The Oil Spill Thread

[hank213 1,823]

also, the situations are not quite the same. Clean up from Natural disasters and maintaining the contition of levy's is the realm of the federal government. And while I think blaming W specifically for it wasn't fair, since the president is the personification of the federal government in most people's minds ( who have little real clue how the gov. works) him getting the blame is understandable. But this is a man made disaster, by a private company, that should have a contingency plan already in place for just such an event.

This is kind of in line with my whole position on deep water drilling. BP's mea culpa all through this is "solution x has never been tried at this depth before." Great, we have the technology to drill under a mile of water. Now get back to me when you have the technology to recover, in a timely fashion, from a catastrophic failure at that depth and we'll look at letting you back out there. The foot print from a catastrophic failure is too far-reaching for too long a period without it.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I think you're mostly tolerable.The nuke comment is stupid and it's already been addressed in this thread.I'm not sure what you are trying to do with the racism. You are enough of a bigot in the immigration threads, would you mind keeping this stuff there?

Racism?Lighten up, Francis, it is a Cajun accent.

[nutzbuster 7]

I think you're mostly tolerable.The nuke comment is stupid and it's already been addressed in this thread.I'm not sure what you are trying to do with the racism. You are enough of a bigot in the immigration threads, would you mind keeping this stuff there?

Racism?Lighten up, Francis, it is a Cajun accent.

...must...use...all....control.......must...not....be...bullied.....into...letting.........folks.....know....that ....wife.....is....100....per....cent.....Mexican......must......not....give......in....DAMMITT!!!!

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

...must...use...all....control.......must...not....be...bullied.....into...letting.........folks.....know....that ....wife.....is....100....per....cent.....Mexican......must......not....give......in....DAMMITT!!!!

Yeah. I thought that was the case, but didn't want to play that card for you!

[nutzbuster 7]

Yeah. I thought that was the case, but didn't want to play that card for you!

heh...that, and all her family is behind the bill. As far as the nuke thing goes, it was brought up again TODAY after the recent top cap thingy failed. no media is talking about it and the oil is gushing now more than ever. no idea if they would actually set off said megatonnage remedy

[JoeyJoJo 18]

it was brought up again TODAY...no media is talking about it.

Who brought it up?

[hank213 1,823]

Who brought it up?

BG did. Geez, don't you read?!?!?

[CaneBrain 95]

So this is why cane likes the fund so much.SCHWARTZ: Drain Gulf litigation gusherFocus money on victims, not a windfall for lawyersIn the wake of the Gulf oil spill, a hidden wave of economic waste needs sunlight. This tragedy does not involve oil staining the coastline and wreaking havoc on the environment or Gulf residents, but it is one that will deeply affect everyone involved. It is the economic waste brought about by random and explosive litigation, which threatens to drain away hundreds of millions of dollars from legitimate victims of the Gulf oil spill in the form of wasteful legal costs.The $20 billion victims fund, recently announced by the president and paid for by BP, has the potential to provide a solution to this developing problem, but only if the fund is set up to draw clear liability lines and reduce litigation costs. This will not be easy. Already, dozens of plaintiffs' firms throughout the United States have filed claims against BP, Transocean, Halliburton and others. Less than a month ago, about 200 personal injury lawyers gathered at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Orlando, Fla., in a "closed door" conference to discuss litigation strategy and jockey to be lead counsel in ensuing litigation.While the facts and scope of the Gulf oil spill evolve daily, as do proposals for a permanent solution to the leak, plaintiffs' lawyers are already dredging the shores for more class-action clients. A witness of this rush to the courthouse commented, "Only one animal has thrived in the Gulf oil spill, hundreds of sharks." But when he looked more closely, he said, "No, they're not sharks, they are plaintiffs' lawyers."Although plaintiffs' lawyers do have an important place in our society, their first goal is not always to be "champions of the people," but to secure their own profits.It is important to make that distinction here, especially when it is doubtful that many of the plaintiffs' lawyers are acquainted on an ongoing, personal basis with the people they claim to represent. Yet, to be fair, concern is also not limited to plaintiffs' lawyers. Legal fees in this litigation will spread to hundreds of defense lawyers as well, positioning the Gulf oil spill as a great economic boon for the legal profession.The proposed "fund" for victims may not abate these huge litigation costs. If there is no shield against lawsuits, weaker claims will go to the fund. Plaintiffs' lawyers will then guide the stronger claims to the courthouse.To make the fund work and reduce the litigation bonanza, the following must occur: Potential victims, many of whom have been mechanically placed in class actions, should be given a clear and voluntary choice: fund or litigation? The benefit and risks of each choice should be explained fully to them. The fund can be an important model for that choice. Clear guidelines must be established for who is eligible for the fund. Obviously, persons who suffered physical injury or damage to their own property should be eligible. It is less obvious with respect to claims for direct or indirect economic losses. Tort, or liability, law is as murky here as some of the Gulf tar balls.For example, if a person negligently causes an accident in a tunnel, he is responsible for all direct physical and property harms that are caused by his negligence. But if someone behind the wrongdoer cannot open his business that day and loses earnings, tort law generally does not allow recovery for those damages. It is essential to draw clear and fair guidelines on this crucial point. Guidelines that are too strict may be unfair. Guidelines that are too loose will bankrupt the fund.The challenging questions of who gets paid and how to reduce the legal costs should be addressed now by Congress. First, the fund should be used only to compensate plaintiffs who have suffered a material loss from the oil spill. Damages in nonpersonal injury cases also should be confined to actual economic loss. If BP directly or indirectly already paid the claimant for his loss, that should be deducted from the amount of the claim. Claimants should include those who can show by the preponderance of evidence specific economic loss, not generalities. Finally, a claim paid under the fund should be in lieu of any existing or future lawsuit.Kenneth Feinberg was a good choice to administer the Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund, and that experience may assist him in administering this fund. However, this is much more complicated liability than compensating people who were injured or lost loved ones in a tragedy. The fund currently is not a savior; more than one devil is in the details.

