Spill here, spill now

[RandomGuy]

Whoopsies.

Crews to set fire to oil leaking in Gulf of Mexico

By KEVIN McGILL and CAIN BURDEAU, Associated Press Writer Kevin Mcgill And Cain Burdeau, Associated Press Writer – 3 mins ago
NEW ORLEANS – Crews geared up to set fire to oil leaking from the site of an exploded drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico on Wednesday, a last-ditch effort to get rid of it before it reaches environmentally sensitive marshlands on the coast.

A 500-foot boom will be used to corral several thousand gallons of the thickest oil on the surface, which will then be towed to a more remote area, set on fire, and allowed to burn for about an hour, the Coast Guard said. Such burns will continue throughout the day if they are working.

The slick was about 20 miles east of the mouth of the Mississippi River.

About 42,000 gallons of oil a day are leaking into the Gulf from the blown-out well where the Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank last week. Eleven workers are missing and presumed dead. The cause of the explosion has not been determined.

Greg Pollock, head of the oil spill division of the Texas General Land Office, which is providing equipment for crews in the Gulf, said he is not aware of a similar burn ever being done off the U.S. coast. The last time crews with his agency used fire booms to burn oil was a 1995 spill on the San Jacinto River.

"When you can get oil ignited, it is an absolutely effective way of getting rid of a huge percentage of the oil," he said. "I can't overstate how important it is to get the oil off the surface of the water."

He said the oil will likely be ignited using jelled gasoline and lit rags soaked in oil. What's left afterward is something he described as a kind of hardened tar ball that can be removed from the water with nets or skimmers.

"I would say there is little threat to the environment because it won't coat an animal, and because all the volatiles have been consumed if it gets on a shore it can be simply picked up," he said.

Authorities also said they expect no impact on sea turtles and marine mammals in the burn area.

A graphic posted by the Coast Guard and industry task force fighting the slick shows it covering an area about 100 miles long and 45 miles across at its widest point.

Louisiana State Wildlife and Fisheries Secretary Robert Barham told a legislative committee Wednesday morning that National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration projections show a "high probability" oil could reach the Pass a Loutre wildlife management area Friday night, Breton Sound on Saturday and the Chandeleur Islands on Sunday.

As the task force worked far offshore, local officials were mobilizing in case the oil reaches land.

In Plaquemines Parish, a sliver of Louisiana that juts into the Gulf and is home to Pass a Loutre, officials hoped to deploy a fleet of volunteers in fishing boats to spread booms that could block oil from entering inlets.

"We've got oystermen and shrimpers who know this water better than anyone," said Plaquemines Paris President Billy Nungesser. "Hopefully the Coast Guard will embrace the idea."

The parish's emergency manager planned to meet in Houma on Thursday with a Coast Guard official to discuss whether volunteers can help, Nungesser said.

"We don't want to just sit by and hope this (oil) doesn't come ashore," Nungesser said.

The decision to burn some of the oil comes as the Coast Guard and industry cleanup crews run out of other options to get rid of it.

Crews operating submersible robots have been trying without success to activate a shut-off device that would halt the flow of oil on the sea bottom 5,000 feet below.

Rig operator BP Plc. says work will begin as early as Thursday to drill a relief well to relieve pressure at the blowout site, but that could take months.

Another option is a dome-like device to cover oil rising to the surface and pump it to container vessels, but that will take two weeks to put in place, BP said.

Winds and currents in the Gulf have helped crews in recent days as they try to contain the leak. The immediate threat to sandy beaches in coastal Alabama and Mississippi has lessened. But the spill has moved steadily toward the mouth of the Mississippi River, home to hundreds of species of wildlife and near some rich oyster grounds.

The cost of disaster continues to rise and could easily top $1 billion.

Industry officials say replacing the Deepwater Horizon, owned by Transocean Ltd. and operated by BP, would cost up to $700 million. BP has said its costs for containing the spill are running at $6 million a day. The company said it will spend $100 million to drill the relief well. The Coast Guard has not yet reported its expenses.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100428/ap_on_bi_ge/us_louisiana_oil_rig_explosion

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am generally against offshore drilling for things like this, that inevitably happen, despite the best efforts of oil industry propaganda and apologists to claim otherwise.

As long as the companies that want to drill FULLY compensate and make all efforts to clean up, I can live with the drilling generally.

Exxon is still trying to weasel out of the costs of the Valdez spill, though and that kind of thing really irks me.

Given many corporate polluters' past efforts at being weasels when it comes to dealign with the ramifications of their actions, I find people leveling sweeping blame at environmentalists for being "anti-job" as being a bit ignorant/untruthful of the real costs of pollution.

[boutons_deux]

Spill, Baby, Spill!

WC: "it was due to employees violating procedures. Like all corporations, BP is completely innocent, even if they fight inspections and tough regulations." :lol

[EmptyMan]

Get that bicycle horn fixed boutons.









and quit being racist.

[RandomGuy]

Spill, Baby, Spill!

WC: "it was due to employees violating procedures. Like all corporations, BP is completely innocent, even if they fight inspections and tough regulations." :lol

It is sad that being "pro-business" has to blind one to the obvious failings of some businesses.

BTW, the spill is getting worse.

Wheee.

I seem to remember saying that spills were inevitable part of drilling for oil, and that increasing oil production offshore would necessarily involve sacrificing coastal property values/rights, tourism, and fishing industry jobs.

[DarrinS]

R.I.P. to the eleven oil workers missing and presumed dead that were from Louisianna, Mississippi, and Texas.

[Fabbs]

Haliburton is in on this too? Nice.

A federal class-action lawsuit was filed late Wednesday over the oil spill on behalf of two commercial shrimpers from Louisiana, Acy J. Cooper Jr. and Ronnie Louis Anderson.

The suit seeks at least $5 million in compensatory damages plus an unspecified amount of punitive damages against Transocean, BP, Halliburton Energy Services Inc. and Cameron International Corp.

How did Obama fall for these Oil Scammers a month ago with the offshore approval? We expect that from the Wingnutts.

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/2008/10/blow.jpg
Drill baby, drill!

[DarrinS]

It is sad that being "pro-business" has to blind one to the obvious failings of some businesses.

BTW, the spill is getting worse.

Wheee.

I seem to remember saying that spills were inevitable part of drilling for oil, and that increasing oil production offshore would necessarily involve sacrificing coastal property values/rights, tourism, and fishing industry jobs.


Are you gonna stop driving?

[Fabbs]

Are you gonna stop driving?
Because BP, Halliburton-Bush-Cheney and Massey Coal Mines spend top dollar on preventative measures. :lmao

STFU

[RandomGuy]

Are you gonna stop driving?

Unfortunately, no. Travel is part and parcel of my job.

The implication of your question is, by the way, a logical fallacy, ad hominem, variety.

Do you have a quota of logical fallacies you have to meet on a daily basis?

I mean are you working towards some kind of conservative scout Logical Fail merit badge?

[Nbadan]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2010/0428-spill-map/0429-spill-web.png

I wonder if tea bags would make a good oil absorber?

[Nbadan]

After bitching about taxes, now Jindal wants the U.S. govt to come to its rescue...


Wow, these idiots complain about big government and government take over of everything! And now this fool is asking the Federal Government to help with the oil spill! And down the road he will complain about how intrusive the government is in his states business.
What a joke this guy is!

Governor Jindal spoke with Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano this evening to request additional resources from the federal government as the state prepares for the potential impact of the oil spill.

Link (http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_news/united_states/louisiana-governor-jindal-declares-state-of-emergency-for-gulf-oil-leak-29380.html)

[Nbadan]

After bitching about taxes, now Jindal wants the U.S. govt to come to its rescue...


Wow, these idiots complain about big government and government take over of everything! And now this fool is asking the Federal Government to help with the oil spill! And down the road he will complain about how intrusive the government is in his states business.
What a joke this guy is!

Governor Jindal spoke with Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano this evening to request additional resources from the federal government as the state prepares for the potential impact of the oil spill.

Link (http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_news/united_states/louisiana-governor-jindal-declares-state-of-emergency-for-gulf-oil-leak-29380.html)

[RandomGuy]

Economic costs of spill begin to be tabulated (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oil-spill-threatens-gulf-fisheries-and-tourism-2010-04-28?siteid=rss&rss=1)


CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- As the massive spill from an offshore oil-drilling operation spreads ever closer to Gulf Coast shorelines, the region is bracing for economic fallout that could last years and potentially cost untold millions -- or even billions -- of dollars in lost revenue for the fishing, tourism and other industries.



If Alaska is any guide, it could last for quite a while. In its latest report on after-effects of the spill, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council noted that lingering oil remains on beaches and at least one commercial fishery -- herring -- is essentially gone.

"Commercial fishing, as a lost or reduced service, is in the process of recovering from the effects of the oil spill, but full recovery has not been achieved," the group said. The same goes for other uses as the council "finds recreation to be recovering from the effects of the spill, but not yet recovered."

Yoni? WC? Anyone from the "drill here, drill now" camp want to keep chanting about how great everything would be if we just did more offshore oil drilling?

The Exxon Valdez spill was in 1989, by the way. They are STILL cleaning it up AND this spill has a good possibility of being not only worse, but MUCH worse.

[LnGrrrR]

Yoni? WC? Anyone from the "drill here, drill now" camp want to keep chanting about how great everything would be if we just did more offshore oil drilling?

The Exxon Valdez spill was in 1989, by the way. They are STILL cleaning it up AND this spill has a good possibility of being not only worse, but MUCH worse.

WC: I'm pertty sure it was the fault of the workers.

Yoni: Hey, you just have to accept species-endangering, economic destruction sometimes. Besides, who cares about a few animals?

Palin: When I, uh, talked about drilling for oil, also, I knew safety would be across our heads too, and really, it's very sad about these animals, that might have been hunted otherwise.

[Fabbs]

I wonder if tea bags would make a good oil absorber?
:lol
attached to the board tea bag supporters. :toast

[DarrinS]

RG would hate to know how much oil seeps naturally each year.

As much as two Exxon Valdez' worth each year just in the Gulf of Mexico.

[DarrinS]

-RuaqCZIEGQ

[Wild Cobra]

Because BP, Halliburton-Bush-Cheney and Massey Coal Mines spend top dollar on preventative measures. :lmao

STFU
You know Boutons, you should be less obvious, and get informed.

If I recall correctly, there are only two companies in the world that can handle such an oil maintenance endeavor. Halliburton is one. Can you name the other, and what country they are based out of?

Didn't think so.

[Wild Cobra]

After bitching about taxes, now Jindal wants the U.S. govt to come to its rescue...
Too bad some people don't understand there is a time and place to actually spend lots of money.

This is a disaster. Something we shouldn't worry about spending money on.

