Seize BP

[susano]

The case for seizure
Click to read 10 Critical Facts About the Oil Spill


BP's recklessness hit the fishing industry hard,
leaving thousands searching for work and depriving
their families of a source of income.



The environmental impact of the BP-engineered
disaster will be felt for decades to come.

By any number of economic, social and moral requirements, the assets of BP should be seized and used to provide comprehensive compensation and relief for those who have lost their jobs and whose livelihoods, homes and communities have been severely harmed or destroyed, and to clean up and restore the environment.

There is also a legal basis underlying a call for seizure.

Under deeply-rooted and long standing legal principles, BP should be responsible for all consequence of damage, not merely direct oil removal costs.

The doctrine of strict liability for ultrahazardous or inherently dangerous activities has deep roots within the law. See e.g., Rylands v. Fletcher, 3 H.L. 330 (1868) (landmark English tort law case applying the doctrine of strict liability for inherently dangerous activities in a case where an engineer constructed a reservoir on land to supply power to his steam-powered textile mill, the tanks collapsed and caused others’ property to become flooded).

Much as a keeper of a wild animal is held strictly liable for any damage the animal causes, regardless of fault, the doctrine of strict liability has been applied to industrial hazards, including drilling for oil. See, e.g., Green v. General Petroleum Corp., 205 Cal. 328 (1928) (case imposing strict liability, without showing of fault, upon oil drilling company that experienced well “blow-out” that spewed a steady stream of oil, gas, mud and rocks into the air for 24 hours, causing substantial damage).

Strict liability for ultrahazardous activities has been imposed, for example, on companies engaged in the transportation of toxic chemicals, activities involving poisonous gases, involving hazardous wastes, fireworks displays, deployment of rockets, etc.

Standing in the way of the imposition of strict liability is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 33 U.S.C. §2701, et seq. Enacted after the Exxon Valdez spill, OPA was created by industry-friendly lawmakers so that it would immunize oil drilling corporations for the economic damages from catastrophic accidents or spills.

Under the OPA, an offshore oil drilling corporation that creates an environmental catastrophe is responsible only for direct removal costs of the spillage, and is immunized from liability for all other economic damages in excess of $75 million. 33 U.S.C. §2704(a)(1)(3).

They pay $75 million and get to walk away free. That’s a great deal for the oil companies, but it’s bad for our communities, it’s bad for the environment, and it makes the future even more perilous because they can pay a pittance and do it again.

Do it again is exactly what Big Oil will do. They are profit maximizers, and the OPA allows them to drill their oil, reap their profits and shift their damages onto the people. Economists call this “cost externalization,” and it is completely opposite to what is required by the doctrine of strict liability.

“Offshore oil producers such as ConocoPhillips and Anadarko Petroleum Corp. are pressing ahead with drilling even as BP Plc struggles to contain a Gulf of Mexico spill that may costs $12.5 billion to clean up. The Gulf remains attractive to explorers because deep-water discoveries there have averaged almost four times the global average during the past decade, Frank J. Patterson, Anadarko’s vice president for international development, said yesterday at the Offshore Technology Conference in Houston.” Joe Carroll, Oil Explorers Drill On, Unfazed by BP’s Gulf of Mexico Spill, May 4, 2010. (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-04/oil-explorers-drill-on-unfazed-by-bp-s-gulf-of-mexico-spill.html )

The OPA’s limits of liability provision should be retroactively repealed.

There must be remediation and compensation for all damages flowing from BP’s oil spill, including all losses to people, economy and otherwise. It should not be up to BP to decide if and when to dole out compensation.

BP reaped $5.6 billion of profits in the first quarter of 2010 and $17 billion in 2009. This is money made from BP’s aggressive push into ultra-hazardous deep water offshore drilling that has taken the lives of 11 workers in the recent explosion, and caused human misery and environmental wreckage that will persist for years to come.

These huge sums are pure profit—what remains after all accounting maneuvers and payments of the massive salaries and luxurious perks to executives.

Here, BP has committed acts causing devastation that threatens the spoliation and poisoning of the shorelands, wildlife, human health and economy of no less than the five states that have frontal coastline on the Gulf of Mexico: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. Worst case scenarios would pollute and destroy the frontal coastlines of states up the Atlantic seaboard.

BP’s conduct constitutes an assault on the people and environment of the surrounding region of the Gulf of Mexico.

BPs assets should be immediately seized, and placed in a trust, in amounts proportionate to—and sufficient to fully compensate for—all projected harm from its dangerous and reckless acts in pursuit of super-profits.

http://www.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=SeizeBPCaseForSeizure&AddInterest=4221

[bkreigh]

Why are people calling for them to be seized right now? Have they stated that they were not going to pay up? Come the heck on people. I love that $75 million shit too. Everybody is affraid they are going to do that but they have yet to even talk about that possibility.

Maybe i have missed something very important so can somebody please point me in the right direction on where to find a quote or article or anything stating that BP was just going to walk away from this and not take responsibility?

[torchbearer]

you'd start a war with britian if you go after BP. the leeches on their government system already grow angry with their pensions going up in flames.

[freshjiva]

I'm sorry susano, but I don't support the "seizure" of any private company. BP made a terrible mistake, and now they must pay the price. But to call for their seizure and somehow demonize them for the fact that they churned billions in profit is nothing but progressive propaganda.

You're not a villain if you make billions or even millions. You're a villain if you engaged in criminal activity. And thus far there has been no evidence of the latter.

Besides, who are you proposing should seize BP? The government? Ha! :rolleyes:

[susano]

You obviously have not been paying attention. BP has not forthcoming with funds that are needed for containment. They have bullied reporters. They are paying dividens to share holders when their are damaged parties who a claim against them. BP's entire worth won't be enough to pay for this. Every cent they have and have coming in needs to be frozen until ALL claims are paid and our environment is cleaned up. Of course, no amount of money will bring back the MASSIVE loss of life and habitat.

[specsaregood]

YouTube - Maxine Waters Threatens to Socialize Big Oil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0BdKkEKTrs&feature=related)

[specsaregood]

You obviously have not been paying attention. BP has not forthcoming with funds that are needed for containment. They have bullied reporters. They are paying dividens to share holders when their are damaged parties who a claim against them. BP's entire worth won't be enough to pay for this. Every cent they have and have coming in needs to be frozen until ALL claims are paid and our environment is cleaned up. Of course, no amount of money will bring back the MASSIVE loss of life and habitat.

Why should they? They didn't do the drilling another company did. Shouldn't the other company be held responsible?

[susano]

you'd start a war with britian if you go after BP. the leeches on their government system already grow angry with their pensions going up in flames.

I would LOVE war with Britain, but that's another thread ;)


The City of London Banksters are already furious with Obama for saying mean things about BP. The City being the Crown/Rothschilds. Here we have an administration that has done fuck all to make sure this oil is contained, and the banksters don't like rhetoric. Wonder how they'd feel if this administration actually DID something.

Gulf of Mexico oil spill: David Cameron fails to back BP in fight with Barack Obama
David Cameron has refused to bow to City demands to intervene in the increasingly bitter transatlantic row over the BP oil spill, as fears grow for the company’s future.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7819653/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-David-Cameron-fails-to-back-BP-in-fight-with-Barack-Obama.html

[freshjiva]

You obviously have not been paying attention. BP has not forthcoming with funds that are needed for containment. They have bullied reporters. They are paying dividens to share holders when their are damaged parties who a claim against them. BP's entire worth won't be enough to pay for this. Every cent they have and have coming in needs to be frozen until ALL claims are paid and our environment is cleaned up. Of course, no amount of money will bring back the MASSIVE loss of life and habitat.

BP has paid 14 cents per share dividends to all shareholders as of May 7. It was already decided before the spill occurred. 14 cents, susano. That's a 0.28% yield.

BP isn't forthcoming with funds? They've spent over $1 billion so far in trying all they can to shut the leak. They have some of the best engineering minds in the world trying to plug the damn thing. It's a gargantuan project, and no effort is going to be swift and easy. Instead of getting angry, people need to understand the immense complexity and challenges relating to this spill. It isn't a day's work in the back yard.

BP has already stated they will pay for stopping the leak, oil cleanup in the Gulf and along the shorelines, and will pay the necessary compensation for all local businesses who have been affected.

They created a problem, and now they're doing everything they can to right the wrong. What more can you ask of them? Jeez.

[susano]

I'm sorry susano, but I don't support the "seizure" of any private company. BP made a terrible mistake, and now they must pay the price. But to call for their seizure and somehow demonize them for the fact that they churned billions in profit is nothing but progressive propaganda.

You're not a villain if you make billions or even millions. You're a villain if you engaged in criminal activity. And thus far there has been no evidence of the latter.

Besides, who are you proposing should seize BP? The government? Ha! :rolleyes:

Injured parties seize others assets every day.

It was not an "accident". It was NEGLIGENCE. Additionally, they haven't done a damn thing to protect the wetlands. In fact, they have poisoned the water, even further, with Corexit. They have denied oil in the water column, when it's been confirmed by divers. They're shucking and jiving while our Gulf is getting KILLED.

[ClayTrainor]

YouTube - Maxine Waters Threatens to Socialize Big Oil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0BdKkEKTrs&feature=related)

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuupppppppppp pppp....

[specsaregood]

What more can you ask of them? Jeez.
Just an excuse by others to try to take from others that which isn't theirs and they didn't earn. If BP is at fault -- I'm not convinced of this -- then they should be sued in court. If they can't pay any damages found in court, then you can talk about liquidating the company. Any attempts to seize the company is theft, plain and simple.

[susano]

YouTube - Maxine Waters Threatens to Socialize Big Oil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0BdKkEKTrs&feature=related)

Maxine Waters is an ignorant, uneducated, racist, communist, who has no clue what she' talking about - EVER.

Seizure is not nationalization.

[angelatc]

You obviously have not been paying attention. BP has not forthcoming with funds that are needed for containment. They have bullied reporters. They are paying dividens to share holders when their are damaged parties who a claim against them. BP's entire worth won't be enough to pay for this. Every cent they have and have coming in needs to be frozen until ALL claims are paid and our environment is cleaned up. Of course, no amount of money will bring back the MASSIVE loss of life and habitat.

Nope. Everybody deserves a day in court.

This "somebody has to pay! It's us against them!" mentality is one of my least favorite things about America. Combined with the incessant need for instant gratification....ugh.

[ClayTrainor]

Seizure is not nationalization.

It's socialism, straight up. You want a publically funded organization to take control.

[angelatc]

These huge sums are pure profit—what remains after all accounting maneuvers and payments of the massive salaries and luxurious perks to executives.

Yep. Straight out of the Alinsky playbook, class warfare. OMG! Pure profits? Salaries? Perks? Those bastards! Burn them!!!

[susano]

BP has paid 14 cents per share dividends to all shareholders as of May 7. It was already decided before the spill occurred. 14 cents, susano. That's a 0.28% yield.

BP isn't forthcoming with funds? They've spent over $1 billion so far in trying all they can to shut the leak. They have some of the best engineering minds in the world trying to plug the damn thing. It's a gargantuan project, and no effort is going to be swift and easy. Instead of getting angry, people need to understand the immense complexity and challenges relating to this spill. It isn't a day's work in the back yard.