I mean, there were going to be ridiculous profits for lawyers either way. The fund might reduce that somewhat which I am fine with because I find plaintiff's lawyers to be a little ghoulish.....and I don't do that kind of work so I have no personal stake. So, I don't get your point. When man-caused disasters happen, lawyers are usually the only winners. That's just the nature of the beast. If this fund ends up abating those profits a bit, I think that is great. If it doesn't, well, it was happening anyway. In sum, I don't get this article. It's kind of a statement of the obvious.

[Balloon guy 158]

BG did. Geez, don't you read?!?!?

Pretty good guess to always assume that whenever the discussion involves showing off our military strength, I am behind it.Could be a compensation thing...

[nutzbuster 7]

Who brought it up?

FOX news, duhApparently an underwater robot bumped into the Top Cap and shut off a vent.The pressure build up became so great they had to yank the damn thing off or risk a high pressure explosion. At that time they had no idea if it had failed or what went wrong. Folks brought up the nuke option again, falling on deaf ears. They figured out what happened, fixed the vent thing and the device will once again be placed on the gusher today apparently.no fish fry. sigh....

[mk 11]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3485z_XlJI4

[El Guapo 8]

I read an article last night that said half of the oil has been eaten up by microbes already. Apparently the Gulf of Mexico already had so much oil leaking that it had developed natural system of microbes that fed on the oil. Also the warm water allows these microbes to multiply faster.So what I took from the article was, if there had to be a catastrophic spill, this was one of the best places to have it because the environment is more self cleaning that the colder oceans, i.e. Pacific and Alaska for the Valdez spill.

[SweetDee 0]

I read an article last night that said half of the oil has been eaten up by microbes already. Apparently the Gulf of Mexico already had so much oil leaking that it had developed natural system of microbes that fed on the oil. Also the warm water allows these microbes to multiply faster.So what I took from the article was, if there had to be a catastrophic spill, this was one of the best places to have it because the environment is more self cleaning that the colder oceans, i.e. Pacific and Alaska for the Valdez spill.

Damnit, Rush was right again.

[ThePhoenix 0]

Noone has any real experience with plugging leaks at that depth, especially on such a fractured geological area inc BP and they are the most experienced oil co. for complex zones as far as Im know, as all the standard procedures either can't be used or wouldn't work, ie close it by explosion would fracture the entire area and cause hundreds of leaks. Plus the pressure will destroy the standard caps used fairly quicky as the flow is 3x that expected... The well was an exploratory well not a production well so its less robust which makes it even more of a challenge. So its a total mess. Normal oil leaks are easy in comparision; as the oil floats, but that far down you can't get to it before its hundreds of miles away in the currents. The other crazy act the gov't seems to be doing is passing the blame buck further by trying to say BP was involved in the Lockabee talks. Lol. Amusing as I know one of the Scottish aids who was out there and it was Shell that was in talks with Libya at that time. OOPS an American company shhh- looks like some of the witchhunt may be purely to get a US company to gain ownership of the oil field instead of any real concern for ecological damage.

