5
   

Joe Barton, Republican asshole of the day

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 05:41 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Even more so, you seem to have this idea that the government was primarily responsible for safety and for following established drilling procedures on BP's rig. They most certainly are not, any more so than State governments are responsible for keeping your brakes on your car in good working order.


Yeah the parts that were used, are required by law to be inspected by government officials monthly. They passed inspection, so why would BP be held responsible if the parts were defective? Shouldn't the inspectors have determined if the parts were defective or capable of handling operating depths?

Congress passed the issuance cap for BP it was prior to them even starting drilling. It is congresses fault for passing the insurance cap.


Congress never passed an 'insurance cap' for BP. You are incorrect about that.

What more, as I wrote above, it was dangerous and sloppy decisions on BP's part as much as faulty safety equipment which caused the problem. Surely you do not suggest the gov't is responsible for that?

I find your entire line of argument to be completely and totally without merit. Regulators are by definition backup safety officers. They cannot be present constantly. The primary responsibility always has and always will reside upon the owner of the property.

Your post is an excellent example of the perils of commenting upon a complex situation about which you have not done any actual research.

Cycloptichorn
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 06:44 pm
From this webiste, it looks like Joe is apologizing for a whole list of historical travesties committed by the government. It's amazing how fast this stuff can be posted. Smile
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 06:50 pm
@engineer,
Ha! That's good stuff.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 08:25 pm
@engineer,
......to Warren Jeffs for breaking up his family.

(my favorite from that website)
0 Replies
 
Always Eleven to him
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 09:10 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
How about the fact that congress capped the insurance cost for BP to 70 million? Hmm, why would congress cap the insurance that BP would have to pay for potential disaster? Congress went a long with it, passed the resolution and BP didn't have to pay more than 70 million for insurance.


Quote:
Yeah the parts that were used, are required by law to be inspected by government officials monthly.


What is your authority (proof) for these statements?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 09:32 pm
@Always Eleven to him,
BP, like most really big industries, is self insured. AN insurance company would never write an EIL (Environmental Impairment Liability) policy with a never ending tail for a big oil company. Now maybe the drilling companies that owned the rig, they probably bought someAnd paid through the nose and had a HUUUUGE deductible on any claim)
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 03:39 am
To krumple
parts used by industries are inspected by government inspectors?????

When did America turn communists?.......
Which law gives that authority?

The enquiry is on, and who has blamed the parts.......... BP??????????

I heard there was a blast.
If i run over a man, my driving instructor and license inpector should be hanged, and than my car parts are to be blamed too. Smile)
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 04:03 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades phil wrote:

To krumple
parts used by industries are inspected by government inspectors?????

When did America turn communists?.......
Which law gives that authority?

The enquiry is on, and who has blamed the parts.......... BP??????????

I heard there was a blast.
If i run over a man, my driving instructor and license inpector should be hanged, and than my car parts are to be blamed too. Smile)



You all have bought into the governments spin to place BP as sole cause for the disaster. You guys don't care to understand any of the details that actually place the government in the process of why the failure took place.

BP was not even responsible for the manufacturing of the parts that were used. A company called Transocean Ltd. is the company behind the design and construction of the parts that failed. Not only that but before the parts are even shipped out to the Gulf to be used on BPs rig, must past a through test and be certified by governmental officials before they can even be used on any operation.

The second issue is that BP was forced into deeper waters because the government would not allow them to drill in shallower water. However when BP determined their drilling sites they had to go through a system of checks set up by the government to determine if the equipment was safe to use. The government officials gave BP the go ahead to use the equipment that was certified to work at those depths.

The third failure is that even before BP set up any equipment, congress and BP were in the works for determining oil spill disaster plans and how much money BP must put up front in case of a disaster. Congress decided that BP only needed to pay a 70 million dollar insurance premium and capped it at that while BP was currently in drilling operation. Congress could have easily placed a much higher cap or no cap at all or required that BP pay much more but this was a failure on the side of Congress to determine how much it would cost if there was a failure.

Yet BP gets blamed for the disaster when it was not their parts. It was not BP who set the insurance cap and it was not BPs plan to do deep water drilling.

farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 05:24 am
@Krumple,
Heres why youre wrong about a case of "depraved indifference" , when the government should be branded merely as "Incompetent"

Quote:
BP was not even responsible for the manufacturing of the parts that were used. A company called Transocean Ltd. is the company behind the design and construction of the parts that failed.
If your specific comment refers to blow out protection, these same mechanical BOP devices had shown similar problems to not engage elsewhere(in shallow water, so why did the contractors choose to install them as a "redundant system of failure prone BOP devices"?. The govt sets "minimum" standards of performance for evverything. When an article or device achieves the required ASTM or other standard of performance there is no reason to disapprove.The use of redundant BOP's was a decision agreed to by all the parties, BP wasnt "surprised" at the outcome. They allowed it without any question, as did the other partners.