BP has already stated they will pay for stopping the leak, oil cleanup in the Gulf and along the shorelines, and will pay the necessary compensation for all local businesses who have been affected.

They created a problem, and now they're doing everything they can to right the wrong. What more can you ask of them? Jeez.

You are WRONG. They have not been forthcoming with the funds to stop the oil coming ashore NOW. Suing later does nothing to protect marshlands and the millions of animals that depend upon them. Louisianna has spent 850 million on restoring barrier islands since Katrina. Oil will kill the grasses and the islands will be GONE.

You are parroting a bunch of BP bullshit. The "best minds" caused a disatrous blowout due to NEGLIGENCE and GREED. Now these assholes can't fix it because while they can drill, they don't have a clear plan to fix it. They lied to the MMS and filed paperwork saying there was a ZERO possibility of this happening. The MMS people and the BP sociopaths should be locked away for life when this is over - if it's ever over.

You morons who value the right to make money at others expense, and at the expense of the environment that sustains LIFE on earth, seem to forget about that CREATOR that was mentioned in our Declaration of Independence. There is a higher law than the market, and it where we derive our precious rights. You cannot put a price on the Gulf of Mexico and the millions of animals who depend on it.

[susano]

Nope. Everybody deserves a day in court.

This "somebody has to pay! It's us against them!" mentality is one of my least favorite things about America. Combined with the incessant need for instant gratification....ugh.

Instant gratification? WTF are you takling about? Animals are struggling through oil. They are washing up dead all over the Gulf. The entire fishing industry down there is DEAD. Legal claims from the Exxon Valdez tragedy are JUST NOW being paid.

[specsaregood]

You morons who value the right to make money at others expense, and at the expense of the environment that sustains LIFE on earth, seem to forget about that CREATOR that was mentioned in our Declaration of Independence. There is a higher law than the market, and it where we derive our precious rights. You cannot put a price on the Gulf of Mexico and the millions of animals who depend on it.

You are the one proposing stealing others assets without due process of law.

[susano]

It's socialism, straight up. You want a publically funded organization to take control.

No it isn't.

Maybe you need a scenario in your personal life to grock that. Something like someone drunk, without insurance, crashing into your car and leaving you in wheelchair. Then you might understand the importance of seizing assets until your claim is paid.

[susano]

You are the one proposing stealing others assets without due process of law.

Who said anything about no due process?

How do you feel about all of the "assets" that are lost RIGHT FUCKING NOW? Like Gulf coast fishing industry? How about a poisoned Gulf and the millions of animals who are going to die because their habitat has been ruined? What's the price for all of that life, the environment, the beaches, the ruined businesses, and 40% of America's wetlands? Oh, don't tell me ....... tough luck, right?

[MelissaCato]

I dunno if this has anything to do with it .. but interesting anyhows. Listen close about 2:25

YouTube - Energy expert Nuking oil leak 'only thing we can do' Raw Story.flv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ige7u4nGywg)

[specsaregood]

Who said anything about no due process?

You seem to have already found them guilty and want to start seizing their assets. IIRC, BP didn't even do the drilling. And what good is seizing their assets now going to do? you want to lock up capital they can spend on fixing the problem? That doesn't sound like the best idea. You generally seize assets in the example you used (car accident) to prevent somebody from giving it away/hiding the assets. You think BP can hide their assets? It is a public company, they aren't going to be able to do that very well. All this "seizing" bullshit does is make the situation even more antagonistic and make them start playing more CYA.



How do you feel about all of the "assets" that are lost RIGHT FUCKING NOW? Like Gulf coast fishing industry? How about a poisoned Gulf and the millions of animals who are going to die because their habitat has been ruined? What's the price for all of that life, the environment, the beaches, the ruined businesses, and 40% of America's wetlands? Oh, don't tell me ....... tough luck, right?

Yeah, it sucks. you think anybody here is happy about it? You think the executives at BP are lighting cigars and having a bourbon celebrating the destruction from the leak? I'm sure they all high-5'd each other the moment they heard about it.

[kahless]

It is concern when you see BP losing value as shareholders are pulling out thier money. If they see the writing on the wall I wonder where they are moving their assets now and how long before there is nothing left of them to pay for the cleanup. So it is a concern that taxpayers might end up paying the bill for the clean-up if they are not seized. Perhaps however they are still profitable enough to continue to clean-up for years to come and hope there is some study done to determine that.

I have seen this on a much smaller scale time and time again where companies closing up shop while taxpayers get left footing the bill for the environmental cleanup or it is just too costly to do anything about it. This is something some anarcho-capitalists in this forum fail to recognize that happens time and time again.


BP didn't even do the drilling.

You are still responsible for the actions of your outsourcer.

[torchbearer]

It is concern when you see BP losing value as shareholders are pulling out thier money. If they see the writing on the wall I wonder where they are moving their assets now and how long before there is nothing left of them to pay for the cleanup. So it is a concern that taxpayers might end up paying the bill for the clean-up if they are not seized. Perhaps however they are still profitable enough to continue to clean-up for years to come and hope there is some study done to determine that.

I have seen this on a much smaller scale time and time again where companies closing up shop while taxpayers get left footing the bill for the environmental cleanup or it is just too costly to do anything about it. This is something some anarcho-capitalists in this forum fail to recognize that happens time and time again.

you won't have to worry about that- if it looks like BP is going under, the british government will bail them out for the same reason I mentioned why they'd go to war against anyone who seized BP. it is the life blood of their socialist hellhole.

[bkreigh]

You are WRONG. They have not been forthcoming with the funds to stop the oil coming ashore NOW. Suing later does nothing to protect marshlands and the millions of animals that depend upon them. Louisianna has spent 850 million on restoring barrier islands since Katrina. Oil will kill the grasses and the islands will be GONE.

You are parroting a bunch of BP bullshit. The "best minds" caused a disatrous blowout due to NEGLIGENCE and GREED. Now these assholes can't fix it because while they can drill, they don't have a clear plan to fix it. They lied to the MMS and filed paperwork saying there was a ZERO possibility of this happening. The MMS people and the BP sociopaths should be locked away for life when this is over - if it's ever over.

You morons who value the right to make money at others expense, and at the expense of the environment that sustains LIFE on earth, seem to forget about that CREATOR that was mentioned in our Declaration of Independence. There is a higher law than the market, and it where we derive our precious rights. You cannot put a price on the Gulf of Mexico and the millions of animals who depend on it.

Hell i couldnt get passed your first sentence. What the hell do you want them to do? Sprinkle $100 bills on the oil to soak it up? Would that be forth coming? They could have control of the Feds printing presses if they wanted and oil would still come ashore. Jesus H Christ. I love how people with no pollution experience comment on this crap like they know all.

[susano]

I dunno if this has anything to do with it .. but interesting anyhows. Listen close about 2:25

YouTube - Energy expert Nuking oil leak 'only thing we can do' Raw Story.flv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ige7u4nGywg)

I've heard this guy before. I hope to GOD he's wrong.

The nuke idea is sheer insanity. Mishio Kaku has come and out and said this, and I'm grateful because that CANNOT happen. He referred to everything going on now as a giant science experiment and said we are the guinea pigs. Can you imagine nuking the sea sub formation? That could be an "experiment" that could go so wrong I don't even want to contemplate it.

I am so angry about the loss of animal life and habitat. Man's hubris and careless disregard for Creation will be the end of us.

[torchbearer]

I love how people with no pollution experience comment on this crap like they know all.

the nuclear bomb remedy is the cream of the crop.

[angelatc]

Who said anything about no due process?

How do you feel about all of the "assets" that are lost RIGHT FUCKING NOW? Like Gulf coast fishing industry? How about a poisoned Gulf and the millions of animals who are going to die because their habitat has been ruined? What's the price for all of that life, the environment, the beaches, the ruined businesses, and 40% of America's wetlands? Oh, don't tell me ....... tough luck, right?

As for the economic damage, that's what insurance is for.

Millions of animals dying? Terribly sad, but Mother Nature does the same thing on a regular basis. Floods, fires, volcanos, ice storms...in short: shit happens.

[bkreigh]

You obviously have not been paying attention. BP has not forthcoming with funds that are needed for containment. They have bullied reporters. They are paying dividens to share holders when their are damaged parties who a claim against them. BP's entire worth won't be enough to pay for this. Every cent they have and have coming in needs to be frozen until ALL claims are paid and our environment is cleaned up. Of course, no amount of money will bring back the MASSIVE loss of life and habitat.

They have not been forthcoming with funds? Soon after the shit happened they cut checks to Louisiana, Mississippi, Bama, and Florida right off the bat which exceeded that $75 million you hippies love to throw around.

Furthermore, all the boom in the world wont stop the oil coming ashore no matter what dream world you live in.

[angelatc]

Can you imagine nuking the sea sub formation? That could be an "experiment" that could go so wrong I don't even want to contemplate it.
.

Russia claims they've done it successfully already.

[bkreigh]

the nuclear bomb remedy is the cream of the crop.

Well that is something i dont have experience thankfully. I have done explosive load outs but that is it. As far as blowing shit up id have to refer back to my teenage years :D Nothing of nuclear magnitude though.

[Anti Federalist]

The nuke concept is from the 1960s.

Well control has come a million miles along since then.

Nukes are not and should not be used.

[susano]

You seem to have already found them guilty and want to start seizing their assets. IIRC, BP didn't even do the drilling. And what good is seizing their assets now going to do? you want to lock up capital they can spend on fixing the problem? That doesn't sound like the best idea. You generally seize assets in the example you used (car accident) to prevent somebody from giving it away/hiding the assets. You think BP can hide their assets? It is a public company, they aren't going to be able to do that very well. All this "seizing" bullshit does is make the situation even more antagonistic and make them start playing more CYA.



Yeah, it sucks. you think anybody here is happy about it? You think the executives at BP are lighting cigars and having a bourbon celebrating the destruction from the leak? I'm sure they all high-5'd each other the moment they heard about it.

Their capital needs to be locked up so they DO pay, RIGHT NOW. They are the lease holders and they are legally responsible. They made the decisions to use sea water instead of drilling mud, against Transocean's warnings. They knew the BOP was broken. They knew the anular gaskest was broken when the rubber came flying out of the drilling pipe. They demanded the drilling be sped up to unsafe speed. They knew they hit a gas pocket, days before. They know what they were doing and there are plenty of witnesses and survivors who have testified to those facts.

Tony Hayward called this "a drop in the bucket". He said he wants his life back. BP has lied, non stop. They don't give a goddamn about the devastation. What they care about is money, period.

[kahless]

Russia claims they've done it successfully already.

If it fails I would expect the risk of not just having light sweat crude on our shores but radioactive crude and debris.

[susano]

As for the economic damage, that's what insurance is for.

Millions of animals dying? Terribly sad, but Mother Nature does the same thing on a regular basis. Floods, fires, volcanos, ice storms...in short: shit happens.

