BP Oil Spill
 

I'm shocked there's not a topic about it already... but it's now being projected that 1.5+ million gallons of oil is spilling per day. Do you think the government is doing the right thing by allowing BP to try to block and clean up the spill?

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

I'll start by saying this:

What has happened is terrible. It's a mistake we as people have made, and clearly should not have made. There should have been things in place to prevent this from happening.


However, oil leaks into the ocean constantly, naturally. It always has, and it always will. At large volumes, I might add. The ocean is massive. To even try contemplate the size of all of the water in the oceans combined is nearly impossible.

In the long run, everything will be 100% okay. Entirely, and completely.


In the short run, animals in the local area will die, and plant life will suffer. That is the risk of oil drilling. This is a known risk, and this is an accepted risk, or else oil drilling would not occur. If you play with fire, you will get burned, eventually.


I think the spill should obviously stop. Really, there is no way to safely do it, though. The pressure inside of the deposit spilling out into the water is massive, and I'd honestly be impressed if they manage to 'plug' it in any way. Hell, even if they can 'contain' it, I'll be impressed.

I do think the cost, and fault should lie 100% with BP. They were the company who owned it, it's their line, it's their oil, it's their fault. Simple.

But I do think that this oil leak will go on for a long time. I do hope I'm wrong, because it would be a horrible waste of oil, however.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

I think it's obvious that BP should pay for the spill.

I also think they should be indebted to all the local businesses that have suffered due to the spill.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

BP should pay for the spill and the impact the the economy of the gulf region, and regardless of government intervention, they would anyway. That is what our legal system is for. Honestly, the federal government has no place coaxing money from BP, regardless of populist outrage. Sue them or don't sue them, but to constantly threaten to bludgeon is shady political dealing at its best.

The management of the spill has been utterly disastrous. The fact BP is still running this show and handling 90% of the clean-up is amazing to me. Why haven't we accepted other country's offers to help with this? Why aren't other oil companies involved with their resources in the region (to be compensated by BP, of course)? The management of this crisis has been shockingly un-crisis like. Say what you will about how Bush responded to Katrina, but it was days before every tool at our country's disposal was activated to aid in the aftermath, not months.

Oil drilling should NOT be stopped, but instead the industry should learn from this accident. If we stopped everything of value because there was a catastrophe, humans would still be painting on rock walls.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

First off, when exactly did they coax money out of BP? Please answer that. The only thing I know about is giving the federal gov't giving BP a bill for what the government has done so far, and asking BP to set aside $20 billion to pay for future claims. To be clear, that is money set aside for future claims, not going directly to any government coffers. Is that big evil government, trying to get some assurance that the good angel of a private industry company will pay for the disaster it wrought upon all of us?

And secondly, would BP pay anyway? Really? Do you think they're just itching to pay for all the problems they caused? You don't think BP's not interested in paying as little as possible, and wouldn't much rather keep this whole thing mum and out of the media so everyone can forget about it? I think it's perfectly ok for the government to use its influence to put pressure on a company that just wreaked an interstate disaster to the environment and economy across four Gulf states and beyond. It's not like they're pressuring some McDonald's in Bumfuck, Ohio to make sure they pay up for spilling some oil behind their restaurant. The more pressure the better, so BP can't just dust all of this under the rug nearly as easily.

Honestly, BP creates an interstate disaster, and people get pissed at the government for actually doing something against that company. The thought process is astounding to me.

And here, in the very next paragraph, you want the federal government to do more! (And, I presume the feds should do all that and just sue for it later?)

Some of this is factually wrong. All I've heard from day one is that other oil companies have been involved. I haven't heard about other countries trying to help, so don't know about that. And the Bush comparison sounds like more political blustering to me. How exactly do you quantify "every tool at our country's disposal"?

It shouldn't be stopped, but to me it's another wake-up-call to what an oil hungry populace such as ourselves does to pollute the earth.

And Typhoid, I wonder if you'd be so blase about the spill if it was off the coast of Vancouver.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

Strangler subscribes to the republican idealism almost 100%.. There is no reason for any dem to pursue his vote because there's no action that can be taken (or not taken) by the government that would make him happy. His last post is a perfect illistration of that.

BP is just a big corperation who is trying to make money. I don't expect them to bleed a dime to the government or to the country out of the kindness of their hearts. Heck, I wouldn't be shocked if they're first priority is to save as much oil as they can from this spill, and their second priority is to stop it. I mean, that's what big companies do, try to make money. (And there's nothing wrong with that, but the Govt needs to set regulations that make companies think twice before causing a disaster like this)

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

It seems to me like you might be framing this question somewhat inappropriately. The government isn't really "allowing" BP to clean up the spill... even without government pressure, it is quite likely BP would be devoting the same amount and quality of resources to clean up the spill. It is in their best interest to do this. Now, when we begin to talk about BP paying for indirect damages from the spill (such as a fisherman's lost wages) this becomes a different story.

There is a little known law (akin to the Price-Anderson Act for nuclear power plants), whose name I now forget that essentially caps the amount that oil companies are liable for indirect damages in the event of an oil spill from deep-sea drilling. It is a federal law (as is Price-Anderson), and has a similar intent: to encourage companies to drill for oil off-shore. Why does the government do this? Because no company wants to potentially incur infinite indirect liability in the event of a catastrophe (i.e. this oil spill) - and we need oil.

My point in bringing up this somewhat obscure law is that the federal government and BP are both somewhat culpable in this whole mess. Did BP cut corners? Probably. Was BP encouraged by the federal government to pursue such extreme measures to drill for oil with the backing of capped indirect liability? Certainly.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

I never said it was evil, I said government has no place doing it, and essentially using the threat of government investigations to do so. I also never said BP was an angel. What I said was that the legal system is set up to sort these things out through civil actions. It is not the federal government's place to extort a private company to pay out billions. It is the place of the court system to decide settlements.

1) To be fair, BP was paying out money before the gov ever got involved

2) They would have always paid through the nose, because there would be about 800,000 civil suits filed against them. Do you think they would get away without paying them? Hardly.

Ok, well then you don't believe in a constitutional separation of powers. Glad we could clarify the situation.

So we can get angry at BP for breaking the rules when it comes to oil extraction, but we can't be concerned about the government breaking its own rules in response? Why am I only allowed to be unhappy with one of the two parties involved?

I want the government to do the job of the government, which is leadership and organization in the face of crisis. They have failed to do so. My main concern is that they've purposely failed to take the reins because they would rather have someone to blame for the disaster than take control and risk even more fault in the eyes of potential voters.

If they spill had taken place in waters closer to shore, I would have thought states would be more in control, but the distance and location of the spill rules out their ability to handle it.

I know they have been involved in round-table discussions, but I am unaware of any resources that have been spent to help clean. Mainly I am pissed that BP was in control of the clean-up for so long. Our shores are not BP properties or resources.

Also, I believe some of the clean-up should have been made available to private industry outside of that organized by BP. Private industry tends to be FAR more agile than government control. You put a price of $0.50 a gallon of oil skimmed from the water and you would see an armada of rednecks in canoes with wet-dry vacs in the middle of the gulf sucking up sludge.

1) 22 countries have offered assistance. At a price, true, but ok... seriously... pay it and sue BP to be reimbursed if need be. You'll win.

http://calamities.gaeatimes.com/2010...erosity-31116/

2) For one example the president can temporarily repeal the Jones Act allowing foreign ships in American waters, presumably to help with the spill. Bushed temporarily repealed the act within days of Katrina.

Point taken. I'd love to be off oil myself, but it is a hard reality right now, and so far there isn't a real replacement. In the mean time we obviously need to develop safer methods of extraction.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

And Bond makes a very important point: Why was BP out so far, drilling so deep in the first place? The government wouldn't let them drill in shallower, safer waters. Why to they have a damages cap? They needed to give industry a reason to take the added risk of drilling so deep and far from shore.

It's a giant cluster-fuck of terrible choices made by both government and private industry.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

YOU!

(Yes I follow the Spinto Band on Twitter.)

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

I really hope this thread subtly changes into a conversation about how great Germy and the Germanators are.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

I'm confused.. oh well...

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

Haha. Damn that photo editor for using that picture that was taken two years ago...

I can also explain that the shirt is from a friend's band called "The Bullet Parade". They decided it was a good idea to kind of riff on the BP logo for their t-shirt design. Doesn't seem like such a great idea now. Won't be bringing that one on tour anymore.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

Don't know if you guys saw today, but they removed the cap that was capturing the oil, so now it's free flow babay yeah!

/Austin Powers

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

I lost my phone a few days ago, and someone just gave it back to me.
That was awfully nice of her.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

???

Am I missing something?

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

Lol what does that have to do with the oil spill?

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

I think he got lost looking for the "Something Positive" thread. Which the BP oil spill is not.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

Nah, I was just hoping it would subtly change the topic into something else, as I tried to do before.

I thought it was funny when Angrist posted the thing about Germy's band in here - because it's a terribly thread to do it in - so I was going off of that.


It was a slow day.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

At least my post made sense. :(

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

Well they put the cap back on

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

Thanks for ruining a great thread guys. Thanks a lot.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

As the creator of the thread, I would like to say that the thread was ruined the moment Glen Beck posted.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

I heard a Louisiana judge overturned Obama's decision to put a moratorium on off shore drilling over 500 feet deep...

Apparently this judge has investments in the oil industry.


Question:

Why does this judge still have his job? Start taking names, Obama.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

If you have a 401k, a money market fund, IRA or any other equity based investment you probably have investments in the oil industry too. Does that make you corrupt? No. It means nothing. Actions and evidence matters, not correlative "evidence" based on emotion. Hell, Obama took a lot of campaign funds from BP. Does that make his response corrupt? Or just inept?

The question is whether or not the executive branch has the authority to call a moratorium on oil drilling. I don't know he answer to that, but we'll never know until we start asking the right questions.

Whether or not the judge has oil investments is not the right question.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

However being in a position to directly control what happens, and putting your personal gain on top of the well-being of everything else, does.

I wouldn't call an umpire corrupt if he reversed the call on the field [made by another umpire] - but I would call that umpire corrupt if he reversed the call on the field because he placed a bet on the game.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

Beck knows good and well the answer to that question. The real question is, why was it allowed before, and why isn't it being allowed now. And what Dyflon posted is likely part of that answer.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

And besides the fact that some level of his portfolio has oil investment in it, as does every form of collective equity investment to be honest, what leads you to believe he "threw the game"? I hate to repeat myself but you ignore the majority of my argument where I covered Dyflon's points you just repeated in story form.

Again, you are asking the wrong question. The question is whether or not the decision was legally sound. If it wasn't, then maybe you have a point. If it was, you don't. But until we answer that question, making accusations about the judge's motivation is pointless.

While we are here, why not discuss the logic of the moratorium in the first place? While this accident was horrible, it is also exceedingly rare. Does it make sense to put all of these people out of work, and tie up millions in funds, to suspend an activity that the overwhelming evidence suggests is more than reasonably safe? There are nearly 4,000 oil rigs in the gulf alone, and this is the first disaster in how long?

Calling a moratorium on all oil rig exploration based on one accident on one rig by one company is absurd, especially considering how stellar the safety records of the other oil companies have been. Its the equivalent of recalling all cars produced in the 70's because the Ford Pinto blew up. Its a political move, meant to placate the anger of the masses, not a policy based on reason.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

Yeah, a large part of Louisiana is pretty much ruined, but oil spills seriously almost never happen!

When a Pinto explodes it doesn't devastate an entire region's wild/ocean life and harm local business.


And yes, oil workers are going to have to lose jobs. Be it through a moratorium or for our eventual need to get off of oil.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

I know you are being sarcastic, but you are actually correct. Are you only right when you don't mean to be? J/K

No, but the Pinto killed over two times as many people (27). And again, we know the comparable safety records of the oil companies on deep water rigs. BP's record was horrific, but but the other companies have great records. There is no reason to believe this will happen again any time in the next 40 years.

I mean, it sure does SOUND like Pres. Obama is doing something when he calls for a moratorium... and I guess that makes good press. The reality is all he's doing is hurting good people.

There is a difference between gradually moving off of oil and naturally transferring employment from one sector to another and immediately putting people out of work.

If the goal is to "get us off oil", a moratorium is probably the dumbest method one could choose, but again, it sounds good. I guess that's all that matters?

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

Maybe emotion dictates what I want to see.

I see things like this and I want something to happen. I feel in a world where we're all supposed to logical and all supposed to care (which I understand is a fantasy) , I want somebody to say "Hey this is bullshit, we need to change the way we do things".

I will admit, I know next to nothing about oil drilling. I do know that it does create horrible environmental disasters upon occasion such as in the gulf and in the tar sands and rivers of Alberta.

It's just frustrating to hear, especially from people like you who I believe to be people of reason (though we seldom see eye to eye), that the best thing to do is nothing. We pay our dues and get back to business in the interest of people not having to switch careers. It's this kind of pro status quo attitude that I feel gets us into trouble a lot as a species but specifically as North Americans.

I bet even if the disaster was twice as bad as it already is, no more would get done than is getting done now. We can't even regulate this shit anymore. I suppose what we need to happen is have Obama say that we're off oil within the next five years and sink some of that military budget into alternate energy.

I haven't read the thread thoroughly yet, so you might have a sweet argument or your argument may be "we need to be slightly more careful". Either way, I doubt it will be enough for me to stop being wildly upset over this whole catastrophe and in need of some action to be taken that limits what oil barons are allowed to do.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

Opposed to the oil spill itself, which only hurts good and innocent animals and devastates ecosystems and plant life.

But you know, people will get to keep their jobs - so all is well.
Gotta keep the economy strong etc.


It's not about the likelihood that it will happen again, it's the fact it has already happened. Even if t doesn't happen for another 40 years, that's still bad. The point isn't to space out man-made disasters, it's not to have them in the first place. If your pinto blows up and kills you, that sucks - But if your pinto blew up and took 20 city blocks with it [Or ruined the environment to the point everything near the car dies], I'm sure there would be a recall on pintos. This oil spill isn't exploding one person. It's ruining a lot more than that.

But explain to me why this moratorium is wrong, aside from 'People will lose jobs'. There are more important things in this world than a handful of people [in the scheme of things] and their having or not having jobs. The well-being of the environment, for one. I can understand people don't want to lose their job, ever. But if they work it into a way where once there are good safety regulations in place so that this type of thing doesn't happen again - they should get precedence for their jobs back if they want them.

But I mean hey, if 17% of the Louisiana population [who are employed by oil-related work] would rather not look for a new job, and continue to contribute to the growing devastation to their local area; nobody can convince them otherwise.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

Well said sir.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

At what point did I say we need to do nothing? I said we shouldn't shut down EVERYONE who drills because BP screwed the pooch. Consequences should affect those who created the disaster, not those who follow the rules.

You want to blame Oil with a capital "O" for the mistakes and negligence of a small group of people. I want the people who acted negligently to pay, and then have everyone in the industry learn from their negligence and mistakes.

1) The oil industry is heavily regulated, and as I pointed out before the regulation may have created the environment for this disaster to take place

2) Despite media opinion, Pres. Obama is not magic. He can not nod his head and take the world off of oil. Besides, Government intervention has proven to be the least timely of all when it comes to innovation. We need to create a environment where industry can see great and immediate rewards for investing in realistic alternative energy. Even if someone discovers the world's most perfect clean and safe energy source tomorrow, it will take 10-20
years to switch over to this new fuel.

I agree that action needs to be taken, but sensible action. Action that fixes the problems we're facing and just doesn't create more problems through unintended consequences.

While I understand you are emotional, emotion is not a basis for reform, and it is the opposite of reason.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

So putting people out of working and needlessly shutting down drilling will magically fix the spill?

You want to see devastation? Put 17% of the local population out of work. That would do FAR more long term damage than this spill ever could. Want proof? Travel to Detroit sometime...

Again, explain to me why the moratorium will keep a spill from happening again. No one seems to be able to answer this question. The moratorium will be lifted even if reinstated and we will drill because we have no real alternatives and it will eventually happen again. I don't need to explain why it's wrong, you need to explain why it's RIGHT.

In the mean time, all we did was hurt a lot of good people. But at least the moratorium made us feel better for a while, right? Or more accurately, it makes Pres. Obama look like he's doing something about the spill.

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

Well we have our answer as to whether or not it is within the power of the executive branch to mandate a moratorium on oil exploration

Apparently the government is unfazed and I believe Salazar stated they would just issue an additional moratorium rather than attempt to reinstate the existing one (that will then be overturned in all likelihood).

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/08/oil...ex.html?hpt=T2

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

So... now in normal English. Can they drill or not?

Re: BP Oil Spill
 

Yes, they can drill... kind of. The administration can still block drilling, but I believe they have to address it on a case by case basis and not as a general moratorium.