Users who Dugg This
Techcompasser
635 Followers
radicalrainbow
2108 Followers
Catchin up
442 Followers
Jason Kempshall
558 Followers
Amit Tripathi
48 Followers
ofnumbersAug 6, 2010
This is slightly inaccurate - BP WILL continue the drilling and harvesting oil from the disaster site, rather than "might."
This is because Static Kill was meant to improve the ability of the relief wells to draw uninhibited flows of oil. Not to actually stop it from leaking or anything. Just a method to ensure they get their product and sell it to you. They even did a one up and dropped two new oil rigs over where Deepwater Horizon was just in case one of the new ones blows up.
However the "confusion" isn't surprising. Just a few days ago CNN was saying there was "minimal" damage to the Gulf. Yes, minimal is applicable with 60 foot barriers, massive fines, media blackouts and millions of gallons of Corexit unleashed upon the world. Minimal. The propaganda train is already running, folks.
digghasnoethicsAug 7, 2010
I don't think you managed to get one bit of that right. Congratulations.
kestasjkAug 8, 2010
They're paying ~$35 billion for the accident (for which they share a lot of the blame with transocean), they're trying to extract, refine and sell to us a product we desperately want to buy as cheaply as possible..
Are these guys really the enemy? They should be scrutinized and continue to pay for their mistakes, but do you really think BP is the incarnate of evil but that Shell/Exxon/Chevron will come in and do what's right?
tsprouleAug 6, 2010
Makes sense to me. If they are going to drill in deep water, they might as well do it where they already know there is oil.
wateryouthAug 7, 2010
What makes that place any less good of a place to drill than anywhere else? It wasn't any type of geologic event that caused the disaster.
They are an oil company, its what they do.
doctorfaustAug 7, 2010
It's not about the location; it's the company with the horrible track record.
But if you want to make it about the location, they're drilling around a gigantic underground methane gas chamber that could erupt and kill untold numbers of people. Incidentally, the explosion occurred due to the equipment's failure to prevent or even notice the gigantic methane build-up that eventually travelled up the pipe and ignited.
So, yeah. It's what they do.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cl1mh4224rdAug 7, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
bipolarruledoutAug 7, 2010
It's what we ALLOW them to do. It's not supposed to be the other way around.
kestasjkAug 8, 2010
Want oil companies to stop drilling for oil and for all the associated risks to go away? Stop buying their oil and funding their exploration for oil fields.. That's about as direct a way to give mandate to an enterprise as anything else, we're not so much allowing it as we are encouraging and lavishly incentivizing it
skinturtleAug 7, 2010
It's kind of insensitive but that's an oil company for ya. The love of money and profit numbs their senses.
jonp63Aug 7, 2010
stfu assh**e
skinturtleAug 7, 2010
Thats "Mister" assh**e to you bud.
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
You drive right? Use plastic, asphalt, etc.?
Get off your high horse.
evilkrustydollAug 7, 2010
Greed?
Or more like they are an oil company, and that is what they do, and unless you ride a bicycle to every place you go, you're the bigger hypocrite for questioning them.
luckyscsAug 7, 2010
Agreed, In fact this oil receiver itself is under extreme pressures. Not taking this oil out could lead to another oil leak in which no one will ever hear about and could be even more disastrous for the gulf.
agmlauncherAug 7, 2010
Or, how about they stop drilling until that emergency response plan is done and we can contain a disaster like this properly. Oh-f**king-well if they can't make any money for 18 months. Tough s**t. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
simunsezAug 7, 2010
Obama's meddling caused them to make an extra $7.5 billion this year.
kestasjkAug 8, 2010
[citation needed]
gryffon5147Aug 7, 2010
Someday, someone's going to go after it. Whether it's in a week or in fifty years. Why not let the company that created the worst environmental disaster in American history to get the job done?
Seriously? Ban BP back to Britain. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
darkshroudAug 7, 2010
Are you going to pay the wages of all the workers who will loose their jobs? Are you going to cover the difference in the rise in fuel prices for the rest of us?
f**k off, this wasn't even the worst spill in the Golf. Maybe just maybe we should allow them to drill closer inland where these problems can be dealt with quicker and drilling is cheaper as well.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
seltaeb4Aug 7, 2010
If the workers loose their jobs, I hope they don't trip over them.
marx2kAug 7, 2010
Please show us what sort of nightmarish rise in fuel prices we will see from removing BP from the drilling pool in the gulf (not Golf).
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
"Seriously? Ban BP back to Britain."
If anything BP is marginally more American than British. American CEO, large American shareholding, large American subsidiary. And it was likely Americans that may have contributed to any bad decisions that caused the blowout.
cyberdroppingAug 7, 2010
The media is dead. Everything you read is total inaccurate bulls**t or some spun lie. I rank its accuracy right up there with politicians campaign speeches. The only "hard" journalism any more is when they run after a celebrity and try to destroy their career.
sil369Aug 7, 2010
*pictures ralph doing something stupid on the simpsons, failing miserably then continues doing it*
batwaffelAug 7, 2010
So much for that ass kicking Obama promised he would do to BP over the spill. A company that killed nearly a dozen of their employees, single handedly responsible for destroying one of the largest fishing industries in the world, destroying an already hurting economy along the gulf coast, and walking away with a smile by getting away with it.
Every single person who knew about the issues and should have done something but did nothing should get a nice long prison sentence. Just sayin.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
partrowAug 7, 2010
They have the lease, why wouldn't they drill it?
For that matter, why don't they use one of the relief wells for a production well?
fostina1Aug 7, 2010
who cares. if thats where the oil is let them get it. dont let the disaster be for nothing.
doctorfaustAug 7, 2010
The disaster wasn't for nothing. It was a warning sign to stop f**king up the planet.
analogassassinAug 7, 2010
I guess you got the message, then. Go have your car destroyed and walk or bike your ass everywhere you want to go.
eraptorAug 8, 2010
I thought conservatives opposed entitlements...
