Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

I actually read that there are concerns that the oil spill could spell extinction for the Brown Pelican, Louisiana's state bird. I think it was in the Times-Picayune that they were saying that LA has stressed the bird a lot. (Removed because it was incorrect).

I don't know where I read that and the majority of it could be wrong because that's just what I remember from a few weeks ago...I'll try to dig something up.

EDIT: Okay, found a slideshow: [URL="http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=55342"]source[/URL]

[QUOTE=EDF]The brown pelican was taken off the Endangered Species list last year after recovering from DDT exposure. This is breeding season, and the oil has reached colonies on protected islands. Pelicans nests and fishing areas are at risk from oil.[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/19/animals-oil-spill-brown-p_n_581836.html"]Another article on the subject[/URL]

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

The siphon can only take 1000 barrells a day because the pressure surrounding the jagged ass cut that they half-assed made with the shears doesnt allow for a tight seal. It's blowing the oil out of the bottom of the seal and around the pipe. No way to contain it.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=Mattyk;704888]some really sad shit here, just pisses me off

[URL="http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/06/caught_in_the_oil.html"]Caught in the oil - The Big Picture - Boston.com[/URL][/quote]

gesus christ didnt need to see that but glad i did.

what news is there of the coastal clean up?
what news is there of efforts to stop the oil from reaching the shores?

ok, the oil hole is 5000 ft underwater and is a hard to control. but we dont have people down there at state parks on the coastline ready and waiting?

wtf, is going on here.

if i hopped in my car (yeah i know) and drove down there i get the feeling i would be turned away or find no set up organization to offfer my services to.

solidsnake - what and who is down there trying to protect our coasts?

this is getign real fucking frustrating. we as a nation should be able to prepare and respond to oil coming on the shores that we knwe would happen for the past month now.

i need news on the coastal clean up efforts. they better have started a month ago and not start planning and getting ready now.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

fuck BP

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=over the mountain;704912]what news is there of the coastal clean up?
what news is there of efforts to stop the oil from reaching the shores?

ok, the oil hole is 5000 ft underwater and is a hard to control. but we dont have people down there at state parks on the coastline ready and waiting?

wtf, is going on here.

if i hopped in my car (yeah i know) and drove down there i get the feeling i would be turned away or find no set up organization to offfer my services to.

i need news on the coastal clean up efforts. they better have started a month ago and not start planning and getting ready now.[/quote]Here's the info you need.

[URL="http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/"]Deepwater Horizon Response[/URL]

[url=http://emergency.louisiana.gov/]emergency.louisiana.gov[/url]

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

I think its time to BP and government start reaching out to other companies and other countries for help...obviously no one here has answers. Heard a couple Dutch companies who drill in the north sea have offered a plan but gotten no reply from BP...It just blows my mind with the money and resources BP have, they cant take of this, really frustrated, criminal charges need to be filed. Cant stand to see the pictures of the wildlife...

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;704915]Here's the info you need.

[URL="http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/"]Deepwater Horizon Response[/URL]

[URL="http://emergency.louisiana.gov/"]emergency.louisiana.gov[/URL][/quote]

thanks SS33. i read the deepwater horizon website rather quiclkly. only 2 things readbale on there with not much substance.

the other link provided me with some of the info i needed.

apparently in early to mid may, LA state submitted a proposal to BP to build 100 sand type barriers that would protect 4000 miles of coastline.

so far BP has not responded. LA said they could have had10 miles constructed by now if BP hasnt been delaying. \

appears those photos of the oil drenched brown pelicans are the coming from the same place. that 20 or so have been saved.

a us coast guard ship just arrived the other day.

apparently BP is delaying and the State of louisianna (sp?) is tired of sending proposals and is going to enter into emergency contracts with private companies for the clean up, dredge and sand/dirt protectors then recoup the money from BP instead of waiting and waiting and waiting for BP to either start the projects on their own or atleast start cutting checks.

seems BP is focused on clogging the hole and not putting money into the coastal problems.

also, BP attorneys have refused to turn over documents related to claims made and paid out to persons who lost their sea faring jobs b/c of the spill. some have been paid once, others nothing. these people and their families are living without a pay check for the past couple of months. LA state requested the documents to help accelerate the payments so families can eat, etc.

BP needs to focus some energy and money on the coastal problems. i imagine when the pics start coming in and people like me wonder why coastal efforts didnt start until after the oil reached the coast, BP will start to do something.

honestly, the States should do what louisianna is doing, dont wait on BP, hire who you have to then bill BP later.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=over the mountain;704912]

solidsnake - what and who is down there trying to protect our coasts?