[Wild Cobra]

Economic costs of spill begin to be tabulated (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oil-spill-threatens-gulf-fisheries-and-tourism-2010-04-28?siteid=rss&rss=1)





Yoni? WC? Anyone from the "drill here, drill now" camp want to keep chanting about how great everything would be if we just did more offshore oil drilling?

What I don't understand is why wasn't there an automatic shut-off valve on it? Is it such an old rig, it was before such safety features were implemented?

What caused the explosion? Is this possibly another environmentalist whacko attack to show such dangers, knowing this one had no automatic shut off valve, and only a manual one a mile down?

Think such a design would be allowed today? Technology changes. I will keep open the possibility this was effectively an environmentalist terrorist attack, planned because of the lifting of offshore development bans.

[Wild Cobra]

WC: I'm pertty sure it was the fault of the workers.

I'm pretty sure it's not smart to assume what I think.

[DarrinS]

RandomGuy,

This woman is your soulmate.



Did Gulf Oil Spill Cause Massive Tornado in Mississippi?


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2945016/did_gulf_oil_spill_cause_massive_tornado.html?cat= 49





The Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion on April 20, 2010 has resulted in 42,000 gallons of oil spilling into the Gulf every day. One of many negative affects of the Gulf Oil Spill may have already been seen. Just four
days after the oil rig explosion, a massive tornado almost a mile wide and another reportedly 1.75 miles wide hit Mississippi. Other tornadoes and severe weather conditions were also reported in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama.

The oil rig sank after the explosion and it could take months to stop the Gulf oil spill from leaking out of two pipes that are now well below the ocean's surface. Amazingly, only 11 of the 126 oil rig workers are presumed dead. The cleanup is set to resume now that the weather has calmed after the massive tornado in Mississippi and severe weather has subsided.

Tornado season is off to a rough start this spring. According to CBS News, nearly 1,000 homes and businesses were destroyed after approximately 50 tornadoes hit the southeast on April 24, 2010, tearing through 17 counties in Mississippi. The massive tornado in Yazoo City, Miss., was an F4 with winds of as much as 170 mph; killing at least five. The death toll has risen to 12, but more bodies could be found in the wreckage.

Did Gulf Oil Spill Cause Massive Tornado in MS?

My first reaction to hearing about the massive tornado in Mississippi was that it was an affect of the gulf oil spill. I am far from a scientist but did find supporting evidence to back my atmosphere theory.

According to Wikipedia, "an increase in the sea surface temperature of a source region (e.g. Gulf of Mexico and Mediterranean Sea) increases atmospheric moisture content. Increased moisture can fuel an increase in severe weather and tornado activity, particularly in the cool season."

A study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences indicates the primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' is the increase in carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Based on the noted evidence, the Gulf oil spill 'fueled the fire'. The burning oil caused an increase in carbon dioxide levels, which increases atmospheric moisture thereby causing or contributing to massive tornado
strikes that hit the Southeast. The study from Academy of Sciences supports my initial reaction that oil spills cause tornado and severe weather conditions. As we know, water and oil do not mix. The Gulf oil spill is either responsible for the massive tornadoes or exacerbated an already brewing storm.

The negative effects of the Gulf oil spill and burning of fossil fuel will continue to hurt the economy and ecology. We can only hope alternative energy will soon take hold and that this is not a predictor of future massive tornadoes to come.

[RandomGuy]

RG would hate to know how much oil seeps naturally each year.

As much as two Exxon Valdez' worth each year just in the Gulf of Mexico.

Pink ponies?

Ramma lamma ding dong?

Are you still trying for that Logical Fail merit badge?

Can you explain for us libtards just what the implications of this are?

Use small words, so I can understand it. Do enlighten me.

[DarrinS]

This is an interesting tidbit:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Oil_Point_seep_field



The Coal Oil Point seep field offshore from Santa Barbara, California is a petroleum seep area of about three square kilometers adjacent to the Ellwood Oil Field, and releases about 40 tons per day of methane and about 19 tons of reactive organic gas (ethane, propane, butane and higher hydrocarbons), about twice the hydrocarbon air pollution released by all the cars and trucks in the county in 1990.

[RandomGuy]

What I don't understand is why wasn't there an automatic shut-off valve on it? Is it such an old rig, it was before such safety features were implemented?

What caused the explosion? Is this possibly another environmentalist whacko attack to show such dangers, knowing this one had no automatic shut off valve, and only a manual one a mile down?

Think such a design would be allowed today? Technology changes. I will keep open the possibility this was effectively an environmentalist terrorist attack, planned because of the lifting of offshore development bans.

There was an automatic shut-off valve attached at the sea floor. It failed, and repeated attempts to manually activate it have also failed.

As (I think) the Louisiana governor put it: "where was the plan B, should this thing fail?"

(heard the quote and seem to remember it was the gov)

[RandomGuy]

RandomGuy,

This woman is your soulmate.



Did Gulf Oil Spill Cause Massive Tornado in Mississippi?


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2945016/did_gulf_oil_spill_cause_massive_tornado.html?cat= 49

:rolleyes

GMAFB

Can we go back to talking like adults now?

If all you have is "Randomguy and crazy woman sitting in a tree..."

YOU FAIL.

Don't get me wrong though, I actually like it when you post things like this, because of how badly you might hurt your cause when it comes to anybody who might be a fence sitter who stumbles into the conversation.

It makes the job of painting "right-wingers" as being either underhanded or incapable of rational, adult argument that much easier.

By all means, continue.

[DarrinS]

:rolleyes

GMAFB

Can we go back to talking like adults now?

If all you have is "Randomguy and crazy woman sitting in a tree..."

YOU FAIL.

Don't get me wrong though, I actually like it when you post things like this, because of how badly you might hurt your cause when it comes to anybody who might be a fence sitter who stumbles into the conversation.

It makes the job of painting "right-wingers" as being either underhanded or incapable of rational, adult argument that much easier.

By all means, continue.


You environmental hysterics are very sensitive.

[RandomGuy]

You environmental hysterics are very sensitive.

Meh, I am all about cost-to-benefit. I am hardly "hysterical" when it comes to such topics, but if you want to keep up with that strawman, as I said before, keep it up. :tu

I'm still waiting on you to tell me what the implications are of your sniglet.


RG would hate to know how much oil seeps naturally each year.

As much as two Exxon Valdez' worth each year just in the Gulf of Mexico.

What exactly are you trying to say here? I don't understand. Please enlighten me.

What does this fact mean?

[ChumpDumper]

This is an interesting tidbit:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Oil_Point_seep_field



The Coal Oil Point seep field offshore from Santa Barbara, California is a petroleum seep area of about three square kilometers adjacent to the Ellwood Oil Field, and releases about 40 tons per day of methane and about 19 tons of reactive organic gas (ethane, propane, butane and higher hydrocarbons), about twice the hydrocarbon air pollution released by all the cars and trucks in the county in 1990.Santa Barbara is not a large county in population, and the seep is pretty much the second largest in the world.

I don't know why Darrin is trying to use this as support for his pro oil spill position.

[RandomGuy]

Santa Barbara is not a large county in population, and the seep is pretty much the second largest in the world.

I don't know why Darrin is trying to use this as support for his pro oil spill position.

Because Fox News said so?

[ChumpDumper]

I guess he somehow wants to intimate that El Capitan Beach is permanently covered in oil just as if it came from the Valdez or a platform disaster.

Trust me, it isn't.

[ChumpDumper]

Look at all that oil that seeped up and washed ashore!

It happens every day!

http://www.chilltravelers.com/chill/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/ElCapitanBeachSB.jpg

[DarrinS]

Look at all that oil that seeped up and washed ashore!

It happens every day!

http://www.chilltravelers.com/chill/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/ElCapitanBeachSB.jpg



You'd never know it by looking at it now, but the Santa Barbara coastline was covered in oil 40 years ago.

[ChumpDumper]

You'd never know it by looking at it now, but the Santa Barbara coastline was covered in oil 40 years ago.Was that because of daily natural seepage, Darrin?

Yes or no.

[DarrinS]

Was that because of daily natural seepage, Darrin?

Yes or no.


No.


Did I ever say natural seepage ended up on shore? Yes or no.

[jack sommerset]

LOL@ yes or no!!!!!!!

[ChumpDumper]

No.What was it from?



Did I ever say natural seepage ended up on shore? Yes or no.No.

But it does.

[DarrinS]

What was it from?


No.

But it does.



It was from a massive blowout on and oil platform. Did a lot of damage, none of which is visible now.

[ChumpDumper]

It was from a massive blowout on and oil platform. Did a lot of damage, none of which is visible now.So we can pretend it did no harm according to you?

[DarrinS]

So we can pretend it did no harm according to you?


Did I say it did no harm? Yes or no.


I just don't think it's the end of the world, as RG apparently does.

[ChumpDumper]

Did I say it did no harm? Yes or no.


I just don't think it's the end of the world, as RG apparently does.It's clear you are very pro oil spill.

[DarrinS]

It's clear you are very pro oil spill.


No, I'm pro human.


So far, the only people that have been hurt by this are the oil workers and their families.

[ChumpDumper]

You are also very comfortable trying to compare the current spill with one 40 years ago, conveniently leaving out the fact that the total amount spilled in the Santa Barbara disaster in over a week is being spilled in the Gulf every day.

[ChumpDumper]

No, I'm pro human.


So far, the only people that have been hurt by this are the oil workers and their families.Ah, so you don't care at all about the environment.

Or the money spent dealing with this.

And you don't think any more humans will be affected by this.

No problem.

[CuckingFunt]

No, I'm pro human.

Those whose livelihoods depend upon the shrimp, oysters, crabs, and fish within the gulf are humans.


So far, the only people that have been hurt by this are the oil workers and their families.

Firstly, the "so far" is kind of an important bit, there.

And secondly, I find it hard to believe that someone who claimed to be pro-human would, within the same post, make a statement suggesting that the oil workers and their families were acceptable casualties.

[jack sommerset]

It's no big deal. Learn from the mistakes and keep DRILLING BABY! The world will keep going round and round.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

This oil spill is pissing me off to no end.

I'm amazed theres no way for them to simply shut the fucking pipeline down. 200K gallons a day they say right? The ecological cost will be monumental

[ChumpDumper]

It's no big deal.According to whom?

[Fabbs]

What I don't understand is why wasn't there an automatic shut-off valve on it? Is it such an old rig, it was before such safety features were implemented?

What caused the explosion? Is this possibly another environmentalist whacko attack to show such dangers, knowing this one had no automatic shut off valve, and only a manual one a mile down?