[CaneBrain 95]

Damnit, Rush was right again.

5 words, wrong twice. Impressive.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

The other crazy act the gov't seems to be doing is passing the blame buck further by trying to say BP was involved in the Lockabee talks. Lol. Amusing as I know one of the Scottish aids who was out there and it was Shell that was in talks with Libya at that time. OOPS an American company shhh- looks like some of the witchhunt may be purely to get a US company to gain ownership of the oil field instead of any real concern for ecological damage.

Frankly, I'm 1000X more pissed about Lockerbie and BP's apparent involvement (far more basis to support BP than Shell involvement despite your trusted source) than the Gulf Spill....and you fail fail at conspiracy theories. Every hear of the Royal Dutch Shell Oil Company? Shell is not American owned. So I guess you think we're trowing a British company under the bus instead of a Dutch company in order to help an unnamed American company. Wow. These conspirators are smart.

[brvheart 1,752]

5 words, wrong twice. Impressive.

What are you referring to?

[strategy 4]

What are you referring to?

the real question is: what was rush supposedly right about?

[brvheart 1,752]

the real question is: what was rush supposedly right about?

That's a good question also. I'm guessing it had something to do with him saying oil is natural and is entering the oceans all the time and that the environment would break it down naturally. But I have no idea if he actually said these things.

[strategy 4]

one day, not too long ago, I drove around with my engineer uncle while he was in town. until then, I had no idea he worked for haliburton. truth be told, I wasn't even sure what field he was in, but apparently it is quite intimately linked to this offshore drilling. according to him, haliburton is extremely fortunate to have spun off some division before this happened. [he mentioned that the rape division of the company is also now spun off]frankly, I don't know anything about it, but his idiot's simplification was that the operation was lacking about four or five strongly recommended safety measures that acted in conjunction to create the problem. the way he described some of it, it sounded like he could find reason to excuse a few of the omissions, but he ultimately assured me that they'd be found grossly negligent. I'm sure all of this can be reproduced with some cursory googling, but it was striking to hear it from a guy who leans right and works for those people.

[brvheart 1,752]

one day, not too long ago, I drove around with my engineer uncle while he was in town. until then, I had no idea he worked for haliburton. truth be told, I wasn't even sure what field he was in, but apparently it is quite intimately linked to this offshore drilling. according to him, haliburton is extremely fortunate to have spun off some division before this happened. [he mentioned that the rape division of the company is also now spun off]frankly, I don't know anything about it, but his idiot's simplification was that the operation was lacking about four or five strongly recommended safety measures that acted in conjunction to create the problem. the way he described some of it, it sounded like he could find reason to excuse a few of the omissions, but he ultimately assured me that they'd be found grossly negligent. I'm sure all of this can be reproduced with some cursory googling, but it was striking to hear it from a guy who leans right and works for those people.

Why? I pretty sure that right leaning people are ok with companies being found grossly negligent.

[CaneBrain 95]

What are you referring to?

The idea that Rush was right this time and the implication that he has been right in the past. Duh!

[strategy 4]

Why? I pretty sure that right leaning people are ok with companies being found grossly negligent.

seems like you need to re-read this thread?

[SweetDee 0]

That's a good question also. I'm guessing it had something to do with him saying oil is natural and is entering the oceans all the time and that the environment would break it down naturally. But I have no idea if he actually said these things.

He did. He basically agreed with the CEO when the CEO said something along the lines of "The gulf is pretty big", etc. Rush did a dialogue of sorts about how nature would take care of a lot more than she was currently being given credit for, which is basically what has happened, unless the oil just disappeared. What I have found is that people who "hate" Rush have never really listened to his show. Listen to him for 2 weeks straight for an hour a day, not clips off of CNN, and what anybody who has ears will find is that he is pretty much right all of the time. That wasn't directed towards you, that was more pre-emptive for the various people that I am smarter than who will chime in dogging Rush.

[SweetDee 0]

5 words, wrong twice. Impressive.

Here is one of them.