Yes, shit happens. Hopefully you'll be removed from the gene pool, sooner rather than later. Hopefully, due to someone else's reckless disregard, because shit happens. Maybe you're family can sue.

[susano]

It is concern when you see BP losing value as shareholders are pulling out thier money. If they see the writing on the wall I wonder where they are moving their assets now and how long before there is nothing left of them to pay for the cleanup. So it is a concern that taxpayers might end up paying the bill for the clean-up if they are not seized. Perhaps however they are still profitable enough to continue to clean-up for years to come and hope there is some study done to determine that.

I have seen this on a much smaller scale time and time again where companies closing up shop while taxpayers get left footing the bill for the environmental cleanup or it is just too costly to do anything about it. This is something some anarcho-capitalists in this forum fail to recognize that happens time and time again.



You are still responsible for the actions of your outsourcer.

It's called public risk for private profit, i.e., corporate socialism. It could very well happen.

[angelatc]

Yes, shit happens. Hopefully you'll be removed from the gene pool, sooner rather than later.

Real nice.....:rolleyes:

[susano]

Hell i couldnt get passed your first sentence. What the hell do you want them to do? Sprinkle $100 bills on the oil to soak it up? Would that be forth coming? They could have control of the Feds printing presses if they wanted and oil would still come ashore. Jesus H Christ. I love how people with no pollution experience comment on this crap like they know all.

You ignorant fool. The former CEO of Shell has been all over TV asking WHY BP and our gov't hasn't done anything to CONTAIN the oil, because IT'S BEEN DONE IN OTHER BLOWOUTS. There are MANY measures that can be used to protect the environment and capture the oil at the source. Your poblem is that you don't know about them so you spew uniformed nonsense. Gosh, if you don't about these methods, they must not exist!

[angelatc]

If it fails I would expect the risk of not just having light sweat crude on our shores but radioactive crude and debris.

Russia claims to have done it successfully at least twice.

[Ninja Homer]

All that the government had/has to do is get rid of the $75 million limit and get out of the way. My guess is that BP would handle this quite a bit differently if they were looking at $billions in lawsuits rather than just $75 million. My guess is that without the limited liability in place, the initial mistakes wouldn't have even happened in the first place. Remove that limit now, and they'll be hiring every person they can to contain the damage and clean up the spill, because the cost would be so much cheaper than paying lawsuits.

[angelatc]

You ignorant fool. The former CEO of Shell has been all over TV asking WHY BP and our gov't hasn't done anything to CONTAIN the oil, because IT'S BEEN DONE IN OTHER BLOWOUTS. There are MANY measures that can be used to protect the environment and capture the oil at the source. Your poblem is that you don't know about them so you spew uniformed nonsense. Gosh, if you don't about these methods, they must not exist!

What stations are you watching?

[specsaregood]

Their capital needs to be locked up so they DO pay, RIGHT NOW. They are the lease holders and they are legally responsible. They made the decisions to use sea water instead of drilling mud, against Transocean's warnings. They knew the BOP was broken. They knew the anular gaskest was broken when the rubber came flying out of the drilling pipe. They demanded the drilling be sped up to unsafe speed. They knew they hit a gas pocket, days before. They know what they were doing and there are plenty of witnesses and survivors who have testified to those facts.

Tony Hayward called this "a drop in the bucket". He said he wants his life back. BP has lied, non stop. They don't give a goddamn about the devastation. What they care about is money, period.

I'm sure all the sources you noted and statements made are people of impeccable character, and couldn't possibly have any reason to lie or embellish or attempt to cover their asses. Well, sounds like BP is guilty. Burn em at the stake.:rolleyes:



The former CEO of Shell has been all over TV asking WHY BP and our gov't hasn't done anything to CONTAIN the oil

Yes, I frequently rely on my competition to help give the public an accurate opinion on my company's actions.

[susano]

They have not been forthcoming with funds? Soon after the shit happened they cut checks to Louisiana, Mississippi, Bama, and Florida right off the bat which exceeded that $75 million you hippies love to throw around.

Furthermore, all the boom in the world wont stop the oil coming ashore no matter what dream world you live in.

The checks that BP have cut don't come close to the losses. Entire fishing businesses have been destroyed.

Maybe you need to read some Louisiana news rather than BP press releases.

[cajuncocoa]

I'm sorry susano, but I don't support the "seizure" of any private company. BP made a terrible mistake, and now they must pay the price. But to call for their seizure and somehow demonize them for the fact that they churned billions in profit is nothing but progressive propaganda.

You're not a villain if you make billions or even millions. You're a villain if you engaged in criminal activity. And thus far there has been no evidence of the latter.

Besides, who are you proposing should seize BP? The government? Ha! :rolleyes:

My opinion exactly!

[susano]

Russia claims they've done it successfully already.

They have done it ON LAND. We're talking a mile under the ocean, and even deeper into the sea floor sub surface, which is full of NG and methane.

[Ninja Homer]

Russia claims to have done it successfully at least twice.

Actually, they've done it successfully 4 out of 5 times. Fallout from a small tactical nuke would hardly be noticed in the huge area of an ocean... nothing compared to the oil leak.

[susano]

Real nice.....:rolleyes:

Well, "shit happens", right?

[Ninja Homer]

Just a quick search: http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/opinion/article/1088187

"Nuke the Deepwater Horizon wellhead? The thought had occurred to me, over the past six weeks watching environmental catastrophe unfold in the Gulf of Mexico, that detonating a nuclear bomb at the oil well blowout site a mile below the water's surface could work where all other schemes so far have failed.

I figured there were probably all sorts of technical reasons why this was a fanciful notion, but it turns out not so much. Apparently the former Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.) used nuclear weapons on five separate occasions between 1966 and 1981 to successfully cap blown-out gas and oil surface wells (there was also one attempt that failed), which have been documented in a U.S. Department of Energy report on the U.S.S.R.'s peaceful uses of nuclear explosions.

Russia is now urging the United States to consider doing the same. Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily newspaper, asserts that although based on Soviet experience there's a one-in-five chance a nuke might not seal the well, it's "a gamble the Americans could certainly risk."

Reportedly, the U.S.S.R. developed special nuclear devices explicitly for closing blown-out gas wells, theorizing that the blast from a nuclear detonation would plug any hole within 25 to 50 meters, depending on the device's power. Much as I had idly imagined, massive explosions can be employed to collapse a runaway well on itself, thus plugging, or at least substantially stanching, the flow of oil.

With no air present in underground or underwater nuclear explosions, energy released overheats and melts acres of surrounding rock into a glass-like, form-fitting plug, blocking the flow. Russian media reports also note that other subterranean nuclear blasts were used as many as 169 times in the Soviet Union for fairly mundane tasks like creating underground storage spaces for gas or building canals.

The downside, of course, is the release of radioactivity into the environment, affecting flora like phytoplankton and other marine organisms, including fish. However, those are already being severely impacted by release of oil, which if unchecked, could (and probably already has) caused more damage than would fallout from a nuclear blast. The U.S. DOE report suggests environmental risks would be relatively minimal, since the bulk of the radiation released would be far underground.

"Seafloor nuclear detonation is starting to sound surprisingly feasible and appropriate," University of Texas at Austin mechanical engineer Michael E. Webber is quoted observing, while Columbia University visiting scholar on nuclear policy and former naval officer Christopher Brownfield wrote in the Daily Beast: "We should have demolished this well with explosives over a month ago. And yet we watch in excruciating suspense while BP fumbles through plan after plan to recover its oil and cover its asset."

Mr. Brownfield criticizes U.S. President Obama's team of oil spill advisers as green on casualty response and susceptible to oil company coercion, contending that: "It would be far better for our president to pick up the red phone and call Vladimir Putin for a lesson on ninjapolitik than to leave BP in charge of the ineffectual plans that it's bringing to the table," and says Mr. Obama's opportunity to stop the spill quickly and heroically with a controlled demolition is slipping away.

Notwithstanding my misgivings about possible consequences of unleashing radiation, I'm becoming more and more convinced it could be a lesser evil than letting oil continue to gush despite British Petroleum's six weeks of serial ineffectual schemes to plug the flow.

Matt Simmons, founder of the energy investment bank Simmons & Company, told Bloomberg News that "Probably the only thing we can do is create a weapon system and send it down 18,000 feet and detonate it, hopefully encasing the oil."

Of course, the current U.S. administration is solidly Democratic, and a large, core Democrat Party constituency is rigidly and reflexively opposed to use of nukes. Then there's international politics. Blowing up a nuclear device in the Gulf would violate the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty at a time when President Obama is championing global nuclear disarmament. According to the New York Times, the Obama administration's stance on nuking the oil well has been: "absolutely not," a DOE spokeswoman confirming that the nuclear option never was, and is not, on the table.

Ideological and political hesitancy about using possibly the only means available to effectively plug the leak before at least August, when relief wells are completed, hopefully relieving pressure, could result in environmental tragedy of Biblical proportions reaching far beyond the U.S. Gulf coast. Last week, the National Center for Atmospheric Research released findings of a detailed computer modeling study projecting that oil from Deepwater Horizon could contaminate thousands of miles of the U.S. Atlantic coast and move out into mid-Atlantic as early as this summer.

Things are more than bad enough already, and oil continues escaping."

[angelatc]

Well, "shit happens", right?

Yes, and seeing how people react in times of distress or crisis is a relatively reliable indicator of character.

[bkreigh]

The checks that BP have cut don't come close to the losses. Entire fishing businesses have been destroyed.

Maybe you need to read some Louisiana news rather than BP press releases.

Im not saying they come close to the overall cost. Im saying they are starting the process. Just because somebody files a claim doesnt mean BP has to pay right then and there. If that were the case then people would be taking advantage of the system. UNDERSTAND? Christ. Give it time. If BP fails to do anything they have said then ill jump on board but right now i havent seen any evidence of that and you havent provided me with any.

Maybe you need to get over your hate of corporations and your love affair with government intervention.

[bkreigh]

You ignorant fool. The former CEO of Shell has been all over TV asking WHY BP and our gov't hasn't done anything to CONTAIN the oil, because IT'S BEEN DONE IN OTHER BLOWOUTS. There are MANY measures that can be used to protect the environment and capture the oil at the source. Your poblem is that you don't know about them so you spew uniformed nonsense. Gosh, if you don't about these methods, they must not exist!

Shit damn fuck susano. You were not talking about the source of the spill directly. You were talking about the oil that has traveled to land. I agree that the first priority is to secure the fuckin source. That should be the #1 priority after the search and rescue missions.

Sorry if i was talking about something else but your prior posts talks about containment and then about marshland and what not on shore so i put 2 and 2 together. Understand where i thought you were talking about something COMPLETELY different? It two totally different operation when you are talking about containing oil near land and containing (should have used "securing") the freakin source of the spill.

[kahless]

Russia claims to have done it successfully at least twice.


Actually, they've done it successfully 4 out of 5 times. Fallout from a small tactical nuke would hardly be noticed in the huge area of an ocean... nothing compared to the oil leak.

The Soviets I believe were all gas fired wells in natural gas fields, not sealing oil wells gushing liquid oil at 5000ft. They also had one failure, where is the data from these events and can we even trust that data. Do you really want to risk making part of the US uninhabitable or contaminated with fallout should this attempt fail?

