BP = Epic FAIL
- Thread starter fishwater99
- Start date
- Status
But they are taking every possible jab at the oil and gas industry as possible. Being so close to the spill and seeing what the media actually reports, it's sickening... Why is the media even reporting BP's stance on the seafood market? They're an oil and gas company. They have no clue about the affect on the seafood market.
Yeah. Come to our beaches! Not all of them have tar washing up on them!zerocooldog said:
Those wetlands you want to call swamps are pretty damn important ecologically. If that are gets destroyed, a whole lot of **** is gonna die, and a whole lot of people are gonna be out of work.
is GodwinGroup here in Jackson and were just hired by BP for this cluster17. They have set up shop obviously on coast by transferring employees close to the situation. How many ways can you spin ********?
Areyou seriously suggesting that the oil is not killing fish and other wildlife? Of course not ALL of the dead fish washing were killed by the oil. But a hell of a lot of them were. And there are a lot more dead fish washing up than normal. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though and has nothing to do with the massive amount of oil in the Gulf.
They are more worried about their image than cleaning up the coast. They do not want to receive any of the blame. You can bet your *** that they will get involved when it hits Florida hard. They will not lose any votes in MS or LA but Florida is a different story.
This comment is so 17ing stupid, I dont even know what to say. Lets just call the Alabama coastline what it is...a bunch of sand by a bunch of water.
"I still don't know who's in charge," said Billy Nungesser, president of Plaquemines Parish. "Is it BP? Is it the Coast Guard? ... I have spent more time fighting the officials of BP and the Coast Guard than fighting the oil." What is needed, Nungesser said, is someone "with the guts and the will to make decisions."
Nungesser asserted the line of booms now deployed to keep oil off the Louisiana coast "is not working. ... It's a joke."
Also Thursday, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, blasted federal officials for failing to alert local authorities that oil from the Gulf disaster has entered Florida waters. Nelson noted that oil has entered Florida's Perdido Bay, near the Alabama border.
</p>
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/10/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T1
Nungesser asserted the line of booms now deployed to keep oil off the Louisiana coast "is not working. ... It's a joke."
Also Thursday, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, blasted federal officials for failing to alert local authorities that oil from the Gulf disaster has entered Florida waters. Nelson noted that oil has entered Florida's Perdido Bay, near the Alabama border.
</p>
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/10/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T1
Look at this video:
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/html/Skandi_ROV1.html
Does it look like the well is better off than it was?
Look at the caption:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For the first 12 hours on June 9th (midnight to noon), approximately 7,920 barrels of oil were collected and 15.7 million cubic feet of natural gas were flared.
• On June 8th, a total of approximately 15,000 barrels of oil were collected and 29.4 million cubic feet of natural gas were flared.
• The Massachusetts began lightering this morning and should finish early morning on the 10th (lightering is a process of transferring crude oil between vessels, in this case, Enterprise to Massachusetts).
• The next update will be provided at 9:00am CDT on June 10, 2010."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that's all fine and dandy if you're an oil company. So your still able to collect oil from a well thatis killingour gulf coast. Great. I see no mention of slowingit downor stopping the spill in to the gulf.Shouldn't that be your goal? It would appearthey don'tgive a ****.
When you are out of answers, point fingers, spin it (we're collecting sooo much oil!!!!11!!), and if anyone complains, tell them if they can do better, then you coach fix the oil leak. <= Brilliant.
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/html/Skandi_ROV1.html
Does it look like the well is better off than it was?
Look at the caption:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For the first 12 hours on June 9th (midnight to noon), approximately 7,920 barrels of oil were collected and 15.7 million cubic feet of natural gas were flared.
• On June 8th, a total of approximately 15,000 barrels of oil were collected and 29.4 million cubic feet of natural gas were flared.
• The Massachusetts began lightering this morning and should finish early morning on the 10th (lightering is a process of transferring crude oil between vessels, in this case, Enterprise to Massachusetts).
• The next update will be provided at 9:00am CDT on June 10, 2010."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that's all fine and dandy if you're an oil company. So your still able to collect oil from a well thatis killingour gulf coast. Great. I see no mention of slowingit downor stopping the spill in to the gulf.Shouldn't that be your goal? It would appearthey don'tgive a ****.
When you are out of answers, point fingers, spin it (we're collecting sooo much oil!!!!11!!), and if anyone complains, tell them if they can do better, then you coach fix the oil leak. <= Brilliant.
therightway said:
have I seen it mentioned anywhere. I hope to God you are not right; but in this day and time with the lack of leadership we have on both sides of the aisle, I would not be surprised if there was not some truth to what you say.