.[/quote]

I can only speak for the people in Gulf Shores, AL, where my family is. There are some local government people on the beaches there, as well as people from BP, and "company guys" who walk around in suits and hard hats.


Cleanup crews walk the beaches to pick up tar balls, and so far, oil has only showed up in a few places where it is a thick goo. The smell however is overpowering from crude, and it is believed that soon people there will have to evacuate their homes due to the overpowering crude aroma.

In town, they have hay bales and various home-made booms made from stockings and human hair on hand incase the oil overwhelms the beach and comes on land...no joke guys, they are prepared for that.

So far, local government has been very limited as to what they can do, because of the fact the Feds have allocated the cleanup operation to BP.

Until there is a changing of the guard, BP is running the show down there, not the local or even U.S. Gov't.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

there were 2 cool pics to see. 1 of a pelican being released from a cage into beautiful blue water. the other is ..i forgot the other but it was nice to see.

idk if the pelican being released was a saved bird from this spill or was taken years ago.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=SolidSnake84;704918]
So far, local government has been very limited as to what they can do, because of the fact the Feds have allocated the cleanup operation to BP.

Until there is a changing of the guard, BP is running the show down there, not the local or even U.S. Gov't.[/quote]

yeah this is what i heard from a news show who did a 30 min story. they interviewed towns people who said they are litterally waiting and willing to start doing something but BP controls everything and they arent doing anything.

i didnt believe it but after hearing more and more and reading the problems the state of louisianna is having with BP, i believ it now.

just seemed so unbelievale that the gov't would just pass responsibility and control of the clean up to BP, not allowing anyone else to help.

fuck BP, states need to start doing their own thing and then bill those punk ass bitches later. of course i could see BP claiming bankruptcy after this (after they payoff the golden parachutes im sure their top execs have).

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=over the mountain;704917]apparently in early to mid may, LA state submitted a proposal to BP to build 100 sand type barriers that would protect 4000 miles of coastline.

so far BP has not responded. LA said they could have had10 miles constructed by now if BP hasnt been delaying.
...

apparently BP is delaying and the State of louisianna (sp?) is tired of sending proposals and is going to enter into emergency contracts with private companies for the clean up, dredge and sand/dirt protectors then recoup the money from BP instead of waiting and waiting and waiting for BP to either start the projects on their own or atleast start cutting checks.

seems BP is focused on clogging the hole and not putting money into the coastal problems.

also, BP attorneys have refused to turn over documents related to claims made and paid out to persons who lost their sea faring jobs b/c of the spill. some have been paid once, others nothing. these people and their families are living without a pay check for the past couple of months. LA state requested the documents to help accelerate the payments so families can eat, etc.

...

honestly, the States should do what louisianna is doing, dont wait on BP, hire who you have to then bill BP later.[/quote]

BP's actions in this matter, to date, seem to me to be criminal, i.e. deserving of punishment other than merely administrative penalties (loss of licenses, revocation of permits, orders for restitution and punitive fines).

On one hand, they are focused on clogging the well. Fine, good. Not being an engineer or familiar with the pecular problems being posed by this repair, I cannot honestly judge as to whether their actions [I]post spill[/I] have been up to the appropriate standard of care. Their actions may have been the best and most efficient responses to the problem - I just don't know. Certainly, there is plenty of incentive, both financially and from a point of public perception, to make every effort and expend all available resources to "stop the bleeding".

On the other hand, it seems to me that every day some new report of BP delaying, obfuscating, or otherwise dodging other issues that arise outside the immediate well closing activities. (injuries to fishermen due to toxins, failure to construct the sand bars, failure to respond to the proposals of local govt.'s). In addition, the few expert reports I have seen have not been particularly complimentary to BP's efforts.

All of this doesn't even consider BP's actions pre-spill, but, those actions (which seem to be blatantly negligent and perhaps grossly negligent) certainly give me a prism to look and through which to judge their post spill actions.

Given their prior complaint history and their obvious cost-cutting actions, I have little confidence BP's corporate culture. I strongly doubt that now, suddenly, BP has changed its corporate mindset from one of "cut costs, comply with the letter and not the spirit of regulations" (though, it appears they may not have even done that) to one of "F*** the bottom line, do what is right".

All this brings me back to my original point. It is time for the Feds and the States to look into and threaten some senior executives with jail time and the possibility of personal liability: "BP, Inc. goes under? Guess what: Don't care - We're selling your mansion, jets, etc. Oh and by the way, you better start finding ways to expend resources on the spill AND the peripheral issues or we will start expending some resources on finding ways to put you in jail."