[angelatc]

The Soviets I believe were all gas fired wells in natural gas fields, not sealing oil wells gushing liquid oil at 5000ft. They also had one failure, where is the data from these events and can we even trust that data. Do you really want to risk making part of the US uninhabitable or contaminated with fallout should this attempt fail?

I'm not ready to dismiss simply on ideological grounds, but I'm not ready to all out embrace it based on the article above, which seemed to cite an investment banker in a position I'd rather see occupied by a scientist or two.

[freshjiva]

Their capital needs to be locked up so they DO pay, RIGHT NOW. They are the lease holders and they are legally responsible. They made the decisions to use sea water instead of drilling mud, against Transocean's warnings. They knew the BOP was broken. They knew the anular gaskest was broken when the rubber came flying out of the drilling pipe. They demanded the drilling be sped up to unsafe speed. They knew they hit a gas pocket, days before. They know what they were doing and there are plenty of witnesses and survivors who have testified to those facts.

Tony Hayward called this "a drop in the bucket". He said he wants his life back. BP has lied, non stop. They don't give a goddamn about the devastation. What they care about is money, period.

Leave all this up for a Court of Law to decide. Allow for the evidence to be gathered and digested. Then allow the judge to deliver the final verdict of damages. DUE PROCESS, susano.

I'm not saying your lying in your claims above. What I'm saying is that we don't need people driven by pure emotions like you coming to angry conclusions and calling for total seizure, name calling, and accusing of people of negligence and disregard for life and Nature.

[Anti Federalist]

The checks that BP have cut don't come close to the losses. Entire fishing businesses have been destroyed.

Maybe you need to read some Louisiana news rather than BP press releases.

I just came back from there.

I saw plenty of fishing going on.

[susano]

Yes, and seeing how people react in times of distress or crisis is a relatively reliable indicator of character.

http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/oil_06_03/o01_23681845.jpg

SHIT HAPPENS

Seeing as how that's not YOU in that oil SUFFERING - oh, well

[Ninja Homer]

The Soviets I believe were all gas fired wells in natural gas fields, not sealing oil wells gushing liquid oil at 5000ft. They also had one failure, where is the data from these events and can we even trust that data. Do you really want to risk making part of the US uninhabitable or contaminated with fallout should this attempt fail?

See previous post: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2746535&postcount=49

Sounds to me like it's a possible solution that they crossed off the list and haven't fully researched just because of the negativity associated with it.

[bkreigh]

Deleted.

[susano]

Shit damn fuck susano. You were not talking about the source of the spill directly. You were talking about the oil that has traveled to land. I agree that the first priority is to secure the fuckin source. That should be the #1 priority after the search and rescue missions.

Sorry if i was talking about something else but your prior posts talks about containment and then about marshland and what not on shore so i put 2 and 2 together. Understand where i thought you were talking about something COMPLETELY different? It two totally different operation when you are talking about containing oil near land and containing (should have used "securing") the freakin source of the spill.

I am talking about both. Capturing oil at the source, which is what the Shell guy was talking about, AND proper containment efforts at the shore. When it hits shore or marshland, there are still things that can be done, called bio-remediation. Sugar cane fiber will absord oil and turn into compost, in about 10 days. There's a Florida company that has contacted BP and the federal gov't about this. They have the product and they get no repsonse. Dried pete moss will absorb oil and it can be scooped up. Both of these methods are non toxic. They aren't being done. There are other non toxic methods and they aren't being used. Instead, BP is dumping highly toxic Corexit, over a million gallons, so far, and it dispereses the oil, making it impossible to scoop up. It suspends the oil in the water column and is deadly to all marine life. This shit is outalwed in the UK because it's so toxic. They have not only ruined the Gulf with oil, but have further poisoned it with Corexit.

[angelatc]

http://im/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/oil_06_03/o01_23681845.jpg

SHIT HAPPENS

Seeing as how that's not YOU in that oil SUFFERING - oh, well

I didn't say it was pretty. I did say it was life, like it or not. Shit happens.

Why aren't you down there helping clean them up, instead of merely insisting that somebody somewhere ought to do something?

[susano]

Leave all this up for a Court of Law to decide. Allow for the evidence to be gathered and digested. Then allow the judge to deliver the final verdict of damages. DUE PROCESS, susano.

I'm not saying your lying in your claims above. What I'm saying is that we don't need people driven by pure emotions like you coming to angry conclusions and calling for total seizure, name calling, and accusing of people of negligence and disregard for life and Nature.

BP and our gov't have shown nothing BUT disregard for life and Nature.

Go watch the 60 Minutes interview with the guy who survived the rig blow out and fire.

[lx43]

Susano, I'm going sue you for spilling so much bullshit on this forum about seizing someone else's property and taking away their constitutional and God Given rights (yes the shareholders have rights) to an equal/fair trial. Hayword has already signed an agreement with Obama to pay all claims. What more do you want????

With my claim against you I want your accounts frozen and property put up for sale immedately. No need for a trial. Your already guilty.


With that said, I bet you wouldn't like that would you if someone came along to do that to you. Everyone's rights should be protected, even the current public enemy #1.

[devil21]

And this thread is exactly why arguing with liberals and those of like mind is simply a waste of time. Their thoughts and actions are driven purely by emotion, not logic or respect for the rule of law. Susano is rightfully upset about what's going on but vents in the completely wrong way and calls for rash actions not based in legal reality.

Yes, let's "seize" a multi-national oil company whose largest preferred stock holder is the British Crown. Let's see how far that action goes before the Queen puts a boot in Obama's ass.

[bkreigh]

I am talking about both. Capturing oil at the source, which is what the Shell guy was talking about, AND proper containment efforts at the shore. When it hits shore or marshland, there are still things that can be done, called bio-remediation. Sugar cane fiber will absord oil and turn into compost, in about 10 days. There's a Florida company that has contacted BP and the federal gov't about this. They have the product and they get no repsonse. Dried pete moss will absorb oil and it can be scooped up. Both of these methods are non toxic. They aren't being done. There are other non toxic methods and they aren't being used. Instead, BP is dumping highly toxic Corexit, over a million gallons, so far, and it dispereses the oil, making it impossible to scoop up. It suspends the oil in the water column and is deadly to all marine life. This shit is outalwed in the UK because it's so toxic. They have not only ruined the Gulf with oil, but have further poisoned it with Corexit.

Gotcha. At first i was under the impression that you were only talking about near shore operations at first.

There are plenty of methods for cleaning up oil. The fact is, is that just because these methods are available does not mean that oil will not end up on shore or killing wildlife. Sorry about my prior post but ive about had it with those posts everywhere. Yeah its heart breaking but shit does happen and nobody like to see that crap happen (unless you are mike vick).

And i agree with you on the use of dispersants. I am highly against them.

[silus]

They are only liable for 75 million. But of course the government wants to rescind that after the fact... whatevea...

[susano]

I just came back from there.

I saw plenty of fishing going on.

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/deepwater_horizon/BP_OilSpill_FisheryClosureMap_060710.pdf

See that red line? That's all closed to fishing. And, this is just getting started.

[angelatc]

. . This shit is outlawed in the UK because it's so toxic. .

I would never look to the UK for examples of what should be banned. Their government is 20 times worse than ours about banning stuff for absolutely no good reason.

And for the record, the scientist I heard said that stuff is good, because it breaks the stuff down so the naturally occurring microbes can digest it.

All the other miracle cures being "ignored?" Snake oil salesman looking to cash in.

[bkreigh]

I would never look to the UK for examples of what should be banned. Their government is 20 times worse than ours about banning stuff for absolutely no good reason.

And for the record, the scientist I heard said that stuff is good, because it breaks the stuff down so the naturally occurring microbes can digest it.

All the other miracle cures being "ignored?" Snake oil salesman looking to cash in.

That is true but it is like trying to rid an evasive species with another evasive species. Shit is not going to be the same no matter what. You are treating one chemical with another here.

I personally will not be convinced of using dispersants unless some study says that it has a 100% non effect on the environment.

[susano]

They are only liable for 75 million. But of course the government wants to rescind that after the fact... whatevea...

That is actually very problematic because it's unconstitutional. It's ex post facto. The fact is, BP can only be held liable for 75 million or whatever they feel like paying.

[angelatc]

BP and our gov't have shown nothing BUT disregard for life and Nature.

Go watch the 60 Minutes interview with the guy who survived the rig blow out and fire.
Finger pointing and threats make it really hard for people to work together. BP may have several innovative ideas, but won't ever dare to try them because they're afraid of the grief they'll get if they fail.

I watched the 60 Minutes segment. I still don't think BP is evil. I think several people employed by BP took educated risks that, when combined turned out to be one very bad decision. I don't think they are terrorists, I don't think they did it on purpose, and I certainly don't think BP's business model included a reckless disregard for everything susano holds dear.

[susano]

I would never look to the UK for examples of what should be banned. Their government is 20 times worse than ours about banning stuff for absolutely no good reason.

And for the record, the scientist I heard said that stuff is good, because it breaks the stuff down so the naturally occurring microbes can digest it.

All the other miracle cures being "ignored?" Snake oil salesman looking to cash in.

That "snake oil" has been used in other oil spills. The thing is, BP has free reign here, so they aren't using these methods.

I know a Brit, who lives in Texas, who is an oil and gas consultant, with 35 years at Shell. He is amazed at what BP is getting away with here. They do so because they can.

[angelatc]

That is true but it is like trying to rid an evasive species with another evasive species. Shit is not going to be the same no matter what. You are treating one chemical with another here.

I personally will not be convinced of using dispersants unless some study says that it has a 100% non effect on the environment.

That's like Happy Pony-land. A magic water.

The thing is that there's already an effect on the environment. The point here is to minimize the effect of the oil.

Like I said, the scientist I saw said it was better to use it than not to use it. I'm going with that.

[susano]

Finger pointing and threats make it really hard for people to work together. BP may have several innovative ideas, but won't ever dare to try them because they're afraid of the grief they'll get if they fail.

I watched the 60 Minutes segment. I still don't think BP is evil. I think several people employed by BP took educated risks that, when combined turned out to be one very bad decision. I don't think they are terrorists, I don't think they did it on purpose, and I certainly don't think BP's business model included a reckless disregard for everything susano holds dear.

They shattered tools down in the well casing because they hurried. They knew the anular and BOP were broken.

And, yes, I do hold our evironment and all of Creation dear. Life is sacred.

[bkreigh]

That's like Happy Pony-land. A magic water.

The thing is that there's already an effect on the environment. The point here is to minimize the effect of the oil.

Like I said, the scientist I saw said it was better to use it than not to use it. I'm going with that.

Just like what they are using is some happy pony-land. A magic water. IMO.

Id rather them burn as much off at the surface as possible before using dispersants. Yes the dispersants being used have been approved by the EPA what what is that really telling us?

Scientists also said global warming was going to cause massive flooding as well. Scientists can be bought and paid for to spew whatever message the paying source wants them to say.