Thanks for posting that.
We can count you in the group that is openly admitting you are not a marine biologist...or for that matter, too knowledgeable of "coastal issues".
SWAMPS ARE KINDA WET
I love how ignorance is sometimes masked as "perspective".
...somebody on this website suggest a corporation should be put undertemporary receivership of the United States government.fishwater99 said:
What ever happened to the nine most terrifying words in the English language:"I'm from the government and I'm here to help?"
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-obama-should-put-bp-under-temporary-receivership-2010-5
This is getting way off topic but I'll attempt to explain this. It's not stupid if you understand that there are people in this country with an environmental agenda that have somehow made it wrong to call something what it is in order to make things sound worth saving. (everyone hold there **** obviously some of these swamps are important ecologically and economically)
Wetland implies something fragile, pristine, etc.
Swamp implies something nasty, dangerous, etc.
I'm just making the point that when you say we better save the swamps fromthespillmost people wouldn't bat an eye, however once you insert wetland it changes the waypeople (iam generalizing)look at it.
It's really just semantics, would've thought this was pretty basic, or I could be digging myself a deeper hole, back to sports.
Wetland implies something fragile, pristine, etc.
Swamp implies something nasty, dangerous, etc.
I'm just making the point that when you say we better save the swamps fromthespillmost people wouldn't bat an eye, however once you insert wetland it changes the waypeople (iam generalizing)look at it.
It's really just semantics, would've thought this was pretty basic, or I could be digging myself a deeper hole, back to sports.
i think the important point is that without the breeding grounds in the swamps/wetlands, 90% of the Gulf waterlife would die out. Who cares what the 17 you call it, it's important.
The media loves twisting stories around so it will garner the most attention. "Wetland" gets a quicker/more passionate response from the general population than would the word "swamp" for the reasons you just listed - despite the fact it's merely a label and doesn't change its importance.
Just like for every pretty white girl missing or murdered that shows up on major new outlets, there must be dozens poor black men that go missing or are murdered in the same time frame. Both scenarios are equally as bad. But, who gets the national media coverage? Sad, but true. (That's really a poor reflection on society than it is on the media outlets - they just report the stories that get the biggest response.)
Just like for every pretty white girl missing or murdered that shows up on major new outlets, there must be dozens poor black men that go missing or are murdered in the same time frame. Both scenarios are equally as bad. But, who gets the national media coverage? Sad, but true. (That's really a poor reflection on society than it is on the media outlets - they just report the stories that get the biggest response.)
So what are you getting at? Call it a swamp and people don't want to save it. But it needs saving for a variety of ecological and economical reasons. So why call it a swamp again? These areas are fragile and we've been working for years to try to make them pristine again. After we've already wiped half of them out of course.zerocooldog said:
Gators and mangroves don't equal nasty and dangerous. I suppose it's dangerous if you want to go wading around in them, but that's not exactly a hobby many people have. These areas are a valuable place in terms of the aquatic and avian food chain, as well as a spawning and nesting ground for numerous species. Now, it's not like the human race is gonna starve if this branch of the food chain gets wiped out. However, as the kings sitting on the food chain throne, we have a responsibility to protect these species, too.
So why just call them swamps if it won't make people bat an eye? We need to be raising hell about it.
No they're not. All I've read is legitimate jabs at BP for their ****** safety record and negligent actions that lead to the death of 11 men and the contamination of our Gulf. Why are they reporting BPs stance on the seafood market? Because their disaster plans should have had something on how they would deal with a enormous spill (one they actually said they could handle remember) and how they would preserve the areas economically important. The question mentioned earlier is completely legit. At the time, people were worried that the seafood market was going to be devastated and wanted to know what BP planned to do to protect it. Their answer was just a big "17 you" to the region, and now we see that BP either didn't two ***** or lied about being able to control this thing. They weren't concerned with protecting the gulf, thus the seafood market. They were concerned about protecting themselves. 17 them.missouridawg said:
If there was an easy fix to this thing, BP would've already done it. They would blow up the well if it was gauranteed that it would stop the pollution. The engineering and technical challenges to fix a blowout like this are of epic proportions. There's just not a simple fix. BP is working day and night to try and fix this thing. The company I worked for spent the weekend of Memorial Day building one of the caps that BP is currenlty using. We were one of nine companies working on similar caps.