Think such a design would be allowed today? Technology changes. I will keep open the possibility this was effectively an environmentalist terrorist attack, planned because of the lifting of offshore development bans.
Yes, it could have possibly been an environmentalist whacko.
Are you also open the possibility that BP and their suck ups simply failed to take the proper and expected precautions?
Article in part, bolding and underlining mine:

Document: BP didn't plan for major oil spill

MOUTH OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER – British Petroleum downplayed the possibility of a catastrophic accident at an offshore rig that exploded, causing the worst U.S. spill in decades along the Gulf coast and endangering shoreline habitat.

In the 52-page exploration plan and environmental impact analysis, BP repeatedly suggested it was unlikely, or virtually impossible, for an accident to occur that would lead to a giant crude oil spill and serious damage to beaches, fish, mammals and fisheries.

BP's plan filed with the federal Minerals Management Service for the Deepwater Horizon well, dated February 2009, says repeatedly that it was "unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities."

And while the company conceded that a spill would "cause impacts" to beaches, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, it argued that "due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected."

Robert Wiygul, an Ocean Springs, Miss.-based environmental lawyer and board member for the Gulf Restoration Network, said he doesn't see anything in the document that suggests BP addressed the kind of technology needed to control a spill at that depth of water.

"The point is, if you're going to be drilling in 5,000 feet of water for oil, you should have the ability to control what you're doing," he said.

Many of the more than two dozen lawsuits filed in the wake of the explosion claim it was caused when workers for oil services contractor Halliburton Inc. improperly capped the well. Halliburton denied it.

According to a 2007 study by the federal Minerals Management Service, which examined the 39 rig blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico between 1992 and 2006, cementing was a contributing factor in 18 of the incidents. In all the cases, gas seepage occurred during or after cementing of the well casing, the MMS said.

For days, crews have struggled without success to activate the well's underwater shutoff valve using remotely operated vehicles. They are also drilling a relief well in hopes of injecting mud and concrete to seal off the leak, but that could take three months.

At the rate the oil is pouring from the sea floor, the leak could eclipse the worst oil accident in U.S. history — the 11 million gallons that spilled from the supertanker Exxon Valdez off Alaska in 1989 — in just two months.

U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he pressed the chief executive of BP to "work harder and faster and smarter to get the job done." He said the government will not rest until BP seals the well and "they clean up every drop of oil."

As for the cause of the accident, he said: "I am confident we will get to the bottom of what happened here. Those responsible will be held accountable."


Dr. Moby Solangi, the nonprofit center's director, said this is birthing season for the roughly 5,000 dolphins along the Mississippi and Louisiana coasts.

"It's very bad timing," he said. "We're looking at a colossal tragedy."

Ten sites that the American Bird Conservancy considers globally important bird areas are directly in the path of the oil slick, the group said.

"This spill spells disaster for birds in this region and beyond," said ABC President George Fenwick. "It is ironic that next weekend is International Migratory Bird Day. At a time when we should be celebrating the beauty and wonder of migratory birds, we could be mourning the worst environmental disaster in recent U.S. history."

Volunteers converged on the coast to offer help.
___

Associated Press writers Michael Kunzelman, Chris Kahn, Allen G. Breed, Vicki Smith, Janet McConnaughey, Alan Sayre and Brian Skoloff contributed to this report.

[boutons_deux]

BP will obviously be sued for deaths and damages, but, like Exxon in Alaska, BP will fight in courts for years, even decades like Exxon, and finally the pro-business courts, 20 years later?, will reduce damages to a wrist slap compared to BP's profits.

It's just like BigPharma, writing off the fines from 10s of 1000s killed and sickened by their shitty drugs, as simply an unavoidable cost of doing business. AstraZeneca just got hit with $500M+ fine for corrupting doctors. A wrist slap. Business as Usual, and the corruption will continue unabated.

[word]

Did anyone catch the snippet yesterday that Obama had sent SWAT teams to other rigs/platforms in the gulf.

SWAT teams ?

They still don't know how this explosion happened.

[boutons_deux]

- SpeakEasy - http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy -

Agency Postpones Awards Ceremony Celebrating Offshore Oil Drilling Safety

Posted By Amanda Terkel On May 1, 2010 @ 3:15 pm In Uncategorized | No Comments

Cross-posted from Think Progress.

Since the offshore oil rig spill in the Gulf of Mexico, federal regulators at the Minerals Management Service (MMS) have been coming under increasing scrutiny for whether they were negligent in overseeing the rigs owned by BP and others. At a press conference this morning, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) compared it to the SEC’s failure to enforce regulations leading up to the financial crisis. Ironically, MMS was all set to hold its annual “2010 Annual Industry SAFE Awards Luncheon” on May 3. Perhaps recognizing that now is not the time to applaud the oil industry for safety on the job, MMS postponed the event. From the agency’s website:

The LA Times notes that last year, BP “was among the luncheon’s winners, cited for ‘outstanding dedication and leadership in promoting improved medical care and evacuation capabilities for offshore facilities.’” During the Bush administration, MMS was embroiled in scandal over its employees being in bed (sometimes literally) with the oil industry it was supposed to be regulating.

Article printed from SpeakEasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy

URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/05/01/agency-postpones-awards-ceremony-celebrating-offshore-oil-drilling-safety/

=======

oops! :lol :lol :lol

[Wild Cobra]

BP will obviously be sued for deaths and damages, ....
You kidding?

Just proving your lack of information again. Damages, probably. Deaths, no way. The platform was a leased one and operated by employees of the owner. I forget the owners name at the time. I'll let you look it up.

[Wild Cobra]

They still don't know how this explosion happened.
Well, acertaining how it happened will be difficult after the massive damage. I brought up the possible eco-terrorist aspect of it because I can't imagine how such materials would be normally there to cause the degree of explosion in the first place.

Ideas how? Sure, there is likely natural gas as well picked off and used for power, but that was a huge explosion.

[Wild Cobra]

Since the offshore oil rig spill in the Gulf of Mexico, federal regulators at the Minerals Management Service (MMS) have been coming under increasing scrutiny for whether they were negligent in overseeing the rigs owned by BP and others.
The coal mine investigation for bribes of payoffs, now this, and you liberals want more government oversight over corporation...

[admiralsnackbar]

The coal mine investigation for bribes of payoffs, now this, and you liberals want more government oversight over corporation...

Heaven forbid people try to avert disaster.

[boutons_deux]

Heaven forbid a corporation actually be responsible for the welfare of their employees.

Mining disasters, and now the oil platform, prove that corporations criminally violate safety regulations, because security costs money.

[Winehole23]

Heaven forbid people try to avert disaster.Left all on their own, corporations don't screw up. First the Massey mine explosion and now this: obviously, government regulation has failed us again.

[RandomGuy]

Still waiting on you to explain this one. I have asked you 3 times to explain this, but haven't got an answer.

Is it because you don't know what this fact means?


RG would hate to know how much oil seeps naturally each year.

As much as two Exxon Valdez' worth each year just in the Gulf of Mexico.

What exactly are you trying to say here? I don't understand. Please enlighten me.

What does this fact mean?

[RandomGuy]

You kidding?

Just proving your lack of information again. Damages, probably. Deaths, no way. The platform was a leased one and operated by employees of the owner. I forget the owners name at the time. I'll let you look it up.

Lawsuits will go for the "deep pockets". BP will be named as a defendant in the suits over the deaths.

[RandomGuy]

The coal mine investigation for bribes of payoffs, now this, and you liberals want more government oversight over corporation...

Yes, yes I do.

Because corporations have only one real aim:

To provide returns for shareholders.

This is not always compatible with public good.

It might benefit a corporation's quarterly profits to skimp on pollution controls, or endanger worker's lives, but in the end, society ends up subsidizing that through economic losses to others.

It is that pesky negative externality problem again.

Free-market systems require referees, just like basketball games. The referees have to be able to enforce penalties.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

This thing is getting out of control. What a huge disaster. It's fuckin crazy to think about.

They're saying at least 3 months until they can stop it by drilling another well.

And some are saying the rate of the spill can be increasing, we might be looking at even 50K barrels a day. Mindblowing. Unbelievable in the year 2010 they don't have a reliable system of shutting the motherfucker off.

[Stringer_Bell]

Unbelievable in the year 2010 they don't have a reliable system of shutting the motherfucker off.

They should just put a cork in it! Or a giant dome.

This better not fuck with Texas shores or I will be pissed.

[Bartleby]

This better not fuck with Texas shores or I will be pissed.

It will. Count on it.

[Winehole23]

210,000 gallons/day.

[jack sommerset]

It's really no big deal. It will all work itself out. Obama needs to continue his fight on offshore drilling.

[boutons_deux]

You Lie

Current Timeline to Shut Down Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: Three Months

http://www.truthout.org/current-timeline-shut-down-gulf-mexico-oil-spill-three-months59096?print

.

[boutons_deux]

AlterNet

Here's How Exxon Tried to Avoid Paying for Its Massive Oil Spill -- Let's Not Allow BP to Do the Same

By Riki Ott, Reuters
Posted on May 3, 2010, Printed on May 3, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/146700/

I remember the words, “We’ve had the Big One,” with chilling clarity, spoken just over 21 years ago when a fellow fisherman arrived at my door in the early morning and announced that the Exxon Valdez had run aground in Alaska’s Prince William Sound and was gushing oil.

For the small fishing community of Cordova, Alaska, where I lived and worked as a commercial fisherma’am, it was our worst nightmare.

That nightmare is reoccurring now with BP’s deadly rig blowout off the Gulf Coast – with haunting parallels to the Exxon Valdez.

I was not at all surprised when officials reported zero spillage, then projected modest spillage, and then reported spill amounts five times higher than their earlier estimates.

As the spill continues, I imagine that even the newly reported amounts will continue to vastly underestimate the actual spillage.

Underreporting of spill volumes is common, even though lying about self-reported spill volume is illegal – and a breach of public trust.

Still, penalties are based on spill volume: Exxon likely saved itself several billion dollars by sticking with its low-end estimate of 11 million gallons and scuttling its high-end estimate of 38 million gallons, later validated by independent surveyors.

Sadly, it’s a foregone conclusion that BP’s promise to “do everything we can” to minimize the spill’s impact and stop the oil still hemorrhaging from the well nearly one mile under the sea off Louisiana’s coast will fade as its attention turns to minimizing its liability, including damaged public relations.

BP will likely leverage the billions of dollars it will spend on the cleanup to reduce its fines and lawsuit expenses, despite later recouping a large portion of the cleanup cost from insurers or writing it off as a business expense as Exxon did.

Such tactics saved Exxon billions of dollars in the civil settlement for damages to public lands and wildlife (in which damages were estimated at up to $8 billion; but for which Exxon paid just $900 million) and in the class action lawsuit filed by those whose livelihoods were curtailed by the spill (for which the original jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages; but which Exxon fought for 20 years until the Supreme Court lessened its burden to just $507 million).