If there's oil there, let someone ELSE get it. The BP retards have proven themselves incapable of drilling an oil well with competence and integrity.
gryffon5147Aug 7, 2010
Do we really need to put /s at the end of everything for people to get the hint?
heliox2000Aug 7, 2010
No
/s
seltaeb4Aug 7, 2010
They must have their PRECCCIOUSSSS!
jonp63Aug 7, 2010
i guess you walk everywhere? shut up hypocrite!
cr42yr1chAug 7, 2010
Why do people seem surprised that while countries demand oil that oil wells are drilled?
mouskyAug 7, 2010
Isn't it really pure greed on the part of the consumer? Companies don't do things unless there is demand.
inactiveuserAug 7, 2010
You want me to walk the 400 meters to the shop? Are you serious?
marx2kAug 7, 2010
I'm not seeing too much demand for bypassing safety regulation.
bipolarruledoutAug 7, 2010
That's a difficult question. I agree the consumer should take blame on the demand side. But also understand that most are victims of the status quo.
eraptorAug 8, 2010
Nothing like blaming the victims to a disaster, huh.
American consumer's have NEVER given ANY business interest the right to pollute our environment, bypass safety regulations OR engage in white collar crime.
Android14094Aug 7, 2010
The thing that bother me so much is that in the DECADES since the first gulf oil spill with "El Sombrero" the oil industry did essentially NOTHING to improve on spill response. Because if you are the CEO of a corporate entity, you will be punished for caring about anything but money. And that, folks, is why the entire board of directors should be out on their asses WITHOUT a golden parachute. By ignoring emergency spill response for decades, they wound up having a DEVASTATING impact on BP's bottom line. In other words, by not having a real contingency plan they were obviously not caring about the bottom line.
bipolarruledoutAug 7, 2010
Which is why we need to apply stiff economic penalty to such externalities. When it starts to significantly impact their bottom line they might start to care.
nosretapAug 7, 2010
"the reservoir is estimated to hold $4 billion worth of oil, according to the Associated Press"
$4Billion? Cost of cleanup?
Are the completely mad?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
What in the hell are you people talking about?
The issue here has little to do with the location and much to do with the fact that the oil company with the poorest track record in environmental impact and work safety .
The land is owned y the US. BP has a lease to drill on the land. They do not have an constitutionally protected right to drill there. How is ending their lease any different from evicting people from a rental that are really tearing the place up and disrupting the neighborhood?
Commenters keep pushing the idea that keeping BP from drilling will cause a lot of jobs to be lost and yet ignore all the jobs that BP ended with this disaster. Tourism and fishing are large bases of income for Gulf coast states and they are currently struggling to continue because BP failed to fully test and maintain their equipment.
Commenters also keep pushing the idea that we need to drill for oil because most people drive cars and that people use plastic because they need plastic and that they use most anything because they need it. This is a complete fallacy of economics. Take the example of the dramatic increase in use of plastics in recent years. Just 10 years ago, it wasn't uncommon to see many brands using metal coffee cans; today its difficult to find even one brand still using metal cans. Many products have continued the shift towards plastic materials over more traditional and even environmentally friendly alternatives. People buy plastic products because plastic is cheaper to produce over cardboard and other paper products because lobbyists in Washington pushed for partially subsidizing plastics as being safer to use than other product containers neglecting the fact that they are also environmentally hazardous and toxic. Similar examples of this type of situation exist in most all food products with subsidized corn being used as a preservative in some form to increase profits for corn producing corporations while neglecting health concerns that many scientists have been raising in recent years.
Oil is absolutely no different in this respect. Electric cars have existed for almost a century and yet, only now are they getting real consideration. Had oil lobbyists in Washington not continually pushed for the subsidization of oil and the neglect of alternative energy sources, I believe we could all be driving electric cars already. Could the rest of the energy consumers, such as power plants, have shifted away from fossil fuels? probably not but running cars off of a battery that is charged by those few power plants is a lot better than hauling around a little generator in every vehicle across the country.
TL;DR - BP has an unsafe track record and should not be allowed to continue to drill in our waters. BP itself has been the cause of many jobs being lost of hindered, such as fishing and tourism. Lobbyists have caused oil to be unrealistically cheap and people continue to buy oil products because there are few alternatives.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kestasjkAug 8, 2010
*Transoceans equipment..
majoroutageAug 7, 2010
Fungible. That is all.
automatikAug 7, 2010
if you're truly opposed to big oil, *do something about it instead of talk*. either sell or permanently turn off anything you have that uses fossil fuels. then, and only then, you may discard the title of 'hypocrite'.
bipolarruledoutAug 7, 2010
Balls. Vice.
eraptorAug 7, 2010
Considering BP's history of disasters and DISREGARD for safety, wouldn't it make sense to cancel their leasing rights and sell them to a responsible oil company?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gsydiggerAug 7, 2010
responsible and oil in the same sentence without including not before responsible is an oxymoron
michaeljdossettAug 7, 2010
BP is as tone-deaf as many of the large financial institutions were at the peak of the economic crisis. For those who are interested in reading more about the subject, check out the most recent post "Learning From BP's Failures Before and After the Gulf Spill" at http://letschatbusiness.wordpress.com.
gkiltzAug 8, 2010
No reason not to! Now that the well is plugged!
We NEED that oil, the economy won't improve without an energy source.
dushAug 9, 2010
Ironically, after all this mess and the experience garnered in resolving it the drilling would probably be safer than ever at this point.
What I don't get is why the company that ran the rig and purposely had the alarm systems turned off isn't getting more backlash.