Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on August 10, 2010 at 3:49

Logger, it's like the difference between a recession and a depression. A recession is when you lose your job. A depression is when I lose MY job.

For the people in South Louisiana, the moratorium is destroying their jobs and their livelihood. Our government is needlessly destroying the livelihoods of a lot of people along the gulf. The economic impacts of the moratorium will probably last long past the economic effects of the ecological damage from the oil spill.

People are losing their jobs, their careers, and their houses. Needlessly. The damage continues. Obama is busy adding fuel to the fire.

Yes, Bobby Jindal needs to be crying on national TV. His people are being crushed by an uncaring Yankee government that's more intent on using the BP spill for political advantage than actually helping the people of the Gulf area or even the people of the US as a whole.

Cry on Bobby.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on August 10, 2010 at 4:32

Mac - It's like 9/11, the government wouldn't have to act if there hadn't been a catastrophe. I"ll put the blame squarely where it belongs, on a foreign company with a poor track record who pushed the envelope.

And, as happened in my profession when the public & government decided to "raise standards & accountability," some of us moved on, others of us stayed to hash it out. Now, things aren't going so well for us, either, and folks are going "hmmmm" again, so the pendulum of regs is about to swing back the other way.

And so it goes ...

80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on August 10, 2010 at 5:43

I'd love to see BP go out of business. Not simply because of the spill. Not because they're evil or overly concerned about cost cutting. Because they're idiots. I've heard from several people who worked for them that they're the ultimate bureaucracy. They screw things up, not just because of cost cutting measures. They often do things the most expensive way, but end up with something that doesn't work well. They have so many levels of approval that it takes forever to do anything, but they still make the wrong decision.

Yes, they did try to save money and take shortcuts on the Macondo well. That probably did cause the spill. (We don't know yet.) The problems at BP run a lot deeper than that.

As I've said before, they're the drunken driver of the O&G industry.

What I don't want to do is cripple the whole O&G industry, the Louisiana economy, the US economy and the US balance of trade because of one bad actor. Take the repeat offender drunk driver off the road, don't demolish the freeway.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on August 10, 2010 at 9:28

I've heard from several people who worked for them that they're the ultimate bureaucracy. They screw things up, not just because of cost cutting measures. They often do things the most expensive way, but end up with something that doesn't work well. They have so many levels of approval that it takes forever to do anything, but they still make the wrong decision.


Hate to break it to you Mac, but you just described most multi-national multi-billion $ Corpporations...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on August 10, 2010 at 20:25

Too true Baron. I've worked with far too many moronocracies in major international corporations and there's a lot of truth in what you said.

I believe BP is way ahead of the pack in corporate stupidity.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rebel Roy on August 10, 2010 at 19:40

BP is not totally foreign: BP is mostly British AND American - 40% shareholders are British and 39% are US. Thus 21% are owned by shareholders in a number of other countries. Hence, it is, arguably, not a British or American company in the true sense but a multinational one.

Note also, while the CEO is British, the Chairman is Swedish.

While the parent company of the Group, BP plc, is registered in Britain, different parts of the BP Group are registered companies in different countries, including the USA, Britain and Russia, to name just three.

Plus, BP is more correctly known as BP, and NOT British Petroleum. It has not been legally known as British Petroleum since 2001, when BP merged with the US company AMOCO.

The company within the group that is actually closest associated with the Gulf oil spill is actually BP USA Inc. It is, therefore, argued that BP USA Inc that should be burdened with the cost of the oil spill cleanup, and not the whole of the BP international group.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Big Iron on August 10, 2010 at 6:17

The reports I'm reading only have oil in the low ppm range in the seafood. Rest assured, the "scientists" are out there doing their best to find some "contaminated" seafood. It's years of good money at stake for them.

Low ppm levels of crude are not going to be a problem for anyone.

This was blown out of proportion by the administration, the media, and local folks. All on the take. The admin gets to look like Moses, the media gets great amounts of top teir news attention, and the locals want to sit on their butts and draw their "compensation" checks.

Ma nature takes real good care of herself post manmade screw ups.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on August 10, 2010 at 17:06

Big Iron - Would you mind sharing a link to those reports?

Here's an interview that explains in pretty clear terms what the scientific community is thinking.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec10/oildisper_07-...

Discussion about the impact(s) to marine life is towards the end of the transcript, at the bottom of the link.

80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Big Iron on August 10, 2010 at 17:36

Here's one link. The fact is that no one has tested any seafood that shows contamination at levels that are above the "safe" levels. Which means that they are in the low ppm ranges. Very low.

Here is a report from June 18th that states that there is no known contamination even though EPA and NOAA testers were everywhere.

At the end of the article is a link to "NOAA has a number". That link is the procedure for testing the seafood and at the end it has the acceptable contamination levels in ppms.

It's very hard to get any one to quote actual numbers anymore. What with the lies inflating global warming data and the lawyers controlling the info. But if you read the article and the procedure you can put 2 and 2 together pretty easily. Not only is there very little high volatile petroleum in the gulf. There's virtually none in the seafood.

http://www.aolnews.com/gulf-oil-spill/article/gulf-seafood-who-deci...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on August 10, 2010 at 18:27

Yeah, the NOAA's first test is a "sniff test." Only if samples do not pass the sniff test are they sent on for further testing. Very reliable, scientifically speaking. (note: add sarcasm to tone in that comment) Hope those "sniffers" are highly sensitive.

I can't imagine how it is that NOAA is qualified to test food samples. FDA is involved, but that "sniff test" is their procedure. Go figure.

Now, I would find this source highly credible with regard to contamination impact ... a school of veterinary medicine.

http://www.owcn.org/about-oiled-wildlife/effects-of-oil-on-wildlife

80)

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page