That Supreme Court decision strictly limited corporate liability and essentially removed the ability of future oil spill victims to hold corporations accountable to the people and the law.

A friend in New Orleans is concerned about the oil fumes now engulfing the southern part of town. He says it “smells pretty strong–stronger than standing in a busy mechanics shop, but not as bad as the bus station in Tijuana.”

State health officials are warning people who are sensitive to reduced air quality to stay indoors, but anyone who experiences the classic symptoms of crude oil overexposure–nausea, vomiting, headaches, or cold or flu-like symptoms–should seek medical help.

This is serious: Oil spill cleanups are regulated as hazardous waste cleanups because oil is, in fact, hazardous to health. Breathing oil fumes is extremely harmful.

After the 2002 Prestige oil spill off Galicia, Spain, and the 2007 Hebei Spirit oil spill in South Korea, medical doctors found fishermen and cleanup workers suffered from respiratory problems, central nervous system problems (headaches, nausea, dizziness, etc.), and even genetic damage (South Korea). I have attended two international conferences the past two years to share information with these doctors.

During the Exxon Valdez spill, health problems among cleanup workers became so widespread, so fast, that medical doctors, among others, sounded warnings. Dr. Robert Rigg, former Alaska medical director for Standard Alaska (BP), warned, “It is a known fact that neurologic changes (brain damage), skin disorders (including cancer), liver and kidney damage, cancer of other organ systems, and medical complications–secondary to exposure to working unprotected in (or inadequately protected)–can and will occur to workers exposed to crude oil and other petrochemical by-products. While short-term complaints, i.e., skin irritation, nausea, dizziness, pulmonary symptoms, etc., may be the initial signs of exposure and toxicity, the more serious long-term effects must be prevented.”[1]

Unfortunately, Exxon called the short-term symptoms, “the Valdez Crud,” and dismissed 6,722 cases of respiratory claims from cleanup workers as “colds or flu” using an exemption under OSHA’s hazardous waste cleanup reporting requirements.[2]

Sadly, sick Exxon cleanup workers were left to suffer and pay their own medical expenses. I know of many who have been disabled by their illnesses – or have died.

I have repeatedly warned Congress in letters and in person to strike that loophole because it exempts the very work-related injuries–chemical induced illnesses–that OSHA is supposedly designed to protect workers from.

Remember the “Katrina Crud” and the “911 Crud?” Standby for the “Gulf Crud” because our federal laws do not adequately protect worker safety or public health from the very real threat of breathing oil vapors, including low levels typically found in our industrial ports, our highways during rush hour traffic, and our urban cities.

Oil is not only harmful to people, it is deadly to wildlife. I am sickened to think of the short-term destruction and long-term devastation that will happen along America’s biologically rich coastal wetlands – a national treasure and a regional source of income.

In Alaska, the killing did not stop in 1989. Twenty-one years later, buried oil is still contaminating wildlife and Prince William Sound has not returned to pre-spill conditions – nor, honestly, will it. The remnant population of once-plentiful herring no longer supports commercial fisheries and barely sustains the ecosystem.

While local efforts to boom Louisiana’s fragile coasts to keep the oil out will help people feel productive and empowered (and this is important), it is an unfortunate truth that the booms have limited utility and effectiveness. In even mild sea conditions, oil will wash over and under boom. Further, underneath the visible oil slick, there is an invisible cloud of toxic oil dissolved into the water column and this dissolved oil is deadly to shrimp and fish eggs and marine life.

Still, the Gulf spill has one advantage over the Alaska spill – hot weather and the relatively warm ocean will speed the work of bacteria to degrade the Louisiana crude. Even so, the initial toxic hit is likely to harm generations of wildlife, similar to what happened in Prince William Sound.

The oil industry has had over 40 years – since the 1967 Torrey Canyon tanker spill in England – to make good on its promise to cleanup future oil spills. This latest spill highlights the harsh truth that the industry has failed to live up to its promise. It is time for Americans to demand of our leaders accountability and closure of fossil fuel industries – as we transition to new energies.

[1] City of Cordova Fact Sheet, 1989 1[29]: Robert Rigg, MD, Letter to Cordova District Fishermen United, 13 May 1989.

[2] U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA 29 CFR Part 1904.5(b)(2)(viii): “Colds and flu will not be considered work-related.”

Riki Ott, PhD, is a community activist, a former fisherm'am, and has a degree in marine toxicology with a specialty in oil pollution. She is also the author of Sound Truth and Corporate Myth$: The Legacy of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.
© 2010 Reuters All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/146700/

=======

Heavily taxpayer-subsidized/tax-break corps and the conservative-packed/pro-institution courts conspire to protect the corps and fuck over the taxpayers, in the very same way the Catholic Church bureaucracy conspired within itself to protect itself while fucking over victims of priests' pederasty.

While the Conservatives and their teabagging dupes keep blowing the smokescreen that government is the sole problem with civilization (unless the govt is transferring taxpayer wealth to conservative recipients)

[Wild Cobra]

Lawsuits will go for the "deep pockets". BP will be named as a defendant in the suits over the deaths.
You're right about BP being one named, but they will be one of several named. I'll bet when the dust settles, blame will be places on TransAtlantic. I think that was the name of the platform owner. If the information I gathered thus far is accurate, I don't see how BP will be found at fault.

[Wild Cobra]

The coal mine investigation for bribes of payoffs, now this, and you liberals want more government oversight over corporation... Yes, yes I do.

Because corporations have only one real aim:

To provide returns for shareholders.

This is not always compatible with public good.

It might benefit a corporation's quarterly profits to skimp on pollution controls, or endanger worker's lives, but in the end, society ends up subsidizing that through economic losses to others.

It is that pesky negative externality problem again.

Free-market systems require referees, just like basketball games. The referees have to be able to enforce penalties.
Wow...

I see that went right over your head.

The solution is to enforce the regulations already in place. Not make more. If inspectors can be "paid off," then what what makes you think more regulations will help?

If anything, the penalty for such crimes need to be increased to the point it will happen less.

[boutons_deux]

U.S. Law Limits Oil Company Liability — Will BP Weasel Out of Its Debt?

Posted By jedlewison On May 3, 2010 @ 7:40 am In Environment | 1 Comment

This post originally appeared on Daily Kos.

Matthew Wald of The New York Times reports the details of the previously obscure Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, a $1.6 billion fund financed by a minuscule tax on oil — eight cents per barrel, which Wald says is roughly 0.1%. According to Wald, the fund is designed to pay damage claims resulting from oil spills, though not cleanup and containment costs. But that’s not all it does. It also limits the liability of oil companies like BP.

Under the law that established the reserve, called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies or the government, although they are responsible for the cost of containing and cleaning up the spill.

The fund was set up by Congress in 1986 (boutons: REAGAN!!) but not financed until after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska in 1989. In exchange for the limits on liability, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 imposed a tax on oil companies, currently 8 cents for every barrel they produce in this country or import.

The tax adds roughly one tenth of a percent to the price of oil. Another source of revenue is fines and civil penalties from companies that spill oil.

According to Wald’s report, there have been 51 instances in which damages under the $75 million liability cap has been exceeded. That figure will certainly be exceeded with BP’s Deepwater Horizon spill. Up to $1 billion from the fund can be used for any single accident, but in this case, $1 billion is likely to be peanuts.

In other words, it was a pretty sweet deal for oil companies: they agreed to a tiny tax which they can pass on to consumers, and in exchange their liability is limited to $75 million. Because they can pass the oil tax along to consumers, it’s like they got the liability caps for free.

If this law does indeed carry the final word, and there isn’t another way to hold BP accountable for the damage it has caused, then you can chalk up another victory for corporate socialism. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the right won’t shed a tear over it.

Update (6:56AM): Today’s NYT reports that there is a push to amend the law:

Mr. Obama met with Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana upon the arrival of Air Force One in New Orleans. Then he went to Venice for two hours — by road, rather than helicopter, because of inclement weather — to look at the response.

He stopped to speak to several fishermen, assuring them that BP would reimburse them for lost earnings. But reimbursement may be one of the largest battles to come, given that federal law sets a limit of $75 million on BP’s liability for damages, apart from the cleanup costs.

“It’s going to be extremely tricky” to reimburse fishermen and others if economic damages tally above $75 million, said Stuart Smith, a New Orleans-based lawyer who is pushing for Congressional action to amend the law. “They may not be obligated to pay more than that unless they agree to do it.”

There is a federal fund, generated from a tax on oil, that may cover as much as $1 billion in damages.

Obviously, at the moment, much of the focus on the ground is stopping the spill and cleaning it up, but dealing the economic damages resulting from it will be a huge deal. And it’s enormously important that the administration and Congress do everything within their power to ensure that BP is held accountable. It’s not just politics, though the politics of this are obvious. It’s also policy: if oil firms can ‘earn’ unlimited profits without accepting responsibility for the damages caused by their operations, there will be an endless cycle of environmental disasters like the one unfolding in the Gulf.

Article printed from SpeakEasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy

URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/05/03/will-bp-weasel-out-of-its-cleanup-debt/

[RandomGuy]

You kidding?

Just proving your lack of information again. [BP will be sued for] Damages, probably[, but] Deaths, no way. The platform was a leased one and operated by employees of the owner. I forget the owners name at the time. I'll let you look it up.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/04/27/pm-bp-lawsuits-gulf-of-mexico-oil-spill


families of workers killed in the explosion have sued not only Transocean, the company that operated the rig, but BP as well.

Toldja.

[1369]

If things off shore run anything like the industry I work in, I'd bet that BP is indemnified by Transocean and is also named as additional insured per their subcontract/lease agreement.

[SnakeBoy]

This thing is getting out of control. What a huge disaster. It's fuckin crazy to think about.

They're saying at least 3 months until they can stop it by drilling another well.

And some are saying the rate of the spill can be increasing, we might be looking at even 50K barrels a day. Mindblowing. Unbelievable in the year 2010 they don't have a reliable system of shutting the motherfucker off.

Relax, it's BP's responsibility. Nothing for us to worry about. Let me be clear, BP is responsible.

[xrayzebra]

BP will obviously be sued for deaths and damages, but, like Exxon in Alaska, BP will fight in courts for years, even decades like Exxon, and finally the pro-business courts, 20 years later?, will reduce damages to a wrist slap compared to BP's profits.

It's just like BigPharma, writing off the fines from 10s of 1000s killed and sickened by their shitty drugs, as simply an unavoidable cost of doing business. AstraZeneca just got hit with $500M+ fine for corrupting doctors. A wrist slap. Business as Usual, and the corruption will continue unabated.

If I were you, I would teach them, BigPharama, just don't take anymore
that the doctor orders for you. You just show them.

If BS was money, you would be a rich person. I was going to say man
but I don't think you fit the bill.