Quote:
The second issue is that BP was forced into deeper waters because the government would not allow them to drill in shallower water.
The USGS does a compilation of the data thats provided them by the oil companies (who actually do the seismic research and modelling) Then the US govt DOI will "auction off" the leases to these plots of bottom . BP was the successful bidder for this tract. Noone was "holding them hostage" to drill in this area of the canyons.
There are already about 4000 rigs in the immediate shelf and reservoir zone. Only this one blew out to the extent that it couldnt be controlled>( Imsure that there were other blow outs that were successfully handled)


Quote:
The third failure is that even before BP set up any equipment, congress and BP were in the works for determining oil spill disaster plans and how much money BP must put up front in case of a disaster. Congress decided that BP only needed to pay a 70 million dollar insurance premium and capped it at that while BP was currently in drilling operation.

Since BP is basically "self insured" this requirement is meaningless. We should merely require a letter of credit and a pledge from the industry that they will do what is needed. Anyway, after the fact-Why did BP quickly agree to the 20 BILLION dollar escrow account?

I think the real problem was the waiving of the requirement for the environmental impact statement because the lease hold requirements require an EIS within 30 days of closure. This feat is virtually impossible as anyone in the environmental engineering industry will tell you. This merely led to a "compromise" that was heavily lobbied by the oil companies and was agreed to by congress. Its an example of how the NESHA requirements are trashed by certain industries including mining and oil exploration.

Your analysis sounds like a bakery shop that bakes a loaf of poison bread and then pleads a defense that the Health Department "Didnt disallow it"

There is plenty of blame to go around and the govts "watchdog" resposnibility is an area that the GOP has been trying to dismantle ever since Reagan. What weve got now is a series of agencies that are historically "friendly" to the very industry they regulate. These conditions must be changed in this administration . Deregualtion as a theory of operation wont ever work because industries simply cannot be trusted to act responsibly. To put the steering wheel of this particular event into the hands of the licensing agencies is naive. While the govt has many quetions to be answered, BP (and its "low bid" contractors was the driver.
I see that ANadarko Ltd (a 25% partner in the well) is trying to legally back off their share of reparations by blaming BP with outright fraud and "depraved indifference".
This is turning to a political opportunity by both sides of the aisle.

As long as BP keeps its money pledges coming and without a cap (as the GOP wants) we may get out of this and develop some new technology as a collateral effect.
Nw that we know that this could happen again and again (The last one in the bay of Campeche wa dismissed as a"one time occurence by a third world outfit named PEMEX". Well here we had many "1st world experts" all standing around with thweir thumbs up their ani and we have finally learned the dark secret of ALL offshore derilling (its fraught with dangers and environmental consequences).
WQe are reaping the crop that was sewn in the age of deregulation, and until oversight actually means something this may not be a single event.

Jackofalltrades phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 12:50 pm
@Krumple,

Are you from the Donald Rumsfeld school of thought.
Krumple, its been a few days since BP agreed to a $20 billion fund. I suspect, you are a spin doctor far less excellent,.........

Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 12:55 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades phil wrote:


Are you from the Donald Rumsfeld school of thought.
Krumple, its been a few days since BP agreed to a $20 billion fund. I suspect, you are a spin doctor far less excellent,.........


Almost immediately after the spill BP claimed responsibility for the disaster so what are you even talking about? That is not the point though, and the government is definitely trying to make sure that BP takes the fall completely even though it is actually the cause behind the disaster. Just like the rest you have been duped by the show.

I'll leave it at this. I'm going to make a prediction but it will take a while before it can be proven. After Obama leaves office probably and he gets into writing a book about his experience, or some books that follow his presidency, either one. It will have a chapter or two about this disaster and I have a feeling it will reveal details that are not currently being discussed. Since he will be out of office, he will use this opportunity to clear the air. I bet you a billion dollars that he will say that even though BP took the fall for the disaster that it should not actually been blamed for it. This will be his way of trying to clear the air, but no one will care by then so he won't have any problem admitting it. The reason I know this will happen, is because just about every presidency that ends and books follow, there are these clearing the air aspects. Perhaps a way to clear their conscious. But I guess we will have to wait and see.
Jackofalltrades phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 11:01 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Almost immediately after the spill BP claimed responsibility for the disaster so what are you even talking about? That is not the point though, and the government is definitely trying to make sure that BP takes the fall completely even though it is actually the cause behind the disaster. Just like the rest you have been duped by the show.


If so, the chapter is closed. All we are trying to impress upon is that ones a company takes up a job (with all parts and machines) they are primarily responsible to whatever happens in operation. If the oil seal or the O-ring leaks on the Columbia's flight, the responsibility lies on NASA primarily although one can find fault at any pointsman in the assembly line, including the governement for clearing the take off. So let go this specious argument.

