lot of $$ then acting surprised and outraged when inferior products (baby formula, lead-painted toys, sulphur-infested drywall) are sent back. It's all about the almight $.

1 Reply

@hamburgboy,

I suspect you are exactly right on the actual cost of gasoline at the pump.

I've never been involved in actual drilling operations, to say nothing of offshore operations, but I do have some familiarity with workover operations on the little oil and gas wells in this area. The blowout preventer is installed before work commences. It is removed when the job is complete. If the same procedure is followed in offshore drilling, the BOP is not an expense to an individual well.

I'm wondering about the incident, though. At one time, I read that the blowout was supposed to have been caused by poor cement, or poor cementing technique. If this is the case, I doubt any design of BOP would have helped. BOP has some control of what happens inside the casing. If the blowout is around the outside of the casing, but inside the well bore there is a different kind of problem. I am not at all sure which is the actual situation.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

I think oil companies would have more access to places if they could convince the people of their high safety standards . They always seem to be playing catch-up. Exxon Valdez, Piper, now this...one lesson at a time at the expense of the environment and their credibilty. And these lessons dont come cheap.

0 Replies

@Mame,

Mame wrote:

Absolutely they should care more but until your politicians get some teeth, cojones or a conscience, I don't see too much changing. This isn't any different than North American companies farming out their manufacturing to Chinese, Indian, etc companies to save a lot of $$ then acting surprised and outraged when inferior products (baby formula, lead-painted toys, sulphur-infested drywall) are sent back. It's all about the almight $.

Taking that another step Mame, this isn't any different than North American companies farming out their manufacturing to Chinese, Indian, etc companies to save a lot of $$ then acting surprised and outraged when there is so much poverty and joblessness here. When so many people are in need of government assistance because blue color jobs requiring nothing more than a determination to work and pull one's own weight are no longer available here. It's all about the almighty dollar alright. Money (and greed) truly is the root of all evil.

2 Replies

@eoe,

I think companies employing people overseas is a good thing. The jobs go to people who need it a lot more than Americans (who for the most part simply don't know what "poverty" means) which is why they are willing to do it for less and I hope to see more and more of it as globalization marches on. It's lifting people out of real poverty.

0 Replies

The Gulf Oil Spill in a Nutshell

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know