[RandomGuy]

Wow...

I see that went right over your head.

The solution is to enforce the regulations already in place. Not make more. If inspectors can be "paid off," then what what makes you think more regulations will help?

If anything, the penalty for such crimes need to be increased to the point it will happen less.

No, it didn't go over my head, I just chose to ignore the logical inconsistencies in your argument.

"government inspectors can be bribed, so why have gov't inspectors for mine safety?"
"brakes can fail, so why have them in a car?"
"lifeboats can sink, so why bother putting them on cruiseships?"
"sneezegaurds can fail, so why bother with putting them over the buffet table?"
"cutoff valves on underwater drilling rigs can fail, so why bother putting them there to begin with"?

I am not arguing per se for more regulation, but I would like the rules we have to be enforced a bit more strictly. My understanding is that current regulation appears sufficient, but that it wasn't enforced as it probably should have been to prevent the accident.

If some new mine safety regulation would have a fair chance at preventing deaths, I would be for that howeverm, if it were not too unreasonable.

I would also note that the investigation into bribery is in the very beginning stages apparently. There is no data yet to say one way or another if there actually was any bribery.

[RandomGuy]

Still waiting on Darrin to explain this one. I have asked you 3 times to explain this, but haven't got an answer.

Is it because you don't know what this fact means?


RG would hate to know how much oil seeps naturally each year.

As much as two Exxon Valdez' worth each year just in the Gulf of Mexico.

What exactly are you trying to say here? I don't understand. Please enlighten me.

What does this fact mean?

I think it means that Darrin gets his talking points from Fox news, and doesn't really do his own thinking about what those talking points mean, because anyone who does more than a few seconds worth of thinking about this statistic realizes it is pretty fucktarded.

Since Darrin chose to regurgitate that, I would say that is prima facia evidence of a lack of any such thinking on Darrin's part.

[DarrinS]

Gulf Oil Spill Is Bad, but How Bad?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/us/04enviro.html?partner=rss&emc=rss




WASHINGTON — The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is bad — no one would dispute it. But just how bad?

Some experts have been quick to predict apocalypse, painting grim pictures of 1,000 miles of irreplaceable wetlands and beaches at risk, fisheries damaged for seasons, fragile species wiped out and a region and an industry economically crippled for years.

President Obama has called the spill “a potentially unprecedented environmental disaster.” And some scientists have suggested that the oil might hitch a ride on the loop current in the gulf, bringing havoc to the Atlantic Coast.

Yet the Deepwater Horizon blowout is not unprecedented, nor is it yet among the worst oil accidents in history. And its ultimate impact will depend on a long list of interlinked variables, including the weather, ocean currents, the properties of the oil involved and the success or failure of the frantic efforts to stanch the flow and remediate its effects.

As one expert put it, this is the first inning of a nine-inning game. No one knows the final score.

The ruptured well, currently pouring an estimated 210,000 gallons of oil a day into the gulf, could flow for years and still not begin to approach the 36 billion gallons of oil spilled by retreating Iraqi forces when they left Kuwait in 1991. It is not yet close to the magnitude of the Ixtoc I blowout in the Bay of Campeche in Mexico in 1979, which spilled an estimated 140 million gallons of crude before the gusher could be stopped.

And it will have to get much worse before it approaches the impact of the Exxon Valdez accident of 1989, which contaminated 1,300 miles of largely untouched shoreline and killed tens of thousands of seabirds, otters and seals along with 250 eagles and 22 killer whales.

No one, not even the oil industry’s most fervent apologists, is making light of this accident. The contaminated area of the gulf continues to spread, and oil has been found in some of the fragile marshes at the tip of Louisiana. The beaches and coral reefs of the Florida Keys could be hit if the slick is captured by the gulf’s clockwise loop current.

But on Monday, the wind was pushing the slick in the opposite direction, away from the current. The worst effects of the spill have yet to be felt. And if efforts to contain the oil are even partly successful and the weather cooperates, the worst could be avoided.

“Right now what people are fearing has not materialized,” said Edward B. Overton, professor emeritus of environmental science at Louisiana State University and an expert on oil spills. “People have the idea of an Exxon Valdez, with a gunky, smelly black tide looming over the horizon waiting to wash ashore. I do not anticipate this will happen down here unless things get a lot worse.”

Dr. Overton said he was hopeful that efforts by BP to place containment structures over the leaking parts of the well will succeed, although he said it was a difficult task that could actually make things worse by damaging undersea pipes.

Other experts said that while the potential for catastrophe remained, there were reasons to remain guardedly optimistic.

“The sky is not falling,” said Quenton R. Dokken, a marine biologist and the executive director of the Gulf of Mexico Foundation, a conservation group in Corpus Christi, Tex. “We’ve certainly stepped in a hole and we’re going to have to work ourselves out of it, but it isn’t the end of the Gulf of Mexico.”

Engineers said the type of oil pouring out is lighter than the heavy crude spilled by the Exxon Valdez, evaporates more quickly and is easier to burn. It also appears to respond to the use of dispersants, which break up globs of oil and help them sink. The oil is still capable of significant damage, particularly when it is churned up with water and forms a sort of mousse that floats and can travel long distances.

Jacqueline Savitz, a senior scientist at Oceana, a nonprofit environmental group, said that much of the damage was already taking place far offshore and out of sight of surveillance aircraft and research vessels.

“Some people are saying, It hasn’t gotten to shore yet so it’s all good,” she said. “But a lot of animals live in the ocean, and a spill like this becomes bad for marine life as soon as it hits the water. You have endangered sea turtles, the larvae of bluefin tuna, shrimp and crabs and oysters, grouper. A lot of these are already being affected and have been for 10 days. We’re waiting to see how bad it is at the shore, but we may never fully understand the full impacts on ocean life.”

The economic impact is as uncertain as the environmental damage. With several million gallons of medium crude in the water already, some experts are predicting wide economic harm. Experts at the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies in Corpus Christi, for example, estimated that as much as $1.6 billion of annual economic activity and services — including effects on tourism, fishing and even less tangible services like the storm protection provided by wetlands — could be at risk.

“And that’s really only the tip of the iceberg,” said David Yoskowitz, who holds the endowed chair for socioeconomics at the institute. “It’s still early in the game, and there’s a lot of potential downstream impacts, a lot of multiplier impacts.”

But much of this damage could be avoided if the various tactics employed by BP and government technicians pay off in the coming days. The winds are dying down and the seas are calming, allowing for renewed skimming operations and possible new controlled burns of oil on the surface. BP technicians are trying to inject dispersants deep below the surface, which could reduce the impact on aquatic life. Winds and currents could move the globs of emulsified oil away from coastal shellfish breeding grounds.

The gulf is not a pristine environment and has survived both chronic and acute pollution problems before. Thousands of gallons of oil flow into the gulf from natural undersea well seeps every day, engineers say, and the scores of refineries and chemical plants that line the shore from Mexico to Mississippi pour untold volumes of pollutants into the water.

After the Ixtoc spill 31 years ago, the second-largest oil release in history, the gulf rebounded. Within three years, there was little visible trace of the spill off the Mexican coast, which was compounded by a tanker accident in the gulf a few months later that released 2.6 million additional gallons, experts said.

“The gulf is tremendously resilient,” said Dr. Dokken, the marine biologist. “But we’ve always got to ask ourselves how long can we keep heaping these insults on the gulf and having it bounce back. As a scientist, I have to say I just don’t know.”


Leslie Kaufman contributed reporting from New Orleans.

[RandomGuy]

Gulf Oil Spill Is Bad, but How Bad?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/us/04enviro.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Finally.

Sooooo this spill isn't anything to worry about?

It would help me understand what you are trying to say if you would actually come out and spell it out.


we’ve always got to ask ourselves how long can we keep heaping these insults on the gulf and having it bounce back.

Some of the fish popultions killed in the Valdez spill never came back. Entire fishing industries in the area were wiped out.

Some natural seepage is normal, and absorbed easily by the environment. That isn't questioned by anybody.

But using that fact to somehow imply that dumping massive amounts of petroleum into the environment in concentrations and amounts hundreds of times larger than what naturally occurs is fucktarded.

You are fucktarded for implying that.

How many spills are safe, Darrin? Just how much damage can we do and have everything bounce back to normal?

The implication that "we have always polluted before and never really had anything truly catastrophic happen" is not only fucktarded, but dangerously fucktarded.

You only have to be wrong once, and then the entire strategy of not being concerned with damage to the environment looks really bad.

"I've put the revolver to my head and pulled the trigger a few times, and nothing happened. Some hysterical idiot tried to tell me there is a bullet in the gun, but since nothing happened, I'll keep pulling the trigger to win money from bets."

Prudent risk management would be to look for other ways of making money than Russian roulette.

If you think this analogy is bad, answer these questions conclusively Darrin:

How many spills are safe, Darrin? Just how much damage can we do and have everything bounce back to normal?

If you can't answer them, then your implied argument here is total bullshit, and dangerous bullshit to boot.

[DarrinS]

But using that fact to somehow imply that dumping massive amounts of petroleum into the environment in concentrations and amounts hundreds of times larger than what naturally occurs is fucktarded.

You are fucktarded for implying that.

How many spills are safe, Darrin? Just how much damage can we do and have everything bounce back to normal?

The implication that "we have always polluted before and never really had anything truly catastrophic happen" is not only fucktarded, but dangerously fucktarded.




Damn, you really went all boutons on me.

I'm just not willing to say that this spill is the end of the world, that's all. A much worse spill in the 70's was largely cleared up in a few years time (according to that article).




After the Ixtoc spill 31 years ago, the second-largest oil release in history, the gulf rebounded. Within three years, there was little visible trace of the spill off the Mexican coast, which was compounded by a tanker accident in the gulf a few months later that released 2.6 million additional gallons, experts said.

[Wild Cobra]

No, it didn't go over my head, I just chose to ignore the logical inconsistencies in your argument.

"government inspectors can be bribed, so why have gov't inspectors for mine safety?"

Are you being ignorant or just making things up? You read into what I say incorrectly. Like I said. It went over your head.

I am saying whoult good will more regulations do is the current system is corrupt. The system has to be fixed first.

"brakes can fail, so why have them in a car?"
"lifeboats can sink, so why bother putting them on cruiseships?"
"sneezegaurds can fail, so why bother with putting them over the buffet table?"
"cutoff valves on underwater drilling rigs can fail, so why bother putting them there to begin with"?

Wow... You usually aren't such a blabbering idiot...


I am not arguing per se for more regulation, but I would like the rules we have to be enforced a bit more strictly.
Good...

And to do so, they have to be reasonable rules. When stupid things are to be enforced, when some stupid rules start getting ignored, so do the important ones. When non-experts on the subject are deciding which ones are OK to ignore and which ones aren't, we have problems. We need rules that make sense, and are 100% enforced.