Krumple wrote:
I'll leave it at this. I'm going to make a prediction but it will take a while before it can be proven. After Obama leaves office probably and he gets into writing a book about his experience, or some books that follow his presidency, either one. It will have a chapter or two about this disaster and I have a feeling it will reveal details that are not currently being discussed. Since he will be out of office, he will use this opportunity to clear the air. I bet you a billion dollars that he will say that even though BP took the fall for the disaster that it should not actually been blamed for it. This will be his way of trying to clear the air, but no one will care by then so he won't have any problem admitting it. The reason I know this will happen, is because just about every presidency that ends and books follow, there are these clearing the air aspects. Perhaps a way to clear their conscious. But I guess we will have to wait and see.


of course, it seems you are privy to information which is not in public domain........ and you may end up being correct. So no more on this.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 11:47 pm
@farmerman,
After listening to Kenneth Abbott's testimony last week, I'm thinking he'd be a great candidate to work in the MMS as some kind of internal auditor of the MMS and their enforcement of regulation standards for the petroleum industry.

He's got the knowledge, the administrative skills and the motives to do it well. It could be an oil industry version of the "no child (oil rig) left behind" program.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 06:41 pm
@kickycan,
Give me one reason why I should care about Repugs from Texas! Just one.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 06:45 pm
@edgarblythe,
It's also why so many Republicans are eerily silent. They've ALL taken money
and trying to keep THAT quiet too, until Numb-Nuts Barton opened that trap of his!
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 07:56 am
I don't know too much about the US government and its responsibilities for ensuring the safety standards towards a British company. However, the fact is that BP was aware of safety problems ahead of the oil spill and kind of carelessly disregarded the safety issues.

Quote:
.46pm: Diana DeGette, a Democrat, draws a bit of blood by highlighting an email in which a BP engineer responded to concerns about the design of the Macondo well by glibly remarking: "Who cares, it's done, end of story, it will probably be fine."

Hayward says: "I think that email is a cause for concern. I'd like to understand the context it was sent. As I've said before, if there's any action that people put cost ahead of safety, we will take action."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/andrew-clark-on-america/2010/jun/17/bp-tony-hayward-congress-live-blog
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 08:28 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Congress never passed an 'insurance cap' for BP. You are incorrect about that.


I'm not sure why I even dignify you by responding to you.

In the 1990 Oil Pollution Act, Congress capped the economic damages oil companies must pay for spills at $75 million in an effort to help them compete internationally. Without the cap, U.S. oil companies said their insurance and safety equipment costs would be so high that most of them could not drill for oil.

As a result, the United States would need to depend more heavily on imported oil from foreign producers in the Middle East and elsewhere.
BP Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward has said his company would pay for all “legitimate” damage claims, even if they exceed the current $75 million cap.

The bill to remove the caps would have raised the liability from $75 million to $10 billion when it was introduced late last month. Since then, members of Congress revised the bill with encouragement from the White House to eliminate all caps.

However; the bill would remove the caps for all oil companies, not just BP. A wrong policy move “could set back this nation’s energy future for decades,” said Sen. James Inhofe.

Oh sorry I keep going on and on about a 75 million dollar cap, that didn't exist. I guess I just made the whole thing up and keep making things up as I go. Like the things congress says.


old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 09:09 am
@Krumple,
Probably relevant to the discussion:

Quote:
Is BP protected by the $75 million dollar liability cap set by the OPA?

There was a recent article written by Roger Parloff of Forbes that offers a lot of information about if BP is protected by the $75 million dollar cap on damages that was created by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, also known as OPA. The OPA was passed in 1990 and it states that the company responsible for the accident is limited to $75 million in economic lawsuit damages with several very large exceptions. One of those exceptions is if the company or any of its contractors acted with gross negligence or violated any federal or state safety law or regulation, the Company can not use the OPA limit. This means that if the BP, Transocean, Halliburton or Cameron violated a safety regulation, the OPA limit will not apply. Additionally, the OPA does not apply to any of BP’s federal or state cleanup costs. BP claims that they have already spent $990 million in cleanup costs as of early June.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 09:36 am
@Krumple,
Four points:

1, it's not an 'insurance cap' as you repeatedly refer to it. It is purported to be a liability cap. There is a big difference.

2, it wasn't passed for BP but for all oil companies.

3, you lifted this text out of a news article - I googled it and found it - but didn't paste or attribute it to the article. That's very sloppy and poor form.

4, as OE pointed out, the cap doesn't apply if you were found to have violated safety Regs - which BP clearly has done. So I think it's fair to say that you didn't understand a single detail about this that was worth discussing, not that this is surprising given your level of confusion in other threads regarding political matters.

Cycloptichorn
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 11:54 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
That's very sloppy and poor form.


Cy, sloppy and poor form is making vacuous excuses when the facts are staring you full in the face. It's even worse when one is tied in some fashion or other to academia.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/16/2022 at 04:43:42