The fact is, is that we both have our opinions on it and that is that. We are both just trying to weed out the BS in all of it and trying and come up with our own opinion. Who is wrong or who is right? Who the hell knows right now. My money is on me though :D

[tangent4ronpaul]

It was not an "accident". It was NEGLIGENCE.

Susan,

having followed this story closely, I cannot confirm any definite cause for the disaster. If anything, BP is anal retentive on preventative maintenance and safety precautions. They are also cost conscious, like any business, so if they can get by with a less expensive solution, they will. Ie: don't buy a Ferrari when a VW will do.

In the space program, has every astronaut we've lost been due to negligence? We are talking about a dangerous activity here, with a lot of safeguards. Every once in a shile, something bad happens. The more I look at it, the less I blame BP.

This is MMS's oil spill response research. BP can't do anything without MMS's blessing.

http://www.mms.gov/tarprojectcategories/




Additionally, they haven't done a damn thing to protect the wetlands.

Bullshit! They are hiring alot of people and throwing supplies at that. They even have a call center hotline to report oil covered wildlife.


In fact, they have poisoned the water, even further, with Corexit.

That dispersant is a problem, however it is the dispersant the EPA approved. BP doesn't get to choose what they use - they have to ask permission. It's like nanny state on steroids. And the nanny doesn't have a f'ing clue. I suspect the choice of this dispersant had everything to do with what company made what campaign contribution to what politician.


They have denied oil in the water column, when it's been confirmed by divers. They're shucking and jiving while our Gulf is getting KILLED.

As I recall it, they were the ones to announce it and release photography or radar images of it.

The Gulf will come back. Nature has a talent for recovering. The area the Exxon/Valdez effected has completely recovered.

-t

[angelatc]

That "snake oil" has been used in other oil spills. The thing is, BP has free reign here, so they aren't using these methods.

I know a Brit, who lives in Texas, who is an oil and gas consultant, with 35 years at Shell. He is amazed at what BP is getting away with here. They do so because they can.


So what would your friend, the oil and gas consultant, have them do, exactly? Bear in mind that the EPA has to approve anything they decide to do.

[Brian4Liberty]

In the space program, has every astronaut we've lost been due to negligence?

Excellent point. The answer is yes, if you are talking about the Space Shuttle. The two Space Shuttle accidents were very similar to this BP disaster. Risks taken for the benefit of schedule and cost. Experts ignored by bureaucrats.

[Jace]

BP has a long history of causing death and destruction.

The original name of the company is the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. It was founded to search for oil in Iran.

When Mossadegh was prime minister of Iran, he nationalized -- or seized -- the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. British intelligence then convinced Eisenhower that Iran was overrun with Communists. So the CIA intervened using all kinds of dirty tricks, and in 1953 Mossadegh was overthrown. The Shah was reinstated, and the British got their Iranian oil back. Of course, we got our share of the loot for doing the heavy lifting in this little act of intervention and subversion.

Now BP is aiming to be the biggest beneficiary of the Iraq War.

The company works to corrupt and overthrow governments and it obviously has little regard for the countries that it does business in, or for the lives of its own workers.

BP is the inheritor of all the worst traits of the British Empire. And the timing of this 9-11 in the Gulf couldn't be more suspicious. The company is no friend of liberty.

BP shouldn't be seized by the government. But it should be held responsible for the damages to property and lives that it has caused. Those who have suffered damages should seize its assets as compensation.

And its management should be facing criminal charges. What BP has done in the Gulf is a crime, and Tony Hayward deserves a worse fate than Ken Lay.

[susano]

Susan,

having followed this story closely, I cannot confirm any definite cause for the disaster. If anything, BP is anal retentive on preventative maintenance and safety precautions. They are also cost conscious, like any business, so if they can get by with a less expensive solution, they will. Ie: don't buy a Ferrari when a VW will do.

WRONG. They knew the BOP was broken. They knew the anular was broken. They sped up drilling and broke tools in the well casing. The substituted sea water for drilling fluid. They have a terrible safety record. THEY WERE RECKLESS AND NEGLIGENT.



In the space program, has every astronaut we've lost been due to negligence? We are talking about a dangerous activity here, with a lot of safeguards. Every once in a shile, something bad happens. The more I look at it, the less I blame BP.

Less is known about the oceans of the earth than about space. It is more difficult to operate in the deep oceans than in space. Engineers warned about the O rings before the Challenger blew up. The Deepawater Horizon blow out is catastrophic for the environment, the animals, and the Gulf economy. The loss of a shuttle and astronatuts doesn't even compare.




This is MMS's oil spill response research. BP can't do anything without MMS's blessing.

That's right. There was no oversight.


In Parliament, senior Labour MPs also intervened. Tom Watson, the former Cabinet Office minister, said: “This is now a serious crisis facing millions of pensioners in the UK and we need to say to our US allies that yes, it was a British company that made this mistake but if they were subject to a regulatory regime, they wouldn’t have been able to do that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7819653/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-David-Cameron-fails-to-back-BP-in-fight-with-Barack-Obama.html



Bullshit! They are hiring alot of people and throwing supplies at that. They even have a call center hotline to report oil covered wildlife.

Oooo, a call center!

The people they've hired have been caught appearing for photo ops, and then disappearing. They've been caught standing around texting on their cell phones. They have laid booming improperly. There's tons of video on this. Many of the workers have nothing more than plastic bags and shovels.




That dispersant is a problem, however it is the dispersant the EPA approved. BP doesn't get to choose what they use - they have to ask permission. It's like nanny state on steroids. And the nanny doesn't have a f'ing clue. I suspect the choice of this dispersant had everything to do with what company made what campaign contribution to what politician.

After they had dumped hundreds of thousands gallons, the EPA told them to stop to using it. BP said no, the EPA said okay. BP seems to the one in charge. Even the Coast Guard has run interference of them, threatening to arrest a CBS news crew for filming the oil. They routinely bully reporters and have instructed their employees not to speak to the press. This has been on the news, DAILY, if you had bothered to watch.



As I recall it, they were the ones to announce it and release photography or radar images of it.

In the beginning, BP lied and claimed the spill was stopped. It never was. Then when it became obvious how bad it was, they claimed that 1000 barrels a day was leaking. When that didn't fly, they said 5000 barrels a day. That was a lie, too. All they've done is lie.



The Gulf will come back. Nature has a talent for recovering. The area the Exxon/Valdez effected has completely recovered.



You don't know. No one knows. We have no idea how long this will go on. It may not recover in our lifetimes. Maybe it will. Whatever happens, the damage, at this point, is horrendous. All of the dead animals are all individuals who suffered. Many, many more will suffer and die. It's an atrocity.

[susano]

So what would your friend, the oil and gas consultant, have them do, exactly? Bear in mind that the EPA has to approve anything they decide to do.

No, the EPA does not.

My friend called in tankers, in a UK oil spill, to suck up oil at the source. I just heard, tonight, that BP is going to bring ONE from the UK, but it won't be here for over a week. This should have been done immediately.

BP has consistantly lied about the massive amount of oil gushing into the Gulf. The are charged a fine for every barrel. The news reported that they've had tow boats sucking up some oil and they didn't want more because they'd be stuck reporting larger figures. Instead, they're going to burn most of it, and it won't be counted.

[susano]

BP has a long history of causing death and destruction.

The original name of the company is the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. It was founded to search for oil in Iran.

When Mossadegh was prime minister of Iran, he nationalized -- or seized -- the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. British intelligence then convinced Eisenhower that Iran was overrun with Communists. So the CIA intervened using all kinds of dirty tricks, and in 1953 Mossadegh was overthrown. The Shah was reinstated, and the British got their Iranian oil back. Of course, we got our share of the loot for doing the heavy lifting in this little act of intervention and subversion.

Now BP is aiming to be the biggest beneficiary of the Iraq War.

The company works to corrupt and overthrow governments and it obviously has little regard for the countries that it does business in, or for the lives of its own workers.

BP is the inheritor of all the worst traits of the British Empire. And the timing of this 9-11 in the Gulf couldn't be more suspicious. The company is no friend of liberty.

BP shouldn't be seized by the government. But it should be held responsible for the damages to property and lives that it has caused. Those who have suffered damages should seize its assets as compensation.

And its management should be facing criminal charges. What BP has done in the Gulf is a crime, and Tony Hayward deserves a worse fate than Ken Lay.

Thank you for posting that. Some here may recall Ron Paul talking about the overthrow of Mossadegh, during the debates. That's when the US became the UK's bitch. Then again, some here may choose not to recall Ron Paul talking about the CIA doing that, because they're too busy defending "private" business and their corporate criminal actions.

[devil21]

Thank you for posting that. Some here may recall Ron Paul talking about the overthrow of Mossadegh, during the debates. That's when the US became the UK's bitch. Then again, some here may choose not to recall Ron Paul talking about the CIA doing that, because they're too busy defending "private" business and their corporate criminal actions.

Can you explain how one connects to the other? I'm aware of BP's history regarding intervention but I don't see what that has to do with the current situation of a presumably accidental oil spill.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Excellent point. The answer is yes, if you are talking about the Space Shuttle. The two Space Shuttle accidents were very similar to this BP disaster. Risks taken for the benefit of schedule and cost. Experts ignored by bureaucrats.

EXCELLENT POINT!

-t

[susano]

Can you explain how one connects to the other? I'm aware of BP's history regarding intervention but I don't see what that has to do with the current situation of a presumably accidental oil spill.

If we talk about what Henry Kissinger did during the Vietnam war and the Henry Kissinger of today, the connection is we are still talking about the same entity. The entity has continuity and history matters.

Jace wrote:

The company works to corrupt and overthrow governments and it obviously has little regard for the countries that it does business in, or for the lives of its own workers.

BP is the inheritor of all the worst traits of the British Empire. And the timing of this 9-11 in the Gulf couldn't be more suspicious. The company is no friend of liberty.


It is very naive, and bordering on stupid, when anyone here talks about BP as though they are a business in the liberty sense of the word. This ain't mom & pop. This is global corporation that has, along with the British gov't, waged war for money and greed. They don't give a shit about the Gulf of Mexico, the animals or the Gulf states economy. If it were not for the feeble objections of the US gov't, they wouldn't be doing anything to compensate anyone. They will do what they can get away with.

I am no fan of gov't. I don't want the gov't involved in my life AT ALL. However, global corporations need to be kept in check. They should be abolished, but until that happens, we need to look at them from the standpoint of national defense. They ARE the NWO and they are not our friends. BP wrote much of the cap & trade legislation introduced by John Kerry, which is a direct stab at American sovereignty and our freedom.

[Anti Federalist]

You don't know. No one knows. We have no idea how long this will go on. It may not recover in our lifetimes. Maybe it will. Whatever happens, the damage, at this point, is horrendous. All of the dead animals are all individuals who suffered. Many, many more will suffer and die. It's an atrocity.

Of course it will.

31 years ago a much worse spill happened under similar circumstances off the coast of Mexico.

Google Ixtoc 1. It took 9 months to shut that well in.

The GoM and the world survived.

[susano]

The Campeche well was in 150' of water and it took nine months to cap, and it failed, having to be capped again. The Macondo/Deepwater Horizon well is in 5000' of water. That's a huge difference. This one is also spewing way more oil.