There are offshore oil companies who are trying to get equipment out to current rigs that are running, but they can't, because BP hasmost of the boats in the gulf in port, just in case they need them for an emergency. Yesterday, I heard there are 39 boats in Fourchon that BP is paying to wait patiently in case they need them.
I promise, BP is trying their best. It may not be the best in everyone elses eyes, but they are sparing no expense in trying to collect as much oil, stop the spill, and prevent the damage to the coast. There's just not an easy way to fix something of this magnitude.
There are offshore oil companies who are trying to get equipment out to current rigs that are running, but they can't, because BP hasmost of the boats in the gulf in port, just in case they need them for an emergency. Yesterday, I heard there are 39 boats in Fourchon that BP is paying to wait patiently in case they need them.
I promise, BP is trying their best. It may not be the best in everyone elses eyes, but they are sparing no expense in trying to collect as much oil, stop the spill, and prevent the damage to the coast. There's just not an easy way to fix something of this magnitude.
I ever post that the swamp shouldn't be cleaned/saved or that it was not important in any way. Don't take my swamp/wetland quip as an affront to cleaning the oil from the swamp.
<font color="#0000ff">In its analysis of the plan, AP found that under the heading "sensitive biological resources," the company listed several marine mammals, including <font color="#ff0000">walruses, sea otters, sea lions and seals</font>, that do not live anywhere near the Gulf.
</font><font color="#000000">They really were on top of things !!!</font></p>
</font><font color="#000000">They really were on top of things !!!</font></p>
for any damages and clean up costs.
Also, if BP cares about their bottom line (which they do), then they want to stop this before they:
a) lost more product
b) cause more damage for which they will likely be sued
c) have to spend more on clean up costs
They have a lot of incentives to get this resolved. I disagree when you say "they don't care." Some of you people don't understand the complexity of this problem. It clearly has a lot of engineers puzzled. Imagine the immense downward pressure the ocean water applies at that depth and then remember that the oil still has more upward pressure to overcome that (petroleum engineers please correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding; I'm just applying basic principles here).
This is a "tragedy of the commons". Who owns the Gulf of Mexico? How many of you have some property in the gulf that was damaged? How many of you have wildlife that was killed or harmed by the oil spill? It's difficult to hold anyone liable for any damages when no one owns any property that was damaged (with the exception of the beaches).
And you're list of people to put in charge is stellar. A group that has no experience with oil clean up. I'm sure they'd do a stellar job of spending people's tax dollars on wasteful, hair-brained solutions.
Also, if BP cares about their bottom line (which they do), then they want to stop this before they:
a) lost more product
b) cause more damage for which they will likely be sued
c) have to spend more on clean up costs
They have a lot of incentives to get this resolved. I disagree when you say "they don't care." Some of you people don't understand the complexity of this problem. It clearly has a lot of engineers puzzled. Imagine the immense downward pressure the ocean water applies at that depth and then remember that the oil still has more upward pressure to overcome that (petroleum engineers please correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding; I'm just applying basic principles here).
This is a "tragedy of the commons". Who owns the Gulf of Mexico? How many of you have some property in the gulf that was damaged? How many of you have wildlife that was killed or harmed by the oil spill? It's difficult to hold anyone liable for any damages when no one owns any property that was damaged (with the exception of the beaches).
And you're list of people to put in charge is stellar. A group that has no experience with oil clean up. I'm sure they'd do a stellar job of spending people's tax dollars on wasteful, hair-brained solutions.
Let me make sure I'm following you then...zerocooldog said:
You said just call them swamps. Then made the distinction that people would want to save wetlands, but not swamps. Yet you do want them saved.
Why the hell even post that we should call them swamps then? I just don't get it.
They had a disaster plan to burn the oil off at the surface soon after a spill. Why they did not do this I have no idea. They may have thought that their base would have gotten upset with all of the CO2 that would have put into the air. I heard that today 50 days later they are going to start burning some of the oil on the surface.
The engineering and technology were there to help prevent something like this, though. BP ignored them. Reading some of the survivors comments, it sounds like the willfully ignored them and failed to prepare for a disaster they claimed they could handle. Their negligent actions basically killed 11 men and will destroy an ocean.missouridawg said:
I'm just not sure what they were trying there best to do. From day one it's been one big lie after another.
They would take a blank check known as "tax payer dollars" and give it to their good friends to do the cleanup for them. Government doesn't produce any services or goods, they only redistribute them. There are no appointed bureaucrats that know dick about what's going on in the gulf.
