The Oil Spill Thread

[mk 11]

Because the majority of the people don't want most of what you said above.

pinko commie nonsense amiriteBURN DRILL BURN DRILL CONSUME F YOU PLANET GG AMURIKA RULZ

[JoeyJoJo 18]

I saw this bumper sticker on someone's car the other day.Product description: Make a statement by plastering our Gas Sucks decal in Big Oil's face. Stick this on your car's rear window.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Right, but then again, the majority of people are stupid. ...

And also, that wasn't aimed at El Guapo, who I understood was making a pretty objective statement about the opinions of the majority of Americans (who, in masses, can have absolutely no foresight, no sense of perspective, no grasp of risk or reward, and can be quite stupid).

[Balloon guy 158]

And also, that wasn't aimed at El Guapo, who I understood was making a pretty objective statement about the opinions of the majority of Americans (who, in masses, can have absolutely no foresight, no sense of perspective, no grasp of risk or reward, and can be quite stupid).

That's the only way the democrats can remain a viable political party though

[Jeepster80125 0]

1) Hurting BP doesn't help anyone on the Gulf Region. Nothing will. The only thing that can help them is to pay it forward, to improve regulations, and to help before the fact the next group of people who could potentially be hurt by another spill.2) Who's to say that BP is any better or worse than, say, Exxon. If I don't use BP gas, I'm forced to use gas from another company. That company may have practices as bad as those of BP, but they simply may not have gotten as unlucky as BP. 3) If we really want to rise together and enact massive group action, why don't we do it against all oil, not just that coming from BP? Why don't we get serious about reducing how much petroleum we use, about buying better cars, making more efficient buildings, using better light bulbs, driving less. Why don't we actually put pressure on companies to reduce oil usage through a carbon tax, and why don't we get serious about requirements for Miles per gallon on cars?4) This will most likely end up with a lot of people angry, a few people truly hurt, a small group of scapegoats taking the blame, and no one actually sacrificing to make the world better.

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/06/14/repor...ve-months-of-2/

[nutzbuster 7]

someone told me Obama said he wanted to "swim down and plug the hole himself".was he talking about the gulf leak or Oprah?

[El Guapo 8]

And also, that wasn't aimed at El Guapo, who I understood was making a pretty objective statement about the opinions of the majority of Americans (who, in masses, can have absolutely no foresight, no sense of perspective, no grasp of risk or reward, and can be quite stupid).

No it's ok. I am pretty stupid.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Obama vowed that BP will have to repay workers and business owners harmed by BP's "recklessness"."Recklessness"?Really?Have we already jumped to this conclusion, that this is anything more than a terrible industrial accident? Have I missed evidence of BP behavior that has amounted to "recklessness"?Seems a little early to brand BP guilty of recklessness. I believe that they need to be held accountable and pay for clean up and compensation, but the President using the term "reckless" at this stage is reckless itself and reveals his agenda.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Have I missed evidence of BP behavior that has amounted to "recklessness"?

Yes

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Yes

I'll take that as a "No".

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I'll take that as a "No".

Instead, take is as a "yes," but I was too busy to back it up at the time. I'm also to busy to back it up now, so I'll present you the result of the following research:1) I typed, "BP Neglegance" into google2) I opened the first hit. It is this article:Article3) I found a link within that article. It is this collection of articles:ArticlesThe End. Hopefully your follow up research will help you to answer your question.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Instead, take is as a "yes," but I was too busy to back it up at the time. I'm also to busy to back it up now, so I'll present you the result of the following research:1) I typed, "BP Neglegance" into google2) I opened the first hit. It is this article:Article3) I found a link within that article. It is this collection of articles:ArticlesThe End. Hopefully your follow up research will help you to answer your question.

What people are all of a sudden labeling "negligence" is likely Standard Operating Procedure, performing within Federal guidelines and under the watch of inspectors. If BP Management was "reckless" then so too are inspectors, guidelines, laws, and likely every rig on the planet.Revisionism at its finest. Carry on with the Witch Hunt...

[LongLiveYorke 38]

If BP Management was "reckless" then so too are inspectors, guidelines, laws, and likely every rig on the planet.

I don't disagree that there are probably many other oil rigs that are reckless, and possibly all of them. I also don't disagree that inspectors and federal regulations didn't do their jobs properly.I do disagree with the idea that conforming to federal guidelines, or at least not being caught by federal regulators, prevents one from being reckless.

[dapokerbum 0]

I don't disagree that there are probably many other oil rigs that are reckless, and possibly all of them. I also don't disagree that inspectors and federal regulations didn't do their jobs properly.I do disagree with the idea that conforming to federal guidelines, or at least not being caught by federal regulators, prevents one from being reckless.

Cool! I can't wait for Cap and Trade.

[strategy 4]

Cool! I can't wait for Cap and Trade.

sick burn bro

[vbnautilus 48]

What people are all of a sudden labeling "negligence" is likely Standard Operating Procedure, performing within Federal guidelines and under the watch of inspectors. If BP Management was "reckless" then so too are inspectors, guidelines, laws, and likely every rig on the planet.Revisionism at its finest. Carry on with the Witch Hunt...

This is really way off, man. Witch hunt? Seriously? The company whose machinery caused environmental disaster of epic proportions is being held responsible for it and that's a witch hunt? Revisionism? What is being revised? You probably didn't read the linked articles, because they quote the committee chairs as summarizing that "In several instances, these decisions appear to violate industry guidelines and were made despite warnings from BP’s own personnel and its contractors. In effect, it appears that BP repeatedly chose risky procedures in order to reduce costs and save time.”There appears from the documents to be a long history of cutting corners on BPs part. But really, the fact that they released all of this oil into the sea is all the evidence I need to know that they were negligent. They were absolutely reckless to have risked creating a spewing stream of oil that they would not have a way to stop.

[Jeepster80125 0]

BP suspends dividend after Deepwater Horizon spill

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Hey Barack, You Should’ve Done This...by Human Events President Obama addressed the nation on the Gulf oil spill, and told the American people how he has been doing all he can to “plug the damn hole” and whose behind he might kick.Since his strategy dealing with the spill seems lacking thus far, Redstate editor Erick Erickson has compiled a Top 10 list of things to alleviate the disaster that Obama could have done but didn’t.1. Accepted help from the Netherlands when they offered it shortly after the accident. The Dutch, experienced in the oil business, offered prompt help for oil skimming booms and plans to create barriers to stop the oil from infiltrating into wetland areas.2. Suspended the Jones Act, as President Bush did after Katrina, to allow foreign vessels into American waters to assist with recovery without having to swap ships and transfer equipment onto American flagged vessels.3. Suspended the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage laws, as President Bush did after Katrina, to allow rapid deployment of new workers to help with containment efforts.4. Suspended FEMA contracting and bidding rules, as President Bush did after Katrina, to allow a more rapid assignment of contracts to assist with the recovery effort.5. Allowed coastal governors to immediately begin dredging to create barrier islands.6. Talked to BP's CEO to establish initial metrics for progress to gauge BP's response so the federal government would have ascertainable metrics to determine when federal intervention was needed. Heck, he should have talked to BP's CEO period.7. Not imposed a blanket deep water drilling moratorium, further crippling economies in coastal communities.8. Talked to experts about how to fix the problem instead of trying to figure out who se "ass to kick."9. Not waited to act lest he be seen as owning the situation. Guess what? He owns it now so why is he still on the golf course?10. Not have wasted time trying to blame the accident on George Bush before diving in to take responsibility.-----------Read more articles like this at HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE!http://www.humanevents.com/

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

...the fact that they released all of this oil into the sea is all the evidence I need to know that they were negligent...

Seriously?They were negligent because of the result? You know that their actions were negligent because of the scope of the result?Really?Now I understand your defense of the Global Warming Climate Change "Scientists".

[vbnautilus 48]

Seriously?They were negligent because of the result? You know that their actions were negligent because of the scope of the result?Really?Now I understand your defense of the Global Warming Climate Change "Scientists".

What's the alternative, they diligently opened up a hole in the bottom of the ocean that they couldn't plug up and ruined an ecosystem and a local economy? In this case the result is absolutely evidence of negligence, since the due diligence requires them to never be in a position to risk this result. (and what does this have to do with the lack of evidence against climate change scientists? every investigation of them failed to find impropriety, but that's an entirely independent issue. )

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

What's the alternative, they diligently opened up a hole in the bottom of the ocean that they couldn't plug up and ruined an ecosystem and a local economy? In this case the result is absolutely evidence of negligence, since the due diligence requires them to never be in a position to risk this result. (and what does this have to do with the lack of evidence against climate change scientists? every investigation of them failed to find impropriety, but that's an entirely independent issue. )

So industrial accidents never happen except as a result of negligence? They should never be in a position of risk? The "proof" is the result and you can know the cause by looking at the effects?If someone goes for a drive and they wind up in a terrible accident killing children, nuns, and puppies your conclusion would be "negligence" - not caring about how well maintained vehicle is, or their brakes, or skill & experience behind the wheel, or details leading up to the incident, or other factors? You just know they're negligent because the outcome was disastrous?

[CaneBrain 95]

So industrial accidents never happen except as a result of negligence? They should never be in a position of risk? The "proof" is the result and you can know the cause by looking at the effects?If someone goes for a drive and they wind up in a terrible accident killing children, nuns, and puppies your conclusion would be "negligence" - not caring about how well maintained vehicle is, or their brakes, or skill & experience behind the wheel, or details leading up to the incident, or other factors? You just know they're negligent because the outcome was disastrous?

actually, under tort law, you are responsible for proper maintenance of your car. so, you would be pretty ****ed there unless you could prove the car was originally defective or that you took it to a mechanic who missed it. skill or experience behind the wheel is completely irrelevant in those cases. I am not sure you completely grasp the American legal system's concept of negligence.....because your comments make it sound like you are talking about gross negligence which is wildly different.It is very early to say BP was grossly negligent (which is the standard for punitive damages often). It is pretty much a given that they meet the standard of ordinary negligence.Also, industrial accidents do happen. But the company usually can stop it after a bit. BP had no plan beyond "let's throw golf balls and tires at it" to contain an accident like this. If that is not negligence, I don't know what is

[vbnautilus 48]

So industrial accidents never happen except as a result of negligence? They should never be in a position of risk? The "proof" is the result and you can know the cause by looking at the effects?

Certain industrial accidents should never happen except by negligence. If you are the custodian of a nuclear power plant and "accidentally" decimate the state of New Jersey, is there any way there was no negligence? No, since it was your responsibility to actively prevent such adisaster. You are supposed to have failsafes to prevent an accident from becoming a catastrophe. That's the only reason we let you have your plant there. Not only can we SEE that they were not prepared to prevent this disaster, but they were also nit prepared to respond to it adequately. Both were their responsibility.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

actually, under tort law, you are responsible for proper maintenance of your car. so, you would be pretty ****ed there unless you could prove the car was originally defective or that you took it to a mechanic who missed it. skill or experience behind the wheel is completely irrelevant in those cases. I am not sure you completely grasp the American legal system's concept of negligence.....because your comments make it sound like you are talking about gross negligence which is wildly different.It is very early to say BP was grossly negligent (which is the standard for punitive damages often). It is pretty much a given that they meet the standard of ordinary negligence.Also, industrial accidents do happen. But the company usually can stop it after a bit. BP had no plan beyond "let's throw golf balls and tires at it" to contain an accident like this. If that is not negligence, I don't know what is

Really? Why would you think I was talking about Gross Negligence or the Legal System's definition of Negligence or proving anything for a claim or punitive damages? I was speaking in lay terms. You're absolutely correct that I don't know much about Negligence nor Gross Negligence nor even the US Tort system.But let's go there.As far as I can tell (and I am just doing a quick Internet scan here - I am NOT educated in this, just exploring) in legal terms: "Negligence" is failure to reasonable care, while "Gross Negligence" involves reckless disregard for the safety of others. In my mind, neither has been proven in the case of BP's actions in the Gulf.I'm no law talking guy, but I think that a plaintiff would still need to prove all of the elements of negligence and failure to use reasonable care in order to collect on a claim of damages (actual or otherwise) and certainly not just be able to rely on the terrible results to conclude negligence or gross negligence for punitive damages. Or am I way off here?

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Certain industrial accidents should never happen except by negligence. If you are the custodian of a nuclear power plant and "accidentally" decimate the state of New Jersey, is there any way there was no negligence? No, since it was your responsibility to actively prevent such adisaster. You are supposed to have failsafes to prevent an accident from becoming a catastrophe. That's the only reason we let you have your plant there. Not only can we SEE that they were not prepared to prevent this disaster, but they were also nit prepared to respond to it adequately. Both were their responsibility.

Nope. I just don't agree with your premise. This is like saying that an airline is negligent for putting a plane in the air and not having a plan in place to save the passengers when the wings fall off. They very well may be responsible for the results. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that it is silly to conclude that they were negligent because of the scope of the results instead of because of the actions that led to the results.