[Anti Federalist]

The Campeche well was in 150' of water and it took nine months to cap, and it failed, having to be capped again. The Macondo/Deepwater Horizon well is in 5000' of water. That's a huge difference. This one is also spewing way more oil.

I'm pretty close to this thing.

I can say, with some authority, that it will not take nine months to kill this well.

[Aratus]

would it be a tad better if the queen nationalized BP and vouched for the checks personally?

[susano]

I'm pretty close to this thing.

I can say, with some authority, that it will not take nine months to kill this well.

Oh, do tell.

[John Taylor]

The case for seizure
Click to read 10 Critical Facts About the Oil Spill


BP's recklessness hit the fishing industry hard,
leaving thousands searching for work and depriving
their families of a source of income.

http://www.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=SeizeBPCaseForSeizure&AddInterest=4221

Such a taking would be in direct violation of the takings clause of the 5th amendment... and thus would be unconstitutional. Sorry.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/youngstown.html

We are asked to decide whether the President was acting within his constitutional power when he issued an order directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of and operate most of the Nation's steel mills.

The essence of our free Government is "leave to live by no man's leave, underneath the law" - to be governed by those impersonal forces which we call law. Our Government is fashioned to fulfill this concept so far as humanly possible. The Executive, except for recommendation and veto, has no legislative power. The executive action we have here originates in the individual will of the President and represents an exercise of authority without law. No one, perhaps not even the President, knows the limits of the power he may seek to exert in this instance and the parties affected cannot learn the limit of their rights. We do not know today what powers over labor or property would be claimed to flow from Government possession if we should legalize it, what rights to compensation would be claimed or recognized, or on what contingency it would end. With all its defects, delays and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations.

Whatever BP may have done, or not done, their assets cannot be seized without and act of congress along with just compensation.

[susano]

would it be a tad better if the queen nationalized BP and vouched for the checks personally?

The Queen isn't the Crown. The Rothschilds/City of London is.

If the UK nationalized BP, they'd probably claim soveriegn immunity. I think Mexico did that with the Ixtoc/Campeche blowout.

[John Taylor]

The Queen isn't the Crown. The Rothschilds/City of London is.

If the UK nationalized BP, they'd probably claim soveriegn immunity. I think Mexico did that with the Ixtoc/Campeche blowout.

What?

I heard this from a plumber when I was in law school, telling me that if I took the bar exam I would be submitting to an English plot to take over the United States and subjugate the American people to the despotic British. Insane then, insane now. The Queen is the head of state, not the Rothchilds, or Boris Johnson's London(although we would all be better served if Boris Johnson was running England).

[susano]

Such a taking would be in direct violation of the takings clause of the 5th amendment... and thus would be unconstitutional. Sorry.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/youngstown.html

We are asked to decide whether the President was acting within his constitutional power when he issued an order directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of and operate most of the Nation's steel mills.

The essence of our free Government is "leave to live by no man's leave, underneath the law" - to be governed by those impersonal forces which we call law. Our Government is fashioned to fulfill this concept so far as humanly possible. The Executive, except for recommendation and veto, has no legislative power. The executive action we have here originates in the individual will of the President and represents an exercise of authority without law. No one, perhaps not even the President, knows the limits of the power he may seek to exert in this instance and the parties affected cannot learn the limit of their rights. We do not know today what powers over labor or property would be claimed to flow from Government possession if we should legalize it, what rights to compensation would be claimed or recognized, or on what contingency it would end. With all its defects, delays and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations.

Whatever BP may have done, or not done, their assets cannot be seized without and act of congress along with just compensation.

Iran assets still frozen in US
Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:44:50 GMT

Thirty years after the takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran, the United States still holds Iran's frozen assets and properties without paying Tehran anything in assets-related financial gains, a report says.

On November 4, 1979, university students took over the building of the US embassy and held 52 American diplomats hostage for 444 days.

The students were convinced that Washington was plotting against the Islamic Revolution just months after the toppling of the US-backed shah.

Inside the embassy, they found shredded documents which proved their convictions.

Ten days later, former US President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order, freezing all assets and properties of the Iranian government, organizations and companies in the United States in response to the hostage taking.

During the past 30 years, all US presidents agreed every year to extend the order on frozen Iranian assets.

Iran and the US signed an agreement in 1981, known as the Algeria Declaration, which obliged Washington to remove the block on Iran's assets, including capital, military equipment, diplomatic possessions and the money belonging to the deposed shah of Iran and his family.

The US, however, fulfilled only parts of its commitments, according to a report by Fars news agency.

In 1994, the US proposed that it would return the frozen assets to Iran. However, it later became clear that Washington rented out part of Iran's properties to Romania and Turkey and deposited the income in a particular account.

The US has transferred $8 billion in Iranian frozen assets to the Bank of England and another $3.6 billion to the Federal Reserve, the report says.

It was even revealed that the US had built a parking lot at the site of a buildings which belongs to Iran.

Analysts believe it remains unclear why the US, which seeks to establish relations and hold negotiations with Iran, does not fulfill its commitments and shows no goodwill in practice.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=110771&sectionid=351020101


Iran never was, and isn't now, a threat to the united States. BP is. There is no comparison to US steel companies.

[susano]

What?

I heard this from a plumber when I was in law school, telling me that if I took the bar exam I would be submitting to an English plot to take over the United States and subjugate the American people to the despotic British. Insane then, insane now. The Queen is the head of state, not the Rothchilds, or Boris Johnson's London(although we would all be better served if Boris Johnson was running England).


THE CITY


When people think of England such terms as 'Great Britain,' 'The Queen,' 'The Crown,' 'Crown Colonies,' 'London,' 'The City
of London,' and 'British Empire' come to mind and blend together into an indistinguishable blur. They are generally looked upon
as synonymous, as being representative of the same basic system. During the 1950s and 1960s the author lived in England
(London for five years) without even beginning to realize the vast difference that exists in the meaning of some of the above
terms.

When people hear of 'The Crown' they automatically think of the King or Queen; when they hear of 'London' or the 'The City'
they instantly think of the capital of England in which the monarch has his or her official residence.

To fully understand the unique and generally unknown subject we must define our terms:
When we speak of 'The City' we are in fact referring to a privately owned Corporation - or Sovereign State - occupying an
irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile 'Greater London' area. The population of
'The City' is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of 'Greater London' (32 boroughs) is approximately seven
and a half million.
The 'Crown' is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or 'The
City.' 'The City' is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like
the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state. It is the Vatican of the commercial world.
The City, which is often called "the wealthiest square mile on earth," is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together
Britian's great financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled)
Bank of England, Lloyd's of London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading
concerns. [Such as the British Invisibles, I kid you not]. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper
and publishing worlds.

TWO MONARCHS

The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in the City. As Aubrey Menen says in "London",
Time-Life, 1976, p. 16: "The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells
much." It certainly is and certainly does !

When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City.
She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State. During such State visits "the Lord Mayor in his robes
and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no furhter than service
uniforms." The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city.

The reason should be clear. The Lord Mayor is the monarch. The Queen is his subject ! The monarch always leads the way.
The subject always stays a pace or two behind !
The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament. It tells them what to do, and when. In theory Britian is
ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers. These 'fronts' go to great lengths to create the impression that they
are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate
behind the scenes. As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin D'israeli wrote: "So you
see... the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes"
(Coningsby, The Century Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233).
This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen's book: "The Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not
expected to understand the mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer [Budget Director] is only expected
to understand them when he introduces the budget. Both are advised by the permanent officials of the Treasury, and these listen
to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the government will [back-fire]... it is no use their calling up British ambassadors
to ask if it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City. As one ambassador complained to me, diplomats are nowadays
no more than office boys, and slow ones at that.
"The City will know. They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell the Prime Minister. Woe betide him if he does not
listen. The most striking instance of this happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden...
launched a war to regain the Suez Canal. It had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he would have
no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse. He stopped the war and was turned out of office by his party. When the
Prime Minister rises to address the Lord Mayor's banquet, he hopes that the City will put more behind him than the gold plate
lavishly displayed on the sideboard" (p. 18).
History clearly reveals that the British government is the bond slave of the "invisible and inaudible" force centered in the City.
The City calls the tune. The "visible and audible leaders" are mere puppets who dance to that tune on command. They have no
power. They have no authority. In spite of all the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the financial
elite.

HISTORY of the 'CITY'

From the time of William the Conqueror until the middle of the seventeenth century the British Monarchs ruled supreme - their
word was law. They truly were Sovereign in every sense of the word.
As British strength and influence grew around the world toward the end of the 1600s the wealth, strength and influence of the
elite merchants in the City also grew - only at a faster pace. In 1694 the privately owned Bank of England (a central bank) was
established to finance the profligate ways of William III. The bank was financed by a group of City merchants who used
William Paterson as a 'front.' The names of the founders have never been made public.
It was at that juncture that the Bank of England and the City began to dominate and control the affairs of Britain. Their
influence and wealth grew in leaps and bounds in the century that followed. "The Illustrated Universal History," 1878, records
that "Great Britain emerged from her long contest with France with increased power and national glory. Her Empire was greatly
expanded in all parts of the world; her supremacy on the sea was undisputed; her wealth and commerce were increased... But
with all this national prosperity, the lower classes of the English people were sunk in extreme wretchedness and poverty, having
been bled dry during the struggle of the previous twenty years.
It was at this juncture (1815) that the House of Rothschild seized control of the British economy, the Bank of England and
the City - and, through their other branches, control of the other European nations.
Prior to this period Britain had developed colonies and outposts in the far-flung reaches of the globe. Having been thrown
out of the Western Hemisphere, Britain now concentrated on acquiring and developing additional possessions elsewhere.
During its heyday in the nineteenth century approximately 90% of all international trade was carried in British ships. Other
shippers had to pay the Crown royalties or commissions for the 'privilege' of doing business on the high seas. During these
years 'Britannia Ruled the Waves' through the domination of the most modern and powerful navy known up to that time.