My understanding is that current regulation appears sufficient, but that it wasn't enforced as it probably should have been to prevent the accident.

That was my point, but I don't know yet that it would have prevented an accident. Not everything is foreseeable.


If some new mine safety regulation would have a fair chance at preventing deaths, I would be for that howeverm, if it were not too unreasonable.

"IF!" is a small word with a big meaning. Tell me. What do you think would have prevented this accident, other than not mining?


I would also note that the investigation into bribery is in the very beginning stages apparently. There is no data yet to say one way or another if there actually was any bribery.

I agree. For the coal mine accident, they are looking into all aspects of the possible failure, looking to assign blame. They haven't yet. Until I see something more relevant, I am under the assumption this was not a preventable accident.

This accident at the oil rig, I will say should have never happened. Engineering wise, this has few unseen circumstances to deal with. Anyone know yet why the fire started to begin with? Was it set intentionally maybe? An act of sabotage is the only thing that makes sense to me so far.

[Wild Cobra]

Is it because you don't know what this fact means?


RG would hate to know how much oil seeps naturally each year.

As much as two Exxon Valdez' worth each year just in the Gulf of Mexico.
What exactly are you trying to say here? I don't understand. Please enlighten me.

What does this fact mean?

I know what he's talking about, and it is a weak case. Darrin... You let us down with that one.

Oil does naturally seep out of the ocean floor, as does methane. However, the rate is low enough, the ocean sea life that can metabolize it, does consume most of it. I It is actually healthy for the ocean, and sea life flourished with a small amount of seepage. The world wide rate is probable greater than this spill, but I don't have numbers. It is simply dilute enough not to be a problem. I would doubt that 2 x Exxon seeps into the gulf, but it could be. At a slow enough rate over a large enough area, it can be consumed. I would be curious to see this data myself.

There are times however when a natural oil sheen is seen on the southern California coast from this. Correct me if I'm wrong, there are no oil rigs out there. The biological component cannot quite metabolize it all, at all times.

Think of it like trace elements that are necessary for our life, but toxic in any larger quantities.

You can also think of it like Carbon Dioxide in the air. We have around 0.039% in the air, and it is necessary for life to thrive. However, is we had about a 10% mix, most air oxygen breathing life would not exist. In small quantities, it is part of the ocean nutrients. It's the concentration that kills life.

[admiralsnackbar]

It's the concentration that kills life.

Not to mention where the concentration occurs. There are organisms that can metabolize and break-down seepage, but they exist where the seepage does: at the bottom of the ocean. Spills like these not only move the buffet to where not only are there no diners, but to places where diners haven't adapted to exist.

[boutons_deux]

AP report on this corporate black shit fouling the bottom of the Gulf:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Deep_beneath_the_Gulf_oil_may_be_wreaking_havoc.ht ml

The corps are fucking up us, the water, the land, the air, the planet.

the "dispersants" are proprietary secrets, not event the govt is allowed to find out what this shit is, so corporate profits remain protected, just like the mysterious shit they pump down fracking holes and into groundwater and aquifers.

I assume the disperants are extremely aggressive, concentrated solvents to be able to dissolve up this black corporate shit even, and also dissolve any naturals oils in plant and animal life.

[boutons_deux]

BP should be banned from operating in US lands and waters. Bankrupt the fuckers, to "encourage the others".

BP is "too oily slimy to trust". BP's "green" PR is a total lie, has been forever.

[RandomGuy]

Damn, you really went all boutons on me.

I'm just not willing to say that this spill is the end of the world, that's all. A much worse spill in the 70's was largely cleared up in a few years time (according to that article).

Would it have killed you to actually spell that out?

One spill is not the end of the world, and I can accept and agree with that.

One large spill can easily wipe out fish populations in some areas permanently, though. That is something that the Valdez spill taught us.

I have been unable to find any long-term studies of the area off the coast of Mexico showing the ultimate damage done to that locality from the Ixtoc spill.

That particular spill occured from from US shores, and most of the studies that I could find concerning the impact were rather limited, short-term studies.

What I have seen regarding this particular spill is that the damage to Louisiana's fishing industry has a good possibility of being catastrophic.

We have little data as to:

How much damage we can do with spills and still have viable fishing industries.
What long term property value impact this will have.
What long-term tourism value impact spills would have.

We are drilling more wells, farther offshore, and deeper than we ever have. This has geometrically increased our risks of spills.

We don't really know how long it ultimately takes for localities to fully recover from massive spills like this. Given that the area affected by the Exxon-Valdez spill is still recovering decades later, we have some fair idea.

If it takes 50 years to recover from a nasty spill and they happen once every 10 years, you have the potential for some real, genuine, irreversable collapse.

Modern wells are safer than in the past by some measure, but there are vastly more of them than there have been in the past, resulting in a pretty high possibility you have more overall risk.

The question is:

How do we manage that risk?

[mogrovejo]

Obama biggest recipient of BP cash


While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they’ve taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.


During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html#ixzz0nAE1fbJv



The Interior Department exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html?hpid=topnews

----

Politicians keep failing.

And yet the socialists keep saying we should give them more power.

[admiralsnackbar]

And then there are the numbnuts who think we should do nothing.

[boutons_deux]

"Politicians keep failing."

Corps/capitalists keep buying politicians, even the ones teabaggers might be lucky enough to elect.

and yet the conservatives keep saying we should not regulate corps and capitalists

(Even Hank Paulsen is saying today in Congress that fanny/freddy were under-/un-regulated).

[RandomGuy]

I know what he's talking about, and it is a weak case. Darrin... You let us down with that one.

Oil does naturally seep out of the ocean floor, as does methane. However, the rate is low enough, the ocean sea life that can metabolize it, does consume most of it. I It is actually healthy for the ocean, and sea life flourished with a small amount of seepage. The world wide rate is probable greater than this spill, but I don't have numbers. It is simply dilute enough not to be a problem. I would doubt that 2 x Exxon seeps into the gulf, but it could be. At a slow enough rate over a large enough area, it can be consumed. I would be curious to see this data myself.

There are times however when a natural oil sheen is seen on the southern California coast from this. Correct me if I'm wrong, there are no oil rigs out there. The biological component cannot quite metabolize it all, at all times.

Think of it like trace elements that are necessary for our life, but toxic in any larger quantities.

You can also think of it like Carbon Dioxide in the air. We have around 0.039% in the air, and it is necessary for life to thrive. However, is we had about a 10% mix, most air oxygen breathing life would not exist. In small quantities, it is part of the ocean nutrients. It's the concentration that kills life.

(feints)

[LnGrrrR]

And yet the socialists keep saying we should give them more power.


Yup, all those dirty liberals trying to give the executive more power...

(Ahem warrantless wiretapping, military commissions, enhanced interrogation, state secrets exemptions, arguing about whether miranda rights should be read to American citizens cough cough)

[admiralsnackbar]

Yup, all those dirty liberals trying to give the executive more power...

(Ahem warrantless wiretapping, military commissions, enhanced interrogation, state secrets exemptions, arguing about whether miranda rights should be read to American citizens cough cough)

Don't you see it's regulation that flirts with fascism? The Orwellian state was much less threatening. :lol

[mogrovejo]

Yup, all those dirty liberals trying to give the executive more power...

(Ahem warrantless wiretapping, military commissions, enhanced interrogation, state secrets exemptions, arguing about whether miranda rights should be read to American citizens cough cough)

All those are examples of statist decisions. I'm not the hypocrite who doesn't like measures that propel the expansion of the power and scope of the government and politicians when they come from one party but defends it when they come from another party.

Are you?

[admiralsnackbar]

All those are examples of statist decisions. I'm not the hypocrite who doesn't like measures that propel the expansion of the power and scope of the government and politicians when they come from one party but defends it when they come from another party.

Are you?

Is this still in reference to regulation? Puta, guey... me estas matando :lol

[LnGrrrR]

All those are examples of statist decisions. I'm not the hypocrite who doesn't like measures that propel the expansion of the power and scope of the government and politicians when they come from one party but defends it when they come from another party.

Are you?

I don't quite see how those are "statist" decisions when they're all used explicitly by the federal government.

And if you see me being hypocritical, feel free to call it out. I've long stated I'm very libertarian regarding civil rights, and trend liberal on economics.

[mogrovejo]

I don't quite see how those are "statist" decisions when they're all used explicitly by the federal government.

It's not "statist" in that sense. I'm all for state rights. I abhor statism though and the pinnacle of statism in the US is the federal government (hence why I'm for state rights - decentralization of power helps to promote liberty).


Statism (or etatism) is an ideology advocating the use of states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state) to achieve goals, both economic and social. Economic statism, for instance, promotes the view that the state has a major and legitimate role in directing the economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy), either directly through state-owned enterprises (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises) and other types of machinery of government, or indirectly through economic planning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_planning).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism#cite_note-1)

The term statism is sometimes used to refer to state capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism) or highly-regulated market economies with large amounts of government intervention. It is also used to refer to state socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism) or co-operative economic systems that use the state, through nationalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization), as a means of running industry.


Statism reached its highest point in the centrally planned fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism) (Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany)) and communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) (Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union)) countries, but exists in varying degrees in every country in the world.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism#cite_note-4)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism


And if you see me being hypocritical, feel free to call it out. I've long stated I'm very libertarian regarding civil rights, and trend liberal on economics.

I just made a question. I'm sure I don't support/oppose laws that share the same underlying philosophy because of the political party that advocates them. I defend the supreme value of individual liberty against all its enemies and obstacles.

[RandomGuy]

- decentralization of power helps to promote liberty).

...unless of course you were of african decent living in the south under Jim Crow laws.

or under the political machines of the early 1900's...

Care to qualify that a bit more?

[mogrovejo]

...unless of course you were of african decent living in the south under Jim Crow laws.

or under the political machines of the early 1900's...

Care to qualify that a bit more?

A bit yeah, but not a lot. It's basically the principle of subsidiarity, which is part of the Western philosophy since Aquinas, with his concepts of city, province and empire. (but can be traced back to Aristotle).

Tocqueville, Montesquieu, Locke, Jefferson and pretty much every one of the Founding Fathers addressed this issue. The Federalist and the Anti-Federalist papers address this issue very well. Even the Federalists were extremely wary of the centralization of power - see papers #45 and #51 from Madison, for example.

Basically, it's more difficult to abuse the power if the authority t authority should be exercised at the lowest necessary level and as close to the people as possible. This gives the individual more protections against abuses of authority, it's way more difficult to for the authority agents to coerce individuals and makes it easier to prevent/overrun abuses of power. Concentration of power is dangerous because it's way more difficult for the individual to survive against potential abuses of power and to fight back. If nobody is able to hold a big amount of power in his own hands, the perils coming from the abuse of that power are less dangerous. When the power is centralized at the top, individuals become very small things down there, easy to abuse. Centralized power leads to absolutism and despotism.

