Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by ~Elladan~, Jun 9, 2010.

  1. chimera_789

    chimera_789 Queen of Air and Darkness

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -0
    I understand that you were not stating unequivocally that it wasn't their fault, and so I apologize for stating it that way.

    It does matter. The results of a criminal conspiracy between government employees and BP employees to defraud the government and circumvent federal law does not constitute valid government approval. A company cannot legitimately buy its way out of compliance with regulations through personal funds to individuals--the exemptions from compliance provided by those individuals in violation of their official duties to uphold the law granted solely for personal gain and as the result of criminal enterprise do not constitute legitimate government action.

    Furthermore, from the last few days of testimony as to what actually occurred on the rig leading up to the explosion, several of the directives of BP overseers on the rig in the wake of emergent safety issues were not even in compliance with their own "approved" security protocol.
     
  2. chimera_789

    chimera_789 Queen of Air and Darkness

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -0
    The article you have linked to is an incredibly shoddy piece of journalism. It is flagrantly biased in perspective. It generalizes and draws conclusions from dubious and almost completely undocumented and unverifiable anecdotal evidence. It generalizes from the impact on one area (Grand Isle) to all other often dissimilar areas of the gulf coast. It contains several factual inaccuracies and displays a stunning lack of knowledge about/understanding of the biology and marine ecology of the Gulf of Mexico and the economies of South Louisiana and the rest of the Gulf Coast.

    Regardless, while it's all well and good that eventually BP will likely get around to paying legitimate claims, the timeline of litigation (Exxon-Valdez for example took 20 years) doesn't exactly match up with the reality of bills and living expenses.
     
  3. ~Elladan~

    ~Elladan~ A Elbereth Gilthoniel

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,907
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +225 / 0 / -0
    All interesting & valid points.

    Curunir's Bane's posts outlining BP's track record in the US (assuming they're accurate) begs the question why licences were granted, BP's drilling methods approved and inspections signed of by the regulators. There's plenty of crap to hit the fan in months/years to come and it won't all emanate from BP.

    With BP's market value plummeting, it's debt now trading at junk status there is a risk of them being taken over, going under or at least seeking bankruptcy protection either in the US or UK, in which case what if anything will they end up paying for the spill? US investors have already lost (on paper) $40-50bn from their BP investments, they'll lose billions more in lost dividends and thousands of US BP jobs could be on the line. The same applies in the UK. So the more Obama rants the greater the economic as well as environmental damage will be in the US and wider. If it had been all hands to the pumps first, BP would be more than able to pay for the spill, clean up, lawsuits and penalties probably to the tune of 10s of billions of $. Destroy BP in these non-constructive attacks and US taxpayers will end up footing the bill.
     
  4. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    I read the allegation history of BP as posted by CB

    ... how does this compare to the rest of Big Oil? I don't think it has any value if this sort of history is "typical".
     
  5. curunir's bane

    curunir's bane Kwisatch Haderach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    baton rouge
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    Well I really don't think it has anything to do with the rest of big oil. But the reports about the violations of BP compared to the violations of other oil companies shows that BP has MANY more problems.

    Here's what the first report that i posted stated:

    That's 760 violations with BP alone, compared to 19 total violations of the other four companies combined. Assuming that this information is correct then it shows that "this sort of history" is not typical of other companies at all.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2010
  6. Ser Land

    Ser Land New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Azores, Portugal
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    Apologies accepted.

    And no, it doesn't matter to the matter at hand, unless the said "conspiracy" is somehow linked to the explosion.
     
  7. curunir's bane

    curunir's bane Kwisatch Haderach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    baton rouge
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0
    Since the MMS is supposed to make sure BP has safety features in place, and the MMS was bribed by BP, AND the explosion was a result of safety features not being in place then I would say that it DOES MATTER quite a bit




     
  8. curunir's bane

    curunir's bane Kwisatch Haderach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    baton rouge
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0
    MMS gave BP a "categorical exclusion" from the NEPA

     
  9. curunir's bane

    curunir's bane Kwisatch Haderach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    baton rouge
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0
    And no permits required for offshore drilling

     
  10. ~Elladan~

    ~Elladan~ A Elbereth Gilthoniel

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,907
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +225 / 0 / -0
    The Washington Post article does not name BP as one of the oil companies involved in bribing MMS. The second article shows that the oil & gas industry paid for political lobbying (what industry doesn't?) and that BP's share was less than 10%.

    All these examples show is that BP/others knew how to play the US game when it came to lobbying and that the US regulatory system is corrupt and wholly inadequate when it comes to environmental and safety assessments. US regulators seemingly want their palms greased just like other countries around the world so why is anyone surprised that BP/others may have had to do so, to operate in that area? Are you suggesting that US multinationals don't when they operate in places like Africa, Asia & the Middle East?

    The lawyers on all sides are going to have a field day.

    Anyone want to take bets that Obama doesn't get a second term....



    .
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2010
  11. Ser Land

    Ser Land New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Azores, Portugal
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    I don't think he will. i don't even think he expects to. Which is the admirable thing about him. He seems not to care whether he makes another term or not. He just seems intent in having the best term possible.
     
  12. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Well.

    How does this have anything to do with Obama? He may be president and responsible... but only since a year. We had an expert on the dossier as a president last time, and he didn't seem to care enough to do anything about it.

    The word hypocrits is on the tip of my tongue...
     
  13. curunir's bane

    curunir's bane Kwisatch Haderach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    baton rouge
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    First, my statement was incorrect. It was supposed to be “and IF the MMS was bribed by BP,” because it hasn’t been fully proven whether they did or not. While, the first article does not state specifically that BP bribed MMS officials. But it does state that they were bribed by Gulf of Mexico oil drilling companies and they are not sure how many companies were involved. Along with the other articles about BP being exempted by the MMS all these articles do is shed light on the fact that MMS is corrupt and that some it seems VERY shady that BP would be exempted.

    I have yet to hear one good reason as to why the MMS would allow these exemptions.


    Yes, but that’s not all the second article states. It talks about MMS and their corruption. All I was doing was simply providing another source. I made no statements about their lobbying.



    Did I provide any statement to make such suggestions? And if you re-read the articles you will find that it’s not just about the lobbying. The ONLY example that talks about the lobbying a lot is the second one I posted, and it was roughly only the first half of the article.
     
  14. Alchemist

    Alchemist The Fighters Guide House Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    8,797
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    A Pirate city in international waters
    Ratings:
    +192 / 0 / -0
  15. ~Elladan~

    ~Elladan~ A Elbereth Gilthoniel

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,907
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +225 / 0 / -0
    I'm not a scientist so can't comment on whether there is a real risk or this is just scaremongering, but would highlight that the chances of an errant well causing fissures 10-30 miles away is nil for even the most fractured (oil/gas bearing) rock types.

    If there is a real scientific risk of releasing huge pockets of methane from under the sea bed it begs the question why any drilling that may cause / exasperate this doomsday scenario was allowed at all. A 'BP' type incident whether accidental or arising from incompetence or mechanical failure was always a possibility if not a certainty. There are between 3-4,000 current producing oil wells in the GoM, many thousands more abandoned, so if there is a huge methane bubble sitting under the area it's been perforated many times over.

    A couple of years old (2008) but this zoomable map illustrates just how many oil platforms there are in the vicinity...
    http://maker.geocommons.com/maps/268










    .
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2010
  16. Alchemist

    Alchemist The Fighters Guide House Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    8,797
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    A Pirate city in international waters
    Ratings:
    +192 / 0 / -0
    the article did make me think but I hardly took it at face value, mainly wanted opinions...but the truth is out now...article was proven to be someone just screaming "doomsday" the myth has been busted.
     
  17. ~Elladan~

    ~Elladan~ A Elbereth Gilthoniel

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,907
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +225 / 0 / -0
    As suspected BP won't be the only party at fault for the GoM oil spill. I doubt that there will be much trumpeting of the names of those others at fault though as they're a bit closer to home.

    Halliburton (US) used unstable cement, which they knew was unstable, despite claiming throughout that it was stable and at least partially concealed that knowledge from BP...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11648354

    Next up will be the faulty blowout preventer built by Cameron International (US) & accepted / operated by Transocean (US).

    I suspect litigation will be ongoing for decades on this.