TWO SEPARATE EMPIRES

To avoid misunderstanding, it is important that the reader recognize the fact that two separate empires were operating under the
guise of the British Empire. One was the Crown Empire and the other was the British Empire.
All the colonial possessions that were white were under the Sovereign - i.e. under the authority of the British government.
Such nations as the Union of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were governed under British law. These only
represented thirteen percent of the people who made up the inhabitants of the British Empire.
All the other parts of the British Empire - nations like India, Eqypt, Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa,
Sinapore, Hong Kong and Gilbraltar (those areas inhabited by the browns, yellows and blacks) were all Crown Colonies.
These were not under British rule. The British parliament had no authority over them. They were privately owned and ruled by
a private club in London, England known as the Crown. The Crown's representative in such areas held the absolute power of
life and death over all the people under his juristiction. There were no courts and no method of appeal or retribution against a
decision rendered by the representatives of the Crown. Even a British citizen who committed a crime in a Crown colony was
subject to the Crown law. He couldn't appeal to British law as it didn't apply.
As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there was no problem getting the British taxpayer to
pay for naval and military forces to maintain the Crown's supremacy in these areas. Any revolts were met with terrible
retribution by the British navy at no cost to the Crown.
The City reaped fantastic profits from its operations conducted under the protection of the British armed forces. This wasn't
British commerce and British wealth. The international bankers, prosperous merchants and the British aristocracy who were
part of the 'City' machine accumulated vast fortunes which they lavishly squandered in their pursuit of prestige and standing in
British Society. Had the wealth been spread out among all the people in the British Isles prosperity would have abounded. [I
am not suggesting that this should have been done, the thefts from the exploited should never have occured to begin with -
ralph].
In spite of the wealth of the world flowing into the City the majority of the British people were barely making ends meet.
Many were impoverished to the point of despair. The elite lived in regal splendor. The poor British peasants were never given a
chance to get a cut of the action.
Simon Haxey in "England's Money Lords Tory M.P.," drew his readers' attention to the "total disregard or open contempt
displayed by the aristocracy" towards the British people. He also asked, "What part do the colonial people play in the battle for
democracy when they themselves have no democratic rights and the British governing class refuses to grant such rights" (pp.
114,115) [we all know the difference between democracy and republics I hope - ralph]
David Lloyd George, a future prime minister, emphasized the power of the City and its total contempt for the "wretches"
who were not part of the 'club.' In a 1910 speech he stated: "We do most of the business of the world. We carry more
international trade - probably ten times more - than Germany. Germany carries her own trade largely. The international trade is
ours. Well, we do not do it for nothing. As a matter of fact, our shipping brings us over a hundred millions (pounds) a year,
mostly paid by that wretched foreigner. I'm taxing the foreigner for all I know... You've heard a good deal of talk here,
probably, about the exportation of capital abroad. There is no way in which we can make the foreigner pay more... We get the
foreigner in four ways by that. The first way we leave to Lord Rothschild..." ("Better Times", published 1910).
About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that "...financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not
the responsibility, but certainly the power of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships
between one nation and another, involving international friendship and mistrusts... Loans to foreign countries are organized and
arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the nation's welfare but soley in order to increase indebtedness
upon which the City thrives and grows rich... This national and mainly international dictatorship of money which plays off one
country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the press, converts the advertisement of its own
private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render Democratic
Government a mere nickname. Today, we see through a glass darkly; for there is so much which 'it would not be in the public
interest to divulge'..." (E.C. Knuth, "Empire of 'The City'", p. 65).
All of the above points were stressed by Roland G. Usher on pages 80, 83 and 84 of "Pan Germanism," written in 1913:
"The London and Paris bankers [the international bankers] control the available resources of the world at any one moment, and
can therefore practically permit or prevent the undertaking of any enterprise requiring the use of more than a hundred million
dollars actual value..."
The international bankers "own probably the major part of the bonded indebtedness of the world. Russia, Turkey, Egypt,
India, China, Japan, and South America are probably owned, so far as any nation can be owned, in London or Paris. Payment
of interest on these vast sums is secured by the pledging of the public revenues of these countries, and, in the case of the
weaker nations, by the actual delivery of the perception into the hands of the agents of the English and French bankers. In
addition, a very large share, if not the major part, of the stocks and industrial securities of the world are owned by those two
nations and the policies of many of the world's enterprises dictated by their financial heads. The world itself, in fact, pays them
tribute; it actually rises in the morning to earn its living by utilizing their capital, and occupies its days in making them still
wealthier."
In 1946 E.C. Knuth wrote: "The bulwark of the British financial oligarchy lies in its ageless and self-perpetuating nature, its
long-range planning and prescience, its facility to outwait and break the patience of its opponents. The transient and temporal
statesmen of Europe and particularly of Britain itself, who have attempted to curb this monstrosity, have all been defeated by
their limited tenure of confidence. Obligated to show action and results in a too short span of years, they have been outwitted
and outwaited, deluged with irritants and difficulties; eventually obliged to temporize and retreat. There are few who have
opposed them in Britain and America, without coming to a disgraceful end, but many, who served them well, have also profited
well" ("Empire of 'The City,'" p. 65).
== END of CHAPTER 6 from the book "DESCENT into SLAVERY", by Des Griffin
You have just completed reading the sixth chapter of ""DESCENT into SLAVERY", by Des Griffin.

http://www.freedomdomain.com/banking/the_city.html

[Aratus]

baron browne at a quite scandalous & very gay near to 60something
was more eco-sphere "with it" than mr. tony "denial mode" hayward...

[specsaregood]

//

[susano]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/steffy/7043272.html

Several countries and many in private enterprise offered help and were all turned down.

Logical conclusion: Someone wanted this oil to destroy the Gulf.

[John Taylor]

Several countries and many in private enterprise offered help and were all turned down.

Logical conclusion: Someone wanted this oil to destroy the Gulf.

Or: government central planners do not have the information necessary to deal with a crisis like the present one, even if they have the very best of intentions. Not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes, accidents happen.

[specsaregood]

Several countries and many in private enterprise offered help and were all turned down.

Logical conclusion: Someone wanted this oil to destroy the Gulf.

At the very least it seems the Obama Administration turned the offer(s) down. Yet you want that very same administration to be in charge of seizing assets? That doesn't seem like a good plan.

[susano]

Or: government central planners do not have the information necessary to deal with a crisis like the present one, even if they have the very best of intentions. Not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes, accidents happen.

BP is charge, not gov't.

It was not an accident. It was negligence.

[susano]

At the very least it seems the Obama Administration turned the offer(s) down. Yet you want that very same administration to be in charge of seizing assets? That doesn't seem like a good plan.

I don't like gov't OR BP being in charge of anything.

[specsaregood]

//

[John Taylor]

BP is charge, not gov't.

It was not an accident. It was negligence.

Oh really? Whether negligence took place is a question for courts and juries to decide, not your fiat.

It was not an accident? BP deliberately detonated with oil rig to enable the British reconquista of America?

[Vessol]

It's not like big oil wasn't already heavily socialized...

[susano]

If the US govt wanted to take the Dutch up on their offer and use their services, I don't see how BP could have stopped them.


Isn't that exactly what you are proposing in this thread? You want the foxes in charge of the henhouse.

Of course they could have accepted any help from anywhere. They don't want it contained.

My concern is that BP pays. This may exceed their net worth. BP is in charge and running wild, right now. The US gov't has stepped aside. Taxpayers should not be stuck with this debt. Assets need to be frozen to ensure payment.

[susano]

It's not like big oil wasn't already heavily socialized...

Yep. The retards who go on about "private" enterprise while talking about global corporations are full of shit. It is always public risk for private profit. Much like the banksters.

[specsaregood]

My concern is that BP pays. This may exceed their net worth. BP is in charge and running wild, right now. The US gov't has stepped aside. Taxpayers should not be stuck with this debt. Assets need to be frozen to ensure payment.

But pay what? If the federal government actively got "in the way", turned down help and made the problem worse, why should BP pay for their negligence or their actions if they deliberately made it worse?

[susano]

But pay what? If the federal government actively got "in the way", turned down help and made the problem worse, why should BP pay for their negligence or their actions if they deliberately made it worse?

The gov't hasn't done anything but work at BP's direction. That includes the Coast Guard.

You want BP in charge, well, they are.

[susano]

YouTube - BP and U.S. Coast Guard Threaten CBS Reporters With Arrest For Filming Oil Spill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UbtuLjEyVA&feature=player_embedded)

[specsaregood]

The gov't hasn't done anything but work at BP's direction. That includes the Coast Guard.

You want BP in charge, well, they are.

So our government agents need to be charged with treason or deriliction of duty or something. I don't trust them with any "seizure" it is just an opportunity for further theft.

[susano]

So our government agents need to be charged with treason or deriliction of duty or something. I don't trust them with any "seizure" it is just an opportunity for further theft.

Well, as I said, if want BP in charge, they are.

We are between a rock and a hard place, with enemies on both ends.

As the London Telagraph reported, the British position is that BP is free to do as it pleases in the absense of regulation. That they have done.

[susano]

I post on a London board where one of the members made a dark joke about the destruction of the Gulf by a British corporation. He said, "We'll just do 'em like we have Nigeria, and move on to the next place".

[erowe1]

You obviously have not been paying attention....
BP's entire worth won't be enough to pay for this.

Where did you get the idea that BP's entire worth could not pay for all this?

Even if this spill cost them $100 Billion, then not only could BP pay for all that, but their stock would still be a bargain at its current price.

As a matter of fact, I'm convinced enough that the hit their stock price has taken due to this oil spill is an overreaction that I bought some yesterday at 31.4.

[susano]

Where did you get the idea that BP's entire worth could not pay for all this?

Even if this spill cost them $100 Billion, then not only could BP pay for all that, but their stock would still be a bargain at its current price.

As a matter of fact, I'm convinced enough that the hit their stock price has taken due to this oil spill is an overreaction that bought some yesterday at 31.4.

What's your price for the Gulf of Mexico and all of the animals?

[erowe1]

What's your price for the Gulf of Mexico and all of the animals?

I'd say estimating the cost of all this at $100 Billion is on the high end (not that I really know for sure). So BP will come out of this just fine. And there will still be a nice luxurious Gulf of Mexico with plenty of animals in it when this is over.

[susano]

I'd say estimating the cost of all this at $100 Billion is on the high end (not that I really know for sure). So BP will come out of this just fine. And there will still be a nice luxurious Gulf of Mexico with plenty of animals in it when this is over.

Are you the one who said he had the right to pollute and thought mountain top removal was an accpetable practice?

And, btw, you ignorant fucktard, the DEAD and SUFFERING animals matter. Their lives are PRICELESS.

[erowe1]

Are you the one who said he had the right to pollute and thought mountain top removal was an accpetable practice?

And, btw, you ignorant fucktard, the DEAD and SUFFERING animals matter. Their lives are PRICELESS.

I don't think I ever said I had the right to pollute. But that might be your interpretation of something I said. I probably don't use the word "pollute" as liberally as you do. I do see mountaintop removal as acceptable. Yes. It's certainly better than letting all that coal go to waste buried in a mountain like that.

No, animals aren't priceless. And you don't actually believe they are either. That's just melodramatic rhetoric.

[susano]

I don't think I ever said I had the right to pollute. But that might be your interpretation of something I said. I probably don't use the word "pollute" as liberally as you do. I do see mountaintop removal as acceptable. Yes. It's certainly better than letting all that coal go to waste buried in a mountain like that.

No, animals aren't priceless. And you don't actually believe they are either. That's just melodramatic rhetoric.

Okay, yes, it was you, the sociopath.

Yes, I do belive that life is priceless.

[Pennsylvania]

Yes, I do belive that life is priceless.

All of it?

[susano]

All of it?

Yes.

[Travlyr]

June 11, 2010
Some Perspective on the Oil

Writes Daniel Mahaffey:

Just for fun, I looked at how fast the Gulf of Mexico is filling with oil.

* The Gulf’s volume is approximately 2.5 quadrillion cubic meters, 660 quadrillion gallons (660,000,000,000,000,000 gallons) or 600,000 cubic miles.
* Estimates of the oil released vary from 40 million to 100 million gallons. Let’s use 66 million gallons to make the arithmetic easy.
* The amount of oil released is 1/10,000,000,000 of the volume of the Gulf (one ten billionth).