If the Govt. threatens the corp., it just goes bankrupt, dissolves, or otherwise disappears and litigation pursuing its assets drags on for ever - and ultimately, the consumers and taxpayers pay for the clean up through higher prices and/or increased taxes to make up for where BP bailed.

Threaten the bastards in charge, who f***ed up by encouraging the corporate culture of minimal compliance and have now gone into CYA mode, with jail time and loss of personal wealth - well, let's see if that creates a little more urgency to have the corporation be more "helpful".

From a legal stand point, it's not that simple but, damn, this is one of those situations where you wish it could be.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;704930]BP's actions in this matter, to date, seem to me to be criminal, i.e. deserving of punishment other than merely administrative penalties (loss of licenses, revocation of permits, orders for restitution and punitive fines).

On one hand, they are focused on clogging the well. Fine, good. Not being an engineer or familiar with the pecular problems being posed by this repair, I cannot honestly judge as to whether their actions [I]post spill[/I] have been up to the appropriate standard of care. Their actions may have been the best and most efficient responses to the problem - I just don't know. Certainly, there is plenty of incentive, both financially and from a point of public perception, to make every effort and expend all available resources to "stop the bleeding".

On the other hand, it seems to me that every day some new report of BP delaying, obfuscating, or otherwise dodging other issues that arise outside the immediate well closing activities. (injuries to fishermen due to toxins, failure to construct the sand bars, failure to respond to the proposals of local govt.'s). In addition, the few expert reports I have seen have not been particularly complimentary to BP's efforts.

All of this doesn't even consider BP's actions pre-spill, but, those actions (which seem to be blatantly negligent and perhaps grossly negligent) certainly give me a prism to look and through which to judge their post spill actions.

Given their prior complaint history and their obvious cost-cutting actions, I have little confidence BP's corporate culture. I strongly doubt that now, suddenly, BP has changed its corporate mindset from one of "cut costs, comply with the letter and not the spirit of regulations" (though, it appears they may not have even done that) to one of "F*** the bottom line, do what is right".

All this brings me back to my original point. It is time for the Feds and the States to look into and threaten some senior executives with jail time and the possibility of personal liability: "BP, Inc. goes under? Guess what: Don't care - We're selling your mansion, jets, etc. Oh and by the way, you better start finding ways to expend resources on the spill AND the peripheral issues or we will start expending some resources on finding ways to put you in jail."

If the Govt. threatens the corp., it just goes bankrupt, dissolves, or otherwise disappears and litigation pursuing its assets drags on for ever - and ultimately, the consumers and taxpayers pay for the clean up through higher prices and/or increased taxes to make up for where BP bailed.

Threaten the bastards in charge, who f***ed up by encouraging the corporate culture of minimal compliance and have now gone into CYA mode, with jail time and loss of personal wealth - well, let's see if that creates a little more urgency to have the corporation be more "helpful".

From a legal stand point, it's not that simple but, damn, this is one of those situations where you wish it could be.[/quote]

The only problem with that is corporations offer limited liability. Should we completely change Amercia because of this spill. That will tip us toward real socialism.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

Also, as this is Friday afternoon, I would be remiss if I didn't give a shout out to my man JTF for his many "Wow, just Wow!" moments!

[quote=joethiesmanfan;704689][B]Big Oil - Dick Cheny, Bush (all of them), Palin - Big Oil[/B]. Do not vote for Big Oil to take their government back. If you want BP to pay, do not vote Republican, I repeat do not, or they will not pay. [B]Rand Paul of the Tea Party [/B]says holding Big Oil responsible is [B]Un-American[/B]. By principle the Tea Party will let Big Oil off the hook. [B]BP must pay!!!! [/B][/quote]

[quote=joethiesmanfan;704708]Priceless!!!! Worth more than all the oil in under the Gulf, well what's left of it anyway.[/quote]

[quote=joethiesmanfan;704857]mmm Those birds look delicious, covered in chocolate. Chocolate Pelican anyone? Oops my fault this should go in the dinner thread.[/quote]

As always - thank you, thank you JTF!! You are the purest form of comic relief.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=joethiesmanfan;704932]The only problem with that is corporations offer limited liability. Should we completely change Amercia because of this spill. That will tip us toward real socialism.[/quote]

And it just keeps coming!!

