Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smigenboger]

That's what they want you to think

[Aqizzar]

Gazpom wanted to knock out BP's market share, so they set up a dummy charity front to fund Greenpeace, installed a radical leader who wanted to cause a disaster to scare people away from oil drilling, and supplied them with a decommissioned submarine via their para-military mafiya contacts.  Soon, Exxon will counter by supplying isolationists in France with surreptitious access to nuclear plants, to discredit atomic energy.

It's an arms race people, and the arms are wingnut conspirators.  Take your thumbs out of your asses and get your heads in the game.

[RedWarrior0]

My religion teacher will make it look like a left wing plot to enforce abortions. We actually had a global warming debate derail into him ranting about abortions.

[The Architect]

America decided not to require such measures, because $500,000 for auto-valves is too expensive.

Well, Aqizzar, I only got this far before feeling the need to contradict you.

BP is the only company drilling in American waters that does not use this shutoff, because they're cheapasses. And it doesn't matter whom they contracted the drilling to, because the drilling company did the job according to BP's specifications. There's been no question among people concerned here (on the gulf coast, where I live) about where responsibility lies, and BP as already agreed to pay for numerous instances of damage. It's only political ass-chasery in Washington that might get them out of this by palming it off on the American tax payer, because as we know oil companies have quite a bit of political power.

[The Architect]

I'm sorry for offending you if double posts offend some of you, but I really don't care that I double posted. Just that it might have upset some of you.

Gazpom wanted to knock out BP's market share, so they set up a dummy charity front to fund Greenpeace, installed a radical leader who wanted to cause a disaster to scare people away from oil drilling, and supplied them with a decommissioned submarine via their para-military mafiya contacts.  Soon, Exxon will counter by supplying isolationists in France with surreptitious access to nuclear plants, to discredit atomic energy.

It's an arms race people, and the arms are wingnut conspirators.  Take your thumbs out of your asses and get your heads in the game.

Considering that this has never happened before, and that there is no known cause and there are no known contributing factors, it's quite reasonable to investigate sabotage. In fact, the circumstances point heavily toward that motivation. Offshore oil drilling is such a zero-risk venture that there's never been an accident (previously). Also, with proper equipment, even accidents and sabotage can't cause problems.

Let's consider the factors:
1. New legislation, long hard-fought by certain well-known interest groups, has just been passed to allow new offshore drilling.
2. Political figures, persons involved in the oil industry, and conspiracy theorists alike have been claiming that for these interest groups to have such power, there must be other factors involved. Which there were, as those standing to gain from restricted drilling have funded opposition to varying degrees.
3. The first ever such accident, under highly suspicious circumstances, occurs just as these interest groups have finally been defeated, on one of the few rigs without the proper safety equipment to prevent major catastrophe.

While not completely compelling, these things in combination are very suspicious. It can be considered a very powerful body of circumstantial evidence that demands careful investigation.

[Aqizzar]

You really don't understand the meaning of sarcasm do you?  It's a ridiculous proposition put forth for humor.  I was going to leave it at just "Greenpeace sabotaged the well to discredit oil drilling", but Rush Limbaugh beat me to it, and completely straight-faced to boot.

America decided not to require such measures, because $500,000 for auto-valves is too expensive.

Well, Aqizzar, I only got this far before feeling the need to contradict you.  BP is the only company drilling in American waters that does not use this shutoff, because they're cheapasses.

How exactly are you contradicting me?  I said that America does not require these shut off valves.  That is true.  And they don't require them because of all the political influence British Petroleum wields.  So what if every other company isn't cheap enough to not install them?  It's still perfectly legal to be that recklessly cheap, and British Petroleum owns a lot of wells.  But then, I'm still not sure what you think you're disagreeing with me on.

[The Architect]

Obviously I do understand sarcasm, or I wouldn't have directly addressed your meaning. Aqizzar, are you saying anything here?

Is English your second language or something?

America didn't "decide not to require" these valves. BP decided not to use them. The American government is not and should not be responsible for demanding every reasonable safety feature; companies that fail to employ reasonable safety features are responsible for the consequences regardless of government regulation.

Again, what is your first language, Aqizzar?

[Aqizzar]

Why are you trying to start a fight with me?  I didn't want to ask if you had some kind of grudge against me, based on the tenor of your first response, but now I have to ask, what is this grudge coming from?

The American government is not and should not be responsible for demanding every reasonable safety feature; companies that fail to employ reasonable safety features are responsible for the consequences regardless of government regulation.

That's utterly preposterous.  How are companies responsible for grossly unsafe business practices, if the government doesn't make them responsible for it?  That's what government are for, making laws based on what seems safe, and then enforcing those laws.  You even qualify the safety features in question as reasonable, but you don't think they should be legally mandated?  What purpose do you think the government serves, if not to try to prevent an offshore oil derrick from springing catastrophic leaks, and then punishing the party responsible when it does?

BP has already pulled out every legal stop they can think of to try to absolve itself of any dime of repercussion or legal action, government instigated, class-action civil suit, or otherwise.  Without government rules and action, how are companies responsible for the consequences?  And don't insult my and your intelligence by claiming market forces will hold them accountable by loss of sales and investment; the "invisible hand of the market" is exactly what goaded BP to cutting corners on safety measures in the first place, in the quest for maximum output at minimum cost.  And without the government forcing BP to, they sure as fuck wouldn't be cleaning this spill up out of the good of their hearts.

[The Architect]

Why are you trying to start a fight with me?  I didn't want to ask if you had some kind of grudge against me, based on the tenor of your first response, but now I have to ask, what is this grudge coming from?