* If it has taken 53 days to release 66 million gallons, it will take 530,000,000,000 days to fill the Gulf of Mexico. That’s 1.45 billion years.
* If the earth is 4.54 billion years old, it would take 1/3 the life of the earth to fill the Gulf.
* If the universe is 13.75 billion years old, it would take 1/10 the life of the universe to fill the Gulf.

Stop! This is not possible. Here’s another view:

* Tiber field (on which the platform was drilling) contains 250,000,000 barrels of oil (at 42 gallons per barrel).
* At 66 million gallons per 53 day period, it would take 8,400 days to drain Tiber field (23 years).
* If emptied, Tiber field would cover the 615,000 square miles of the Gulf surface with 0.00098 (about 1/1000) inch of oil after 23 years.

The point of all this is perspective. We are very small so everything looks big to us. When journalists report massive oil plumes underwater, or foot deep oil collections on shore, we should be aware that things are still very, very small relative to the enormity of the Gulf of Mexico. The plumes may not actually be massive, and the oil may not be 1 foot deep everywhere. None of this is intended to excuse BP—it’s just perspective.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/59442.html

[Pennsylvania]

Yes.

lol. I sure hope you're a vegan, and a really strict one at that.

[erowe1]

lol. I sure hope you're a vegan, and a really strict one at that.

It's worse than that. She also must apparently think that every single business that has ever done anything that resulted in the death of a single animal should be seized by the federal government, since the value of that animal (infinity) is greater than the net worth of any company (less than infinity). And anybody who differs with her on that point is a sociopath.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Are you the one who said he had the right to pollute and thought mountain top removal was an accpetable practice?

And, btw, you ignorant fucktard, the DEAD and SUFFERING animals matter. Their lives are PRICELESS.

Hey fucktard....

I have watched your rant about seizing BP long enough. Seizure is horse shit. Fucking statists advocating more grounds for the use of force. How about the fucking statists honor the deal they made through representative government with drilling operators via federal regulations. A 75 million dollar cap.

BP should give the federal government the finger and say this is the deal you made and the damage checks stop at 75 million. Limited liability and subjecting our company to your regulations is the privilege we paid for when we wrote you the check to drill in this region. You regulated us and we did nothing without the approval of MMA. Dead and suffering animals do not matter beyond 75 million according to your elected representatives.

[John Taylor]

Hey fucktard....

I have watched your rant about seizing BP long enough. Seizure is horse shit. Fucking statists advocating more grounds for the use of force. How about the fucking statists honor the deal they made through representative government with drilling operators via federal regulations. A 75 million dollar cap.

BP should give the federal government the finger and say this is the deal you made and the damage checks stop at 75 million. Limited liability and subjecting our company to your regulations is the privilege we paid for when we wrote you the check to drill in this region. You regulated us and we did nothing without the approval of MMA. Dead and suffering animals do not matter beyond 75 million according to your elected representatives.

Damned straight. I was strongly considering replying to the thread, but you've just written mine for me.

+1776.

(If BP wishes to pay for a greater portion of the damages and associated costs of repairing this disaster, they are free to do so, but they should and cannot justly be compelled to do so.)

[Travlyr]

Are you the one who said he had the right to pollute and thought mountain top removal was an accpetable practice?


That was me susano. Maybe your shit don't stink, but taking a crap is both your natural right and pollution.

[specsaregood]

taking a crap is both your natural right and pollution.

Touche.

[susano]

That was me susano. Maybe your shit don't stink, but taking a crap is both your natural right and pollution.

Wow, that was classy.

[susano]

BP should give the federal government the finger and say this is the deal you made and the damage checks stop at 75 million.

Good stuff! Keep it coming.

[susano]

I think the sociopaths should stop sugar coating it. Something like this would be appropriate:

Fuck you, you Gulf state crackers. I'll do whateever the fuck I want and you ain't gonna stop me. Fuck them fucking birds and shit. Who gives a shit about some stuid animals and some wetlands. Ain't nobody tellin' me what to do. I got a right to pollute and shit cuz God gave it to me.

[John Taylor]

I think the sociopaths should stop sugar coating it. Something like this would be appropriate:

Fuck you, you Gulf state crackers. I'll do whateever the fuck I want and you ain't gonna stop me. Fuck them fucking birds and shit. Who gives a shit about some stuid animals and some wetlands. Ain't nobody tellin' me what to do. I got a right to pollute and shit cuz God gave it to me.

Where do you get this drivel, from the Daily Kos?

[John Taylor]

BP should give the federal government the finger and say this is the deal you made and the damage checks stop at 75 million.

Good stuff! Keep it coming.

Apparently you believe in expropriation of assets, violation of contracts, and confiscation of shareholder property. I don't think you're on the right site.

[specsaregood]

Apparently you believe in expropriation of assets, violation of contracts, and confiscation of shareholder property. I don't think you're on the right site.

And apparently she doesn't poop. Must be on some fancy all-liquid diet.

[erowe1]

And apparently she doesn't poop. Must be on some fancy all-liquid diet.
Nor exhale.

[susano]

Apparently you believe in the destruction of assets, violation of the rights of indivuals in the Gulf, and contamination of private and public property. I don't think you're on the right site.

Fixed it for ya.

[John Taylor]

And apparently she doesn't poop. Must be on some fancy all-liquid diet.

Haha, she just excretes it into sanitary bags to be buried in a landfill somewhere in Nevada.

[John Taylor]

Fixed it for ya.

You are the one urging GOVERNMENT confiscation of shareholder assets, as well as the violation of a legal contract made between the government and BP, as well as the violation of federal law, as well as the imposition of an ex post fact law which violates the 5th Amendment.

Explain again how those positions are consistent with the rule of law, freedom of contract, constitutional government, and equality under the law?

[specsaregood]

YouTube - Sittin On Tha Toilet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYW6C44zo24)

[susano]

You sociopathic rejects are sure a wonderful example for the principal of personal responsibility.

http://www.proxywhore.com/invboard/style_emoticons/default/24.gif

[John Taylor]

You sociopathic rejects are sure a wonderful example for the principal of personal responsibility.

http://www.proxywhore.com/invboard/style_emoticons/default/24.gif

Who is decrying BP taking responsibility for their actions? We are opposing your use of the government to confiscate wealth, including that of the shareholders... as well as opposing your attempt to pass unconstitutional legislation, an ex post facto confiscatory taking in violation of the 5th Amendment, and just your general nonsensical line of argument.

[specsaregood]

You sociopathic rejects are sure a wonderful example for the principal of personal responsibility.


Why worry about personal responsibility? There is no need in this day and age. Our nanny state insulates us all from any risk. If you want a real discussion, how about discussing the Moral Hazard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard) the government created with both their regulations and damages cap.

[susano]

I'll come back when the adults are here and this is no longer teenage boy poo thread.

[erowe1]

..

[John Taylor]

I'll come back when the adults are here and this is no longer teenage boy poo thread.

Better yet, just stay over at the Daily Kos and drool in agreement with your fellow friendly (but not to the private citizen shareholders of BP) socialists.

Cherrio!

[kahless]

...

Just getting back to reading this thread after last night and glad to see you stuck it out. Did I miss something or are you saying they should be seized without due process?

Like I said last night some of the ancaps in this forum fail to recognize that taxpayers consistently end up footing the bill for corporate America's environmental accidents. All too often the shareholders pull out, the company goes under or no longer has the funds to clean up the mess they created.

It would be wise to ensure that does not happen in this case. Allowing something like that to occur where we end up paying for it is indefensible.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I think the sociopaths should stop sugar coating it. Something like this would be appropriate:

Fuck you, you Gulf state crackers. I'll do whateever the fuck I want and you ain't gonna stop me. Fuck them fucking birds and shit. Who gives a shit about some stuid animals and some wetlands. Ain't nobody tellin' me what to do. I got a right to pollute and shit cuz God gave it to me.

How about conforming your shit to reality.

Fuck you, you Gulf state crackers. You fucktards abandoned the common law system via your representative government. Under the common law system companies were 100% liable for pollution and property damage but you fucktards elected politicians who replaced the system of common law and 100% responsibility with the system of commercial code, privilege, and limited liability. Apparently you fucktards did not like leaving these decisions in the hand of ignorant juries to hand out punitive damages and wanted a more consistent system for commerce. Furthermore you fucktards went along like happy little citizens with this new system giving politicians the ability to decide punitive damages instead of we the mother fucking people.

Who gives a shit about some stupid animals and some wetlands beyond the amount of liability the representatives you supported and elected have dictated. I already paid your government for the privilege of your elected representatives crawling up my ass and telling me what to do and the regulations I must conform to. I am not paying once fucking cent more than the privilege I payed for.

No ex post facto law biatch....

[osan]

you'd start a war with britian if you go after BP. the leeches on their government system already grow angry with their pensions going up in flames.

BWAAAA HAA HAA HAA HA HA HA HA...

What would Britain do, send both of their warships to shell NJ?

If Britain tried anything with us, it would be the shortest "war" in the history of the human race. I'd be inclined to call it a severe spanking of them by us. All 20 minutes worth.

I'd love to see GB try something with us.

[osan]

you'd start a war with britian if you go after BP. the leeches on their government system already grow angry with their pensions going up in flames.

BWAAAA HAA HAA HAA HA HA HA HA...

What would Britain do, send both of their warships to shell NJ?

If Britain tried anything with us, it would be the shortest "war" in the history of the human race. I'd be inclined to call it a severe spanking of them by us. All 20 minutes worth.

[susano]

Just getting back to reading this thread after last night and glad to see you stuck it out. Did I miss something or are you saying they should be seized without due process?

Like I said last night some of the ancaps in this forum fail to recognize that taxpayers consistently end up footing the bill for corporate America's environmental accidents. All too often the shareholders pull out, the company goes under or no longer has the funds to clean up the mess they created.

It would be wise to ensure that does not happen in this case. Allowing something like that to occur where we end up paying for it is indefensible.

No way there could be any seizure or freezing of assets without due process. What that process is, I have no idea. It would probably fall under international law. It shouldn't, but Washington has subjected us to that arena. If the assets of Iran can be seized, when they pose no threat, BP's can be, until every claim is paid, the Gulf restored (as much as it can be), economies recover, etc. Once that happened, they should never be allowed to do business in the US, again.

Having said all that, it won't happen because Obama is the NWO's bitch. While he plays the role of the controlled opposition, he dances on the strings of the puppet masters who own him. Same for the rest of slimebags in the District of Corruption.

[osan]

And, btw, you ignorant fucktard, the DEAD and SUFFERING animals matter. Their lives are PRICELESS.

It is apparent you are not in possession of your faculties. You read like a PETA member. What has happened is horrible, but it is what it is and all we can do is try to clean it up. Getting emotionally out of control and calling people "fucktard", which by the way does nothing to bolster your credibility, is not adult discourse.

What would you have them do, if you were king - short of giving all their money to the poor animals and then committing suicide?