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;704934]And it just keeps coming!![/quote]

Seriously though, it's a tragedy. There is nothing we can do about it. When Shell Oil built a pipeline through the water supply of a Nigerian village people laughed. When BP used to be Anglo-Iranian Oil and assasinated Iran's democratically elected president because he wanted to turn a 85-15 split to 65-45, no one cared. When they charged us 4 dollars a gallon and made 500 billion dollars in profits in one quarter we didn't care. When we invaded Iraq and they thought they were gonna build a pipeline from and independent Kurdistan to Israel we saw dollar signs. Now it's our turn and we can't do anything about it unless we fundamentally change our country. Is that we want to do now? We play ignorant, we knew BP was crooked. Stop fronting!!!!!

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

I am curious, has anyone on here stopped using BP, or any other BP related, companies. I haven't really heard of a national or international boycott effort, though I know there are protesters.

Yes, I do feel like inserting a "BP Clean OUR Coast" truck sign joke at this juncture. Maybe Kapipal has an account for that?

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[B]WE the U.S.A.[/B] played this dirty game and got burnt. Time to pray for a better outcome and repent. [B]WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS.[/B] Stop fronting.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

JTF,

You ought to start a thread that outlines your ideas and thoughts. The resulting conflicted thread/posts would really make for a good off-season time killer. Please be as detailed as possible, cuz your stuff amazes me at times.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

im no business attorney but from an elementary stand point, LLCs and what not protect the individual assets of the corporation's CEO, president etc from lawsuits that arise from their corporate activities. (you cant take BP's ceo's mansion for an oil spill)

im sure some people alot smarter than me can come up with something. cmaybe you can you attach a judgment to the ceo's mansion if his decisions and actions rise to a level of reckless endangerment (not complying with safety regs and employees are killed).

if a metro bus driver rear ends you, you can sue WMATA and the bus driver.

if a metro bus driver punches you in the face, you can sue the bus driver but you cant sue WMATA b/c punching people in the face is not within the course and scope of employment as a bus driver.

maybe, somehow, it can be shown that BP's ceo punched someone in the face (disregarding and covering up safety hazards which results in foreseeable deaths is not within the corporate activity of drilling and refining oil?)

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;704944]I am curious, has anyone on here stopped using BP, or any other BP related, companies. I haven't really heard of a national or international boycott effort, though I know there are protesters.

Yes, I do feel like inserting a "BP Clean OUR Coast" truck sign joke at this juncture. Maybe Kapipal has an account for that?[/quote]

after seeing those pics of oil drenched brown pelicans i thought about giving some BP stations the business (the business being an obnoxious guy ranting and raving) but they are locally owned and operated. im sure joe schmoo gas station owner gets screwed by BP as well.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;704944]I am curious, has anyone on here stopped using BP, or any other BP related, companies. I haven't really heard of a national or international boycott effort, though I know there are protesters.

Yes, I do feel like inserting a "BP Clean OUR Coast" truck sign joke at this juncture. Maybe Kapipal has an account for that?[/quote]

I was wondering the same thing. NPR had a story about that recently, that BP gas stations have suffered and could suffer more.

[url=http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/95549369.html]Local BP Gas Station Owners Fear Boycott[/url]

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

But seriously, ultimately JTF is gonna wind up paying his part for this whole mess. BP's ceo will slither his royal behind back to Britain and be knighted, if he has not already been knighted. God bless America.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

From a public relations standpoint, if you're another big oil company (say Sunoco or Exxon), how do you approach this situation?

Do you take this opportunity to tout your commitment to safety, do you offer to help BP solve the problem, or do you just keep quiet?

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=SmootSmack;704956]I was wondering the same thing. NPR had a story about that recently, that BP gas stations have suffered and could suffer more.

[URL="http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/95549369.html"]Local BP Gas Station Owners Fear Boycott[/URL][/quote]I feel bad for the station owners, but I won't stop at a BP anymore. It may be a very small hit to BP, but if enough people join in, the individual station owners will change to another provider when their contracts are up, or will file lawsuits against BP to allow them to change suppliers.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=SmootSmack;704958]From a public relations standpoint, if you're another big oil company (say Sunoco or Exxon), how do you approach this situation?

Do you take this opportunity to tout your commitment to safety, do you offer to help BP solve the problem, or do you just keep quiet?[/quote]

If I was them I would be quiet. BP is one of the most poweerful entities on the planet. They have killed before.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=SmootSmack;704958]From a public relations standpoint, if you're another big oil company (say Sunoco or Exxon), how do you approach this situation?

Do you take this opportunity to tout your commitment to safety, do you offer to help BP solve the problem, or do you just keep quiet?[/quote]

I would hope at this point, that the companies would work together to end this nightmare....this is practically a world war effort they are doing here....every single company needs to work together or this may never end...

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=SmootSmack;704958]From a public relations standpoint, if you're another big oil company (say Sunoco or Exxon), how do you approach this situation?

Do you take this opportunity to tout your commitment to safety, do you offer to help BP solve the problem, or do you just keep quiet?[/quote]

I think that's a good question and that's where all of this headed. On one hand, Sunoco and Exxon can't start running ads about how much safer they are than BP in terms of drilling. That just won't fly, but they can start some internal campaigns and double down on saftey standards and let the watchdog groups and the EPA vouch for them.

As far as helping out, yeah, I would stay away from that too unless the government mandated it, which I doubt they will. Simply because I wouldn't want my company's name attached in any way, shape, or form to this incident in the smallest way. Let BP own this 100% from start to finish. I will say this though, if the other to oil giants get involved, it should be with the clean-up effort ONLY. I would ensure that oil has been stopped 100% before we start with the clean-up effort.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=over the mountain;704951]im no business attorney but from an elementary stand point, LLCs and what not protect the individual assets of the corporation's CEO, president etc from lawsuits that arise from their corporate activities. (you cant take BP's ceo's mansion for an oil spill)

im sure some people alot smarter than me can come up with something. cmaybe you can you attach a judgment to the ceo's mansion if his decisions and actions rise to a level of reckless endangerment (not complying with safety regs and employees are killed).

if a metro bus driver rear ends you, you can sue WMATA and the bus driver.

if a metro bus driver punches you in the face, you can sue the bus driver but you cant sue WMATA b/c punching people in the face is not within the course and scope of employment as a bus driver.

maybe, somehow, it can be shown that BP's ceo punched someone in the face (disregarding and covering up safety hazards which results in foreseeable deaths is not within the corporate activity of drilling and refining oil?)[/quote]

Clearly, the corporate shield protects (and for many very good reasons) individuals within the corporation from liability by the corporate entity or by corporate employees. There are situations, however, when it is appropriate and legally correct to "pierce the corporate veil". In those situations, the corporate managers can be held personally liable for the corporations actions.

This spill is not the equivalent of a Greyhound bus driver rear-ending someone. (FYI - The MTA is a govt. entity and soveriegn immunity is a whole different legal concept). I would suggest it is more akin to a decision by the Greyhound Board saying - "There is no statute or regulation requiring us to check our brakes and based on a cost/benefit analysis (lawsuits losses v. cost to inspect/fix/maintain brakes on the entire fleet) its cheaper not to do so. Therefore we (the CEO and Board) chose not to do so in order to increase our profits even if we know someone is likely to be killed."

Piercing the corporate shield to impose personal liability is difficult and should be so. However, it can be done. I think this is one of those situations where it should be made perfectly clear to BP executives that, unless it changes its tune, the Feds and States are going to be looking awfully hard to pierce the corporate veil in order to impose personal liability and criminal penalties.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;704970]Clearly, the corporate shield protects (and for many very good reasons) individuals within the corporation from liability by the corporate entity or by corporate employees. There are situations, however, when it is appropriate and legally correct to "pierce the corporate veil". In those situations, the corporate managers can be held personally liable for the corporations actions.

This spill is not the equivalent of a Greyhound bus driver rear-ending someone. (FYI - The MTA is a govt. entity and soveriegn immunity is a whole different legal concept). I would suggest it is more akin to a decision by the Greyhound Board saying - "There is no statute or regulation requiring us to check our brakes and based on a cost/benefit analysis (lawsuits losses v. cost to inspect/fix/maintain brakes on the entire fleet) its cheaper not to do so. Therefore we (the CEO and Board) chose not to do so in order to increase our profits even if we know someone is likely to be killed."

Piercing the corporate shield to impose personal liability is difficult and should be so. However, it can be done. I think this is one of those situations where it should be made perfectly clear to BP executives that, unless it changes its tune, the Feds and States are going to be looking awfully hard to pierce the corporate veil in order to impose personal liability and criminal penalties.[/quote]

Good luck trying to convince Rand Paul and the Tea Party revolution to do that. They are gonna take the House and Senate. If you take a long hard look Republicans and Democrats are falling to the Tea Party. They operate on principle. They would never vote for this on principle alone. It will never happen because in November we all can do whatever we want and pay no taxes.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=12thMan;704967]I think that's a good question and that's where all of this headed. On one hand, Sunoco and Exxon can't start running ads about how much safer they are than BP in terms of drilling. That just won't fly, but they can start some internal campaigns and double down on saftey standards and let the watchdog groups and the EPA vouch for them.

As far as helping out, yeah, I would stay away from that too unless the government mandated it, which I doubt they will. [B]Simply because I wouldn't want my company's name attached in any way, shape, or form to this incident in the smallest way. Let BP own this 100% from start to finish.[/B] I will say this though, if the other to oil giants get involved, it should be with the clean-up effort ONLY. I would ensure that oil has been stopped 100% before we start with the clean-up effort.[/quote]

Not sure I agree. There certainly is the risk of being tainted with BP's foul ups. On the other hand, as CRedskin pointed out, there would be a serious financial incentive to be the team that comes up with some technological breakthrough that resolves this mess (Just a thought: A government incentive for the company that finds a way to stop the leak or expedite clean up?). There could be some serious upside to the company that stops the leak - both from a purely financial/technological stance and from a public perception basis.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=joethiesmanfan;704942]Seriously though, it's a tragedy. There is nothing we can do about it. When Shell Oil built a pipeline through the water supply of a Nigerian village people laughed. When BP used to be Anglo-Iranian Oil and assasinated Iran's democratically elected president because he wanted to turn a 85-15 split to 65-45, no one cared. When they charged us 4 dollars a gallon and made 500 billion dollars in profits in one quarter we didn't care. When we invaded Iraq and they thought they were gonna build a pipeline from and independent Kurdistan to Israel we saw dollar signs. Now it's our turn and we can't do anything about it unless we fundamentally change our country. Is that we want to do now? We play ignorant, we knew BP was crooked. Stop fronting!!!!![/quote]

You do realize your factual claims are just more fodder for my laughter? Just so we're clear - based on you posting history, no factual claim you make is worth reading other than for pure entertainment value.

But for Friday afternoon reading, they certainly [I]are[/I] entertaining!! Thanks again!

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

YahooNews

UPDATE: #Obama says after #oilspill briefing: `It seems like we're making progress' (AP) 2 minutes ago via TweetDeck

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=joethiesmanfan;704971]Good luck trying to convince Rand Paul and the Tea Party revolution to do that. They are gonna take the House and Senate. If you take a long hard look Republicans and Democrats are falling to the Tea Party. They operate on principle. They would never vote for this on principle alone. It will never happen because in November we all can do whatever we want and pay no taxes.[/quote]

How can I even argue with such stunning logic! I can't, I concede! Overwhelming brilliance and rationality on display once more! The Tea Party will reign b/c the vast majority of the U.S. population is just not as smart as you. Please, please, save us from ourselves JTF!!

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

What JoeRedskin wrote:
[quote=JoeRedskin;704973]You do realize your factual claims are just more fodder for my laughter? Just so we're clear - based on you posting history, no factual claim you make is worth reading other than for pure entertainment value.

But for Friday afternoon reading, they certainly [I]are[/I] entertaining!! Thanks again![/quote]

What JTF read and comprehended:
[quote]You do realize [blah blah blah] Thanks again![/quote]

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=SmootSmack;704958]From a public relations standpoint, if you're another big oil company (say Sunoco or Exxon), how do you approach this situation?[/quote]STFU and stay as far away from this as possible, all while conducting a serious and thorough internal review of all corporate safety procdures/policies in place.

[quote]Do you take this opportunity to tout your commitment to safety[/quote]No, because the same thing could happen to any other company. And Exxon certainly won't say a word. People who live in glass houses....
[quote] do you offer to help BP solve the problem, or do you just keep quiet?[/quote]No. If I'm another oil company I only get involved if requested and contracted by the U.S. Gov't.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;704970]Clearly, the corporate shield protects (and for many very good reasons) individuals within the corporation from liability by the corporate entity or by corporate employees. There are situations, however, when it is appropriate and legally correct to "pierce the corporate veil". In those situations, the corporate managers can be held personally liable for the corporations actions.

This spill is not the equivalent of a Greyhound bus driver rear-ending someone. (FYI - The MTA is a govt. entity and soveriegn immunity is a whole different legal concept). I would suggest it is more akin to a decision by the Greyhound Board saying - "There is no statute or regulation requiring us to check our brakes and based on a cost/benefit analysis (lawsuits losses v. cost to inspect/fix/maintain brakes on the entire fleet) its cheaper not to do so. Therefore we (the CEO and Board) chose not to do so in order to increase our profits even if we know someone is likely to be killed."