Slow down, man. No wonder your reply post seemed belligerent. Reread my first, and you'll see there was no negative tone.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions, and companies are responsible for their negligent business practices. It may be up to the governments under which they operate to enforce punitive actions, but that simply supports this tenet.

Of course the US government should mandate it, but that doesn't mitigate BP's responsibility. That was what your OP seemed to suggest, and what I feel the need to contradict.

[Aqizzar]

Reread my first, and you'll see there was no negative tone.

Aqizzar, are you saying anything here?  Is English your second language or something? ... Again, what is your first language, Aqizzar?

Everyone is responsible for their own actions, and companies are responsible for their negligent business practices. It may be up to the governments under which they operate to enforce punitive actions, but that simply supports this tenet.

The American government is not and should not be responsible for demanding every reasonable safety feature...

Of course the US government should mandate it, but that doesn't mitigate BP's responsibility. That was what your OP seemed to suggest, and what I feel the need to contradict.

I don't know how you got the impression that I want the government to mitigate BP's responsibility.  That's what BP wants, and I'm pissed that they might get it.  I know you want to equate any government assistance of any kind with "moral hazard" and other crap, but it just doesn't apply here.

[The Architect]

Alright, Aqizzar, I see there's a problem here.

First: You know me better than that. Backtrack and reread.

Second: You seem to be unusually belligerent. I'll admit that I have not read the rest of this thread, and I don't know what people have been doing to get you so riled up. You are so very riled up that you failed to ever properly read my first post, and replied with a rather antagonistic second post in which you attacked a couple of strawmen. This caused my second, unkind post, in which I insulted your understanding of the English language (as my meaning was so clearly not what you seemed to think it was).

It wasn't the most mature response, to be sure. I'm sorry for that. Truthfully, though, this is not a one-sided problem. I didn't start this argument, and I didn't come here to argue. I simply made a point: that your statement seems to indicate that the responsibility for this accident lies on the hands of the American government, and not on BP. BP is solely responsible for this. Certainly it could have been prevented if the US government micromanaged oil development even more than they already do, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter.

Now, please, Aqizzar, stop. I am not going to do what you've been doing and lay the blame on my "opponent". I exacerbated this problem. I didn't come here to argue, and I didn't start an argument. Don't I have a valid point?

Edit: ah, I see you've edited your post. That's more along the lines of what I expect from you, and what I normally respect you for. Thank you.

[Aqizzar]

Okay, so we're cool?  Cool.  I don't mean to be flippant, but let's not continue arguing about not arguing.  And it figures I have to go to work now.

...your statement seems to indicate that the responsibility for this accident lies on the hands of the American government, and not on BP. BP is solely responsible for this. Certainly it could have been prevented if the US government micromanaged oil development even more than they already do, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter.

Why is it either/or?  It's both.  Agents of the Mineral Manager Service, starting under the Bush administration and continued under the Obama administration who kept many of the same officers, were accepting bribes, kickbacks, deals, and sex from oil industry lobbyists and vice versa.  They've continually, right up through today, given British Petroleum post facto permits to drill in areas no one is supposed to drill in, with no assurance of safety or compliance.  Meanwhile, what little regulation there even was BP has repeatedly violated and gotten away with scott free.

The legislation and policy rules on oceanic drilling are incredibly lax; the enforcement thereof is even laxer both from complicity and incompetence; the oil industry, British Petroleum in particular, have devoted a lot of systematic effort to create and fully exploit that rules-free environment; leading us to today, where BP is trying to absolve itself of responsibility for it's fuckup; and the MMS is trying to avoid all recrimination.  I'm mad at all of them, because they're all responsible, and I'm further mad at elected politicians (and private citizens with loud platforms) trying to smokescreen this situation away and pretend there's nothing wrong.

The government is not a monolith; there's different factions within it.  And to the extent I'm on any side, I'm on the side of those other politicians campaigning for stronger laws and real enforcement of them.  Because until now, BP has almost never been held responsible for it's problems, and could very well get away with this one too.

[Nonsapient]

Edit:  If that post was a joke, then I'm sorry, disregard the rest of what is said.  I assumed it wasn't in light of the posts that followed it.

Considering that this has never happened before, and that there is no known cause and there are no known contributing factors, it's quite reasonable to investigate sabotage.

Umm.... WHAT?  You may live on the coast,  but that doesn't mean that you know what you're talking about.  Offshore rigs have sunk numerous times in history;  we have had NUMEROUS blowouts, both on and offshore.  I personally know 2 people that have died in blowouts.

Here's a few things to back this up:
2001- World's then largest offshore rig sinks, 10 people killed
Last week, an offshore rig sank
Another one, in 2001

The list goes on and on.  This is not an isolated incident.  Offshore drilling is just as fraught with perils as land drilling;  unfortunately, the stakes are much higher offshore.  This means that an offshore rig failing has a much higher impact than on land.

And BP being the only one that doesn't use that type of preventer...  I don't have a whole lot of experience offshore specifically,  so I can't comment directly.  However, I will say that BP, in my experience, has a much higher safety standard than most.  The company I am working for RIGHT NOW has dropped their bids on contracts solely because BP got involved,  and that increased our safety overhead.

[The Architect]

I mean that there has never been a spill. Didn't I say specifically that there has never been a spill? There has never been an accident of this type, and there are no known contributing factors to what we're seeing.

At least, that is according to people I know who are working with this actual instance, both the investigation and the cleanup.

It's been in the news that BP is the only major drilling company that does not utilize the basic emergency shutoff valve Aqizzar has referenced. I assume they weren't being libelous.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Just out of idle curiousity, has the spill reached Exxon Valdez proportions yet?