Intermediate powers - formal ones like the states governments in the US or the nobility in the middle-age Europe or informal ones like Churches/clergy - are vital in preventing the surge of despotism. The American Republic was built around this concept (this is why guys like Woodrow Wilson distrusted the American constitutional system so much and loved the centralist Prussia, for example).

The fact that every level of power can be misused, even the local ones, doesn't imply centralization is a better alternative. There's an excellent counter-argument in To Kill a Mockingbird re: the Jim Crow laws point: how successful would Hitler be if he was born in Alabama? Ah, or in The Plot Against America from Roth - what's the excuse Lindbergh uses to explain to the nazi powers why it's being so difficult to implement their program in America?

Actually, the pro-slavery states tended to be pro-central government more than the anti-slavery states.

[ChumpDumper]

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html#ixzz0nAE1fbJv




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html?hpid=topnews

----

Politicians keep failing.

And yet the socialists keep saying we should give them more power.

So you are upset that BP was not more stringently regulated by the government.

Nice.

"UL would have prevented this."

[MannyIsGod]

Basically, it's more difficult to abuse the power if the authority t authority should be exercised at the lowest necessary level and as close to the people as possible.


Decentralization of power sounds great until you factor in that its not going to the people when you remove it from the state but rather to the corporations.

If I have to choose between corporations and the Federal government then I pick the feds each and every time.

[boutons_deux]

"If I have to choose between corporations and the Federal government then I pick the feds each and every time."

You don't have such a choice, even in theory.

There is no difference between what the corps/capitalists want and what the Feds enforce (or let pass). $$$ have captured the legislative and regulatory processes. America is a corporatocracy, not a democracy.

[RandomGuy]

Decentralization of power sounds great until you factor in that its not going to the people when you remove it from the state but rather to the corporations.

If I have to choose between corporations and the Federal government then I pick the feds each and every time.

That actually brings up some rather important factors (among many) that were never figured/predicted in the deliberations of the FF.

1. Mega-corporations
2. Organized crime

I have made this point before here, and have had little acknowledgement on the part of people who tend to be all about "the constitution" or "states' rights.

Neither of the above two organizations (large drug cartels, or corporations) really existed to any appreciable degree in the 1700's, with the rather glaring exception of the East India Tea Company.

The East India company's primacy in British politics was the driving forces behind a lot of the monarchy's actions concerning that particular commodity.

A weak federal government that abdicated a lot of authority/responsiblity to the states would leave the smaller states greatly vulnerable to very very narrow interests of those two types of organization.

If a billion dollar drug cartel could throw enough money at say, Wyoming, to completely corrupt that state governments' police force, that would provide a ready-made shipping point for drugs and whatever else to just about any other neighboring state.

How then would a collection of states without an FBI combat this?

[DarrinS]

Decentralization of power sounds great until you factor in that its not going to the people when you remove it from the state but rather to the corporations.

If I have to choose between corporations and the Federal government then I pick the feds each and every time.



Thanks for that endorsement, Manny.


http://doostang.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/george-bush-laughing.jpg

[mogrovejo]

The Framers didn't care much about corporations because of the unique feature the government possess that makes it such a threat to liberty - the ability to exercise coercive power over the individuals.

There were plenty of big corporations around during the American revolution - heck, Robert Morris was an extremely wealthy man and was the most important financer of the revolution. But there were many others extremely wealthy speculators + merchants among the FFs.

Corporations aren't a threat to liberty because they lack that ability to coerce people, no matter how big they are. The State's nature lies exactly in the coercive power, in the monopoly on violence, the Gewaltmonopol des Staates.

Every interaction between corporations (who are nothing more than an assembly of individuals) and individuals (or other corporations) is voluntary - meaning it fully respects the liberty of conduct. A corporation can't just say "do this or you'll be sent to jail and your liberty will be taken away from you", "give me that or I'll take away your life" or anything of that kind. They depend on the willingness of the other agent to deal with them.

Corporations can threaten one's liberty by capturing the government (a political party is a corporation), but that's exactly why the government is so dangerous and the FF were so preoccupied with ways of keeping it under control. The East India Company is an excellent example of this - if they weren't under the protection of the English government, they wouldn't have been a threat to anyone's liberty. By itself, the Eeast India Company would never be able to impose a monopoly - that's why they needed the government to promulgate the Tea Act. If a monopoly isn't impose but results from the voluntary decisions (say, if a company would decide to sell unlimited internet access for a $1 per decade fee) it doesn't interfere with anyone's liberty - it would run with the other ISP out of business but there's no such thing as the "liberty to have a sustainable business".

Corporations may affect other values like, for instance, equality, but they can't affect liberty. One if free when one cannot be prevented from acting on his will; possessing the resources to carry out one's will is nice when happens but goes beyond the concept of liberty and freedom. It's about possibility, not ability.

Criminals are a threat to the liberty - and the reason why the state needs to exist. The state is needed to protect individuals from aggression, fraud, breach of contracts - to impose the rule of law by the monopoly on violence. But that's exactly what makes it so dangerous for the cause of liberty - because it has the instruments to curb it.

[boutons_deux]

"Corporations aren't a threat to liberty because they lack that ability to coerce people, no matter how big they are."

"corporations aren't a threat?" you're a duped shill for corporate power.

Coercion isn't the only power or influence. Corporations and the oligarchy are much more subtle, more sophisticated than to use brute coercive force to enrich and empower themselves.

What emetic bullshit you spew.

[mogrovejo]

A weak federal government that abdicated a lot of authority/responsiblity to the states would leave the smaller states greatly vulnerable to very very narrow interests of those two types of organization.

If a billion dollar drug cartel could throw enough money at say, Wyoming, to completely corrupt that state governments' police force, that would provide a ready-made shipping point for drugs and whatever else to just about any other neighboring state.

How then would a collection of states without an FBI combat this?

In the papers I recommended this is addressed. The Federalist/anti-Federalist debate is pretty much about this. I have no idea what to say if you believe you "have had little acknowledgement on the part of people who tend to be all about "the constitution" or "states' rights". These issues have been discussed for centuries and rarely in such a careful and enlightening way like the American Framers did.

That's exactly the reason why you don't want all the power concentrated in a single political body. Men aren't angels, as Madison would say. Factions will always exist - including ill-intentioned factions. Concentrating the entire power in a single political body is just tempting a faction to usurp it - with the obvious disastrous consequences.

That's why the "double security" (federal-state and legislative-executive-judiciary separations) Madison talks about in 51 is so important - it guards government from usurpations.


First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.

[RandomGuy]

Corporations aren't a threat to liberty because they lack that ability to coerce people, no matter how big they are. The State's nature lies exactly in the coercive power, in the monopoly on violence, the Gewaltmonopol des Staates.


Tell that to the people who died at the hand of private corporate security during anti-union "actions".

Do you really think a corporation with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on legal cases, local bribes, and yes, even modern "security" doesn't have "coercive" power?

[RandomGuy]

Corporations aren't a threat to liberty because they lack that ability to coerce people, no matter how big they are. The State's nature lies exactly in the coercive power, in the monopoly on violence, the Gewaltmonopol des Staates.

...

Corporations can threaten one's liberty by capturing the government (a political party is a corporation), but that's exactly why the government is so dangerous and the FF were so preoccupied with ways of keeping it under control. The East India Company is an excellent example of this - if they weren't under the protection of the English government, they wouldn't have been a threat to anyone's liberty. By itself, the Eeast India Company would never be able to impose a monopoly - that's why they needed the government to promulgate the Tea Act. If a monopoly isn't impose but results from the voluntary decisions (say, if a company would decide to sell unlimited internet access for a $1 per decade fee) it doesn't interfere with anyone's liberty - it would run with the other ISP out of business but there's no such thing as the "liberty to have a sustainable business".

That is kind of my point.

We have today corporations that make a lot of smaller US state governments look rather small. The thing is that these days, the size of a corporation is not really limited. A state goverment is limited geographically, and a modern corporation isn't. Global trade is leading to some real behemoths, and this trend will continue.

Devolve power too much, and you have little recourse when a state goverment starts acting too much in the interests of that corporation over the public good.

I am all for some tension between state/federal levels and states retaining a good chunk of autonomy.

BUT

Scrapping all federal power in favor of some mythical utopia based on one particular interpetation of the Constitution, seems to me to be rather foolhardy.

[mogrovejo]

Tell that to the people who died at the hand of private corporate security during anti-union "actions".

Do you really think a corporation with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on legal cases, local bribes, and yes, even modern "security" doesn't have "coercive" power?

You're confused. That's like saying that I possess coercive power because I can load a pistol, pull the trigger and shoot someone down.

As I've said, criminals are a threat to the liberty - and the reason why the state needs to exist. The state is needed to protect individuals from aggression, fraud, breach of contracts - to impose the rule of law by the monopoly on violence.

A corporation (or an individual alike) can only coerce persons if, and only if, it's being protected by the government - like the East India Company. Otherwise they can exercise the coercive power the same way I can.

[mogrovejo]

That is kind of my point.

We have today corporations that make a lot of smaller US state governments look rather small. The thing is that these days, the size of a corporation is not really limited. A state goverment is limited geographically, and a modern corporation isn't. Global trade is leading to some real behemoths, and this trend will continue.

Devolve power too much, and you have little recourse when a state goverment starts acting too much in the interests of that corporation over the public good.

I am all for some tension between state/federal levels and states retaining a good chunk of autonomy.

BUT

Scrapping all federal power in favor of some mythical utopia based on one particular interpetation of the Constitution, seems to me to be rather foolhardy.

Like who?

Anyway, you're putting too much emphasis on the dimension aspect. By that reasoning, we probably need a world government.

George Clinton was actually the one right in this aspect. Lots of republics way smaller than most American states are doing perfectly fine. It's about the institutional mechanisms, not the size.

[EVAY]

Actually, american revolutionaries such as the southern planters, (Washington, etc.) were in fact more upset about the power of the East Indies Company, and the unwillingness of the British government to intercede on behalf of the colonists against the Company, than they were about the monarchy itself. Infact, much of the language of not being 'slaves' to the mother country anymore was a reference to the economic hold that the East India company had over the southern agrarians who were in a 'Company Store' position relative to said company, and the proverbial miner of another era and his indebtedness to the 'company store'. The American colonial farmers were forced to buy their equipment from and through the East India Company and sell their produce to and through the same company, etc. etc.

So, while it is true that there developed a lot of language and ideas regarding the proper role of state and citizen, it is worthwhile to note that a primary motivator in the revolution itself was a desire to get out from under the corporation.