[/quote]

dang it, nobody has liked my analogies this week. i battle WMATA and their "king can do wrong" soveriegn immunity all the time. currently they are claiming that they are not liable for a finger being cut off b/c of a broken gate/fence b/c get this . . .. .

the decision to put up or not put up a fence/gate was discretionary and therefore they are immune. they could have put up a fence, they could not have put up a fence, in their discretion they decided to put up a fence.

alos that the maintenance and repair of a fence on their property is not a proprietary function. really? you claiming the maintenacne of a fence on your property is not "propritary" in nature?

reading companies making decisions based on weighing the ecomonic cost vs doign the right thing; you should read the complaint filed in response to the '09 train crash in which 9 people dies. it is brutal. WMATA is hopefully screwed. i hate those people. they literally did what you outlined in your greyhound BOD hypo.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;704972]Not sure I agree. There certainly is the risk of being tainted with BP's foul ups. On the other hand, as CRedskin pointed out, there would be a serious financial incentive to be the team that comes up with some technological breakthrough that resolves this mess (Just a thought: A government incentive for the company that finds a way to stop the leak or expedite clean up?). There could be some serious upside to the company that stops the leak - both from a purely financial/technological stance and from a public perception basis.[/quote]

That scenario is very unlikely to happen in the next 90 days, in my opinion. Besides BP has already offered $500 million over a ten year period to study the impact on the environment and how the oil industry could respond better. So if the answer is out there, there's one helluva reward to figure it out.

I think there's more risk for a corporation to get involved with the "answer, have that fail than not getting involved at all. There's no silver bullet answer at this point. Much of this would have been avoided had the relief wells been in place along with the original pipeline to anticipate this disaster. At this point, it's a race against the clock and keeping our fingers crossed.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

[quote=12thMan;704983]That scenario is very unlikely to happen in the next 90 days, in my opinion. Besides BP has already offered $500 million over a ten year period to study the impact on the environment and how the oil industry could respond better. So if the answer is out there, there's one helluva reward to figure it out.

I think there's more risk for a corporation to get involved with the "answer, have that fail than not getting involved at all. There's no silver bullet answer at this point. Much of this would have been avoided had the relief wells been in place along with the original pipeline to anticipate this disaster. At this point, it's a race against the clock and keeping our fingers crossed.[/quote]

Agreed. I also think SS33 nailed it too. I was just thinking out loud - I'll stop now as that just causes my head to hurt and irratation to those around me.

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

I thought this was pretty interesting. I guess when you hear largest American oil spill with Exxon Valdez you kind of associate it with maybe being one of biggest oil spills ever, simply because America is the largest user of oil.


[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Arial]The Exxon Valdez, the tanker responsible for the worst oil spill in American history [...] will likely surprise you to know that the Valdez spill was actually only the 34th largest oil spill in history.[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Arial]These ten oil spills, all massively larger than the Exxon Valdez, were all smaller new stories, either because the ships were offshore, or dropped their toxic loads in less developed parts of the world. The Valdez spilled 10 million gallons off the coast of Alaska, the smallest spill in the top ten was four times larger.[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Symbol]·[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333][FONT=Arial] [B]Kuwait - 1991[/B][B]- 520 million gallons[/B]
Iraqi forces opened the valves of several oil tankers in order to slow the invasion of American troops. The oil slick was four inches thick and covered 4000 square miles of ocean. [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Symbol]·[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333][FONT=Arial] [B]Mexico - 1980[/B][B]- 100 million gallons[/B]An accident in an oil well caused an explosion which then caused the well to collapse. The well remained open, spilling 30,000 gallons a day into the ocean for a full year. (This is the subject of the story above) [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Symbol]·[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333][FONT=Arial] [B]Trinidad and Tobago - 1979 - 90 million gallons[/B]During a tropical storm off the coast of Trinidad and Tobago, a Greek oil tanker collided with another ship, and lost nearly its entire cargo. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Symbol]·[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333][FONT=Arial] [B]Russia - 1994 - 84 million gallons[/B]A broken pipeline in Russia leaked for eight months before it was noticed and repaired. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Symbol]·[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333][FONT=Arial] [B]Persian Gulf - 1983 - 80 million gallons[/B]A tanker collided with a drilling platform which, eventually, collapsed into the sea. The well continued to spill oil into the ocean for seven months before it was repaired. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Symbol]·[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333][FONT=Arial] [B]South Africa - 1983 - 79 million gallons[/B]A tanker cought fire and was abandoned before sinking 25 miles off the coast of Saldanha Bay. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Symbol]·[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333][FONT=Arial] [B]France - 1978 - 69 million gallons[/B]A tanker's rudder was broken in a severe storm, despite several ships responding to its distress call, the ship ran aground and broke in two. It's entire payload was dumped into the English Channel. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Symbol]·[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333][FONT=Arial] [B]Angola - 1991 - more than 51 million gallons[/B]The tanker expolded, exact quantity of spill unknown [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Symbol]·[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333][FONT=Arial] [B]Italy - 1991 - 45 million gallons[/B]The tanker exploded and sank off the coast of Italy and continued leaking it's oil into the ocean for 12 years. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Symbol]·[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333][FONT=Arial] [B]Odyssey Oil Spill - 1988 - 40 million gallons[/B]
700 nautical miles off the cost of Nova Scotia.[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial] [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][/COLOR]

Re: Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave
 

Also a good artical that offers a somewhat optimistic view. You need a subscription so I posted it:

Experts seek to learn from similar blowout

By Javier Blas, Commodities Correspondent
Published: June 1 2010 05:59 | Last updated: June 1 2010 05:59

As BP struggles to contain the leaking Macondo oil well, engineers, policymakers and environmentalists are looking south in the Gulf of Mexico to a similar accident three decades ago for clues about solutions and the long-term damage from the spill.

The parallels are striking. In June 1979, Petróleos Mexicanos’ exploration well Ixtoc 1 suffered a massive blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, about 600 miles south of Houston. The uncontrolled well gushed oil and gas for nine months and 22 days, spilling about 3.3m barrels of crude until it was finally capped in March 1980.

The episode sets a sombre precedent because it shows that oil companies struggle with underwater blowouts. On the surface, Ixtoc 1 was an easier problem than Macondo: the Mexican well lay under just 150ft of water while BP’s oilfield is about 5,000ft down. But engineers say that, taking into account the differences in technology, Ixtoc was probably as difficult to tackle as Macondo is today.

Drawing conclusions from other accidents, the Obama administration and BP have warned that the Macondo leak could continue for months.
Tony Hayward, BP’s chief executive, said over the weekend there was no doubt that “the ultimate solution lies on the relief well, which is in August”.

Carlos Morales, Pemex head of exploration, is sharing technical information with BP about the spill, the Mexican oil company said. Mr Morales has warned that it could take “four to five months” for a relief well to cap the spill.

As with BP in the current crisis, Pemex tried everything two decades ago, from the conventional to the radical, in its effort to contain the spill. Its efforts ranged from a cap or funnel above the well, or sombrero which largely failed, to pumping mud and debris in a “top kill” and “junk shoot” manoeuvre – a partial success – to relief wells.

The failure of the blowout preventer was critical – another parallel between the two incidents. After the blowout, Pemex tried to close the BOP by pumping in seawater, drilling fluids and chunks of rubber. For three hours, the operation was a success. But shortly afterwards, there was a large rupture underneath the BOP, according to the report “Ixtoc 1, Blowout and Control Operation” by Oscar Luis Ulloa and Ignacio Osorio, of Halliburton de México and Pemex, respectively.

“In view of this, it was decided to drill two directional wells in order to pump fluids to the formation and bring the well under control,” they wrote in their study, considered one of the best accounts of the incident.
“The drilling of the control wells Ixtoc 1-A and Ixtoc 1-B ... brought about the final plug operation.”

Beyond the parallels in dealing with the blowout, Ixtoc offers policymakers and scientists clues about the effects of the spill on the economy and the environment.

Surprisingly, marine life recovered swiftly from the spill.
Arne Jernelov, an expert on environmental catastrophes who studied Ixtoc, says that in the case of Macondo, it is a safe bet that shrimp and squid populations will suffer, as they did in the Ixtoc case, “but so is a close-to-complete recovery within a limited number of years”.
Other scientists who studied Ixtoc concluded that the recovery of marine life was in part due to the fact that a large amount of oil evaporated, dissolved in the hot waters of the Gulf of Mexico or sunk into the seabed, forming sediment. The studies were, however, largely supported by Pemex and the Mexican government 20 years ago, so it is impossible to ascertain their independence.

The Mexican Institute of Petroleum concluded in a report after the accident that Ixtoc’s crude oil broke down due to the effect of sunlight, hot water and weather conditions. “The tar oil landing on the beaches is largely innocuous,” it said.

The Ixtoc case also offers a warning about the potential cost of compensation claims. Oil from the Mexican well reached Texas, polluting beaches and hitting the US fishing and tourism industries, according to a report published at the time by the US interior department.
Washington asked for financial compensation from Pemex, but the Mexican government rejected the claim. The precedent could prove important if the Macondo spill continues for months and the oil reaches Mexico or Cuba.

[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][URL="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9a13b73e-6d31-11df-921a-00144feab49a.html"][COLOR=#800080]http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9a13b73e-6d31-11df-921a-00144feab49a.html[/COLOR][/URL][/FONT][/COLOR]