(5000')*(.052)*(8.34 lb/gal) = 2168.4 pounds per square inch of hydrostatic pressure that the water is placing on the oil
That's 5000 feet of water multiplied by a conversion factor multiplied by the density of water (sea water may be slightly different than 8.34).
The reservoir is emitting oil/gas at over 10,000 PSI, therefore the reservoir wins.
When the well is finally plugged off, it will be because it has more than 15,000 feet of 13+ lb/gallon mud resting on it. This is one of the reasons for the blowout. The engineers on surface thought they had the reservoir sealed off with cement/cement retainer... switched out the heavy mud from the hole with light weight seawater... and the well won that battle.
That's 5000 feet of water multiplied by a conversion factor multiplied by the density of water (sea water may be slightly different than 8.34).
The reservoir is emitting oil/gas at over 10,000 PSI, therefore the reservoir wins.
When the well is finally plugged off, it will be because it has more than 15,000 feet of 13+ lb/gallon mud resting on it. This is one of the reasons for the blowout. The engineers on surface thought they had the reservoir sealed off with cement/cement retainer... switched out the heavy mud from the hole with light weight seawater... and the well won that battle.
I, as many others, have heard another "oil industry expert" say that they could have used supertankers to suck up alot of the spill in the early days...which, I guess, would still be on going. Supposedly, this has been done and would be a highly effective method of removing a large majority of the oil.
Can you see if this solution is legit? If it is even close to effective than "trying their best" is more bs.
Also, I have heard that BP has been lawyering up for weeks trying to get things fought in Houston as opposed to the States where this **** is hitting the fan. When I hear this, I dont think BP is trying to do their best, I think their are trying to save their ***.
glad to learn the military and the internet don't exist. learn some new righty 'facts' every day.
look up Superfund, and learn something.
look up Superfund, and learn something.
And the lies, withholding of information, and lack of preparedness for something they said they could handle have made the situation even worse.
A simple "we can't handle a potential blowout at this depth" somewhere along the line would have saved lives and an ocean. Maybe they wouldn't have drilled. I guess the money to be made from this well was just too damn tempting to worry about that, though. Or, perhaps the forethought to say "a relief well is the only way to fix a blowout, perhaps we should pre-drill one in case." That would have saved an ocean, and industry, and a lot of money. But I guess they were going to try and skate buy at the bare minimum and hope nothing bad happens. Seems to be how they've operated for years.
and...
I don't want the government in charge of fixing this. I want my government to hold their *** accountable, force them to be open an honest, and make sure every single damage from this is either cleaned up on their dime or paid by them to someone who can make it right. To date, the government seems to just be saying mean things to BP and not rattling their cage.
A simple "we can't handle a potential blowout at this depth" somewhere along the line would have saved lives and an ocean. Maybe they wouldn't have drilled. I guess the money to be made from this well was just too damn tempting to worry about that, though. Or, perhaps the forethought to say "a relief well is the only way to fix a blowout, perhaps we should pre-drill one in case." That would have saved an ocean, and industry, and a lot of money. But I guess they were going to try and skate buy at the bare minimum and hope nothing bad happens. Seems to be how they've operated for years.
and...
I don't want the government in charge of fixing this. I want my government to hold their *** accountable, force them to be open an honest, and make sure every single damage from this is either cleaned up on their dime or paid by them to someone who can make it right. To date, the government seems to just be saying mean things to BP and not rattling their cage.
"They have a lot of incentives to get this resolved."
But they have a bigger one working counter to that in some ways: $4300/ barrel spilled. Say there's two ways to fix the spill: one that fixes it now, but reveals exactly how much has spilled, at around 100,000 barrels per day, or to wait till the relief wells stop it, which also hides the true size of the spill to where BP can claim in court it's around 5000 barrels a day.
Do the math, then tell me which one BP would choose. Here, let me: 95,000/day * $4300 fine/barrel * 180 days = 73.5 BILLION!
BP's #1 incentive is to hide the size of the spill. Cleanup and the environment comes second to that. That's why government should be in charge.
But they have a bigger one working counter to that in some ways: $4300/ barrel spilled. Say there's two ways to fix the spill: one that fixes it now, but reveals exactly how much has spilled, at around 100,000 barrels per day, or to wait till the relief wells stop it, which also hides the true size of the spill to where BP can claim in court it's around 5000 barrels a day.
Do the math, then tell me which one BP would choose. Here, let me: 95,000/day * $4300 fine/barrel * 180 days = 73.5 BILLION!
BP's #1 incentive is to hide the size of the spill. Cleanup and the environment comes second to that. That's why government should be in charge.
- Status