Just sayin...

[mogrovejo]

The East India Company is an excellent example of this - if they weren't under the protection of the English government, they wouldn't have been a threat to anyone's liberty. By itself, the Eeast India Company would never be able to impose a monopoly - that's why they needed the government to promulgate the Tea Act.

The only reason the East India Company was a threat to the liberties - and hence seen as dangerous by the colonialists - was because of the government protection (of which the Tea Act is emblematic). Otherwise, the East India Company would simply cease to exist and a corporation that doesnt' exist obviously doesn't constitute a threat. Or in the unlikely scenario that it could survive without the de facto monopoly and the tax exemption, it'd be just a company among many others that nobody would see as a threat.

[EVAY]

The East India Company is an excellent example of this - if they weren't under the protection of the English government, they wouldn't have been a threat to anyone's liberty. By itself, the Eeast India Company would never be able to impose a monopoly - that's why they needed the government to promulgate the Tea Act.

The only reason the East India Company was a threat to the liberties - and hence seen as dangerous by the colonialists - was because of the government protection (of which the Tea Act is emblematic). Otherwise, the East India Company would simply cease to exist and a corporation that doesnt' exist obviously doesn't constitute a threat. Or in the unlikely scenario that it could survive without the de facto monopoly and the tax exemption, it'd be just a company among many others that nobody would see as a threat.

Yes, I had noticed your reference to it in passing in your earlier comments. I think the point that some are trying to make herein, however, is that in today's society, governments and corporations are much more linked in ways that increase the power of corporations far more than was the case in the
19th or even the early 20th centuries. Thus, they have a much greater likelihood of being able to impact the liberties and livelihoods of people with whom they have no visible relationship than they did when the federalist papers were authored.

Moreover, the recent SCOTUS decision has the potential for increasing the power of corporations vis-a-vis governments, thus increasing the ability of corporations to influence us in ways in which we cannot help. It does not make people happy.

[mogrovejo]

Yes, I had noticed your reference to it in passing in your earlier comments. I think the point that some are trying to make herein, however, is that in today's society, governments and corporations are much more linked in ways that increase the power of corporations far more than was the case in the
19th or even the early 20th centuries.I'm not sure about that at all. The power of state-sponsored corporations like the East India Company was massive in the 18th century - they dominated a share of the global economy in a scale that no contemporary corporation can even come close to. Heck, they basically ruled over an entire sub-continent for decades. Or the power of the Medicis banking family, for example - they were able to basically buy a political state for themselves. These days, wealth is way more democratized.

Still, the problem lies in the government. The only reason why corporations (be it political factions, business companies, moral groups, etc), have so much interest in capturing the government is because of the enormous power of the government. What motivates those factions is using the government power in their own benefit. Limit the power of the government and corporations would have nothing to gain from capturing it - and they wouldn't. It wouldn't pay off.

[MannyIsGod]

The Framers didn't care much about corporations because of the unique feature the government possess that makes it such a threat to liberty - the ability to exercise coercive power over the individuals.


How am I supposed to continue reading when your entire premise is so damn flawed? You come off soooooooooooooooooo damn smug 99% of the time and you have the audacity to make THIS your foundation?

[Winehole23]

The only reason why corporations (be it political factions, business companies, moral groups, etc), have so much interest in capturing the government is because of the enormous power of the government. What motivates those factions is using the government power in their own benefit. Limit the power of the government and corporations would have nothing to gain from capturing it - and they wouldn't. It wouldn't pay off.In the counterfactual scenario, affairs would be more harmoniously arranged. Seamless, Profe. Bravo.

Is that somehow germane to the oligarchic combination of wealth and political power in the USA? Is it possible for special interests to coopt the very process of political accommodation, as well as elections themselves? Has cooption already occurred to some extent?

Profe: Consider it understood that in the counterfactual case, the problem would never have arisen in the first place. In the present one, however, it is palpably present. The size and luster of the pearl tempt the scheming and the venal in both camps.

[mogrovejo]

How am I supposed to continue reading when your entire premise is so damn flawed? You come off soooooooooooooooooo damn smug 99% of the time and you have the audacity to make THIS your foundation?

You think it's flawed? I'm surprised, if there's an overwhelming consensual point in political science, something that pretty much everybody agrees from left to right, it's the state's monopoly on violence, at least since Weber. It's been an extremely dominant view for more than 100 years; I'd never imagine that part of my post would be a subject of polemic. Deeply surprised.

Why do you think it's flawed?

[LnGrrrR]

Hmm Im really enjoying this thread.

Mogro, a question. What mechanism do you think is designed to stop corporations from buying off representatives, and convincing them to write legislation favorable to them?

Would you say that they relied on the trustworthiness of Congress? Of the President to veto? Or some other mechanism?

[LnGrrrR]

Also, regarding the states monopoly on violence, I wonder if one could take an aggressive libertarian stance and argue that theft, fraud and the like could be moderated by private parties. Perhaps an anarchic society? I believe Spain had a successful one set up at one time.

[Yonivore]

Hmm Im really enjoying this thread.

Mogro, a question. What mechanism do you think is designed to stop corporations from buying off representatives, and convincing them to write legislation favorable to them?

Would you say that they relied on the trustworthiness of Congress? Of the President to veto? Or some other mechanism?
I think they relied on an informed electorate, recognizing the corruption and voting them out of office.

Corporation buy power...only politicians can buy votes. And, they can't do that with an informed electorate with integrity.

[Winehole23]

I'm surprised, if there's an overwhelming consensual point in political scienceToo wordy. Just say consensus.


...something that pretty much everybody agrees from left to right, it's the state's monopoly on violence, at least since Weber. It's been an extremely dominant view for more than 100 years; I'd never imagine that part of my post would be a subject of polemic. Deeply surprised.I'm deeply surprised to find out you find polemical responses surprising.

[Winehole23]

People are liable to have a variety of complaints you never thought of before, mogrovejo.

[mogrovejo]

Hmm Im really enjoying this thread.

Mogro, a question. What mechanism do you think is designed to stop corporations from buying off representatives, and convincing them to write legislation favorable to them?

Would you say that they relied on the trustworthiness of Congress? Of the President to veto? Or some other mechanism?

In the US? The Framers relied on:

- the principle of a government of enumerated powers (the reasoning being that corporations don't have much of a reason to buy off representatives if they can't write legislation favourable to them because they aren't allowed to legislate about those issues)

- the check and balances system. I don't think it makes much sense to look for single mechanisms for every circumstance. For example, in this case, there's the judicial review of federal legislation (by an independent judiciary branch), another legislative chamber whose members aren't subject to the democratic favours (well, they weren't) and whose power was derived from the states, Article I, the power of the states, the assumption that with many different political factions represented in the parliament it's hard for a single sect to buy off the entire chamber, the democratic control, etc.

The trustworthiness of the Congressman was certainly not a factor. The American Founding Fathers, especially those more involved in the design of the constitutional apparatus, didn't have many illusions about the human nature. They trusted in institutional mechanisms, not in the hypothetical moral fortitude of the politicians.

[mogrovejo]

Also, regarding the states monopoly on violence, I wonder if one could take an aggressive libertarian stance and argue that theft, fraud and the like could be moderated by private parties. Perhaps an anarchic society?

Sure, that's the point of view of anarcho-capitalists. From that perspective, the state simply wouldn't exist at all.


I believe Spain had a successful one set up at one time.

An anarcho-capitalist society? Never happened. Anarchists (especially the anarcho-syndicalists - who were basically a type of communists - based in Catalunya) were very influential in the pre-civil war years (and during the war itself), but they were never in the government.

[mogrovejo]

I think they relied on an informed electorate, recognizing the corruption and voting them out of office.

Corporation buy power...only politicians can buy votes. And, they can't do that with an informed electorate with integrity

That was a piece of the puzzle, but not a particularly important one. The Framers were very suspicious of democracy - they wanted to protect some political bodies from the democratic pressure (something that progressively has been lost, with the primaries and the election of Senators). "Democracy" was basically a pejorative term for them, their model of government was a Republic.

Plus, how do you guarantee an "informed electorate with integrity"? If you could guarantee that, you could pretty throw away all the trouble with the check-and-balances system and just go for a direct democracy. The reason why they didn't do that is because the fortunes of liberty can't depend on the existence of an informed electorate with integrity (a notion most Founders would find contemptible) or in the integrity and good faith of their elected representatives - they understood that in such a scenario, they'd quickly revert to the kind of despotic government they had just overturned.

[MannyIsGod]

I think they relied on an informed electorate, recognizing the corruption and voting them out of office.

Corporation buy power...only politicians can buy votes. And, they can't do that with an informed electorate with integrity.

[MannyIsGod]

That was a piece of the puzzle, but not a particularly important one. The Framers were very suspicious of democracy - they wanted to protect some political bodies from the democratic pressure (something that progressively has been lost, with the primaries and the election of Senators). "Democracy" was basically a pejorative term for them, their model of government was a Republic.

Plus, how do you guarantee an "informed electorate with integrity"? If you could guarantee that, you could pretty throw away all the trouble with the check-and-balances system and just go for a direct democracy. The reason why they didn't do that is because the fortunes of liberty can't depend on the existence of an informed electorate with integrity (a notion most Founders would find contemptible) or in the integrity and good faith of their elected representatives - they understood that in such a scenario, they'd quickly revert to the kind of despotic government they had just overturned.

You can't. Inherently the biggest problem with libertarianism.

[MannyIsGod]

You think it's flawed? I'm surprised, if there's an overwhelming consensual point in political science, something that pretty much everybody agrees from left to right, it's the state's monopoly on violence, at least since Weber. It's been an extremely dominant view for more than 100 years; I'd never imagine that part of my post would be a subject of polemic. Deeply surprised.

Why do you think it's flawed?

It may be a consensus that a legitimate state has a monopoly on violence but saying that corporations have no forms of coercion because of that is simply non logical.

[RandomGuy]

Like who?

Anyway, you're putting too much emphasis on the dimension aspect. By that reasoning, we probably need a world government.

George Clinton was actually the one right in this aspect. Lots of republics way smaller than most American states are doing perfectly fine. It's about the institutional mechanisms, not the size.

Some degree of world government is needed.

[LnGrrrR]

Sure, that's the point of view of anarcho-capitalists. From that perspective, the state simply wouldn't exist at all.


Do you think an anarcho-capitalist government would be sustainable in the long run? Desirable?

[Yonivore]

Some degree of world government is needed.
Why?

[MannyIsGod]

I do agree that decentralization of power is far more desirable to be completely honest. I don't think a world government with much power is something we should ever hope to see. In fact I think the United States is a great example of why power in the hands of local people is far better.

For one you get views represented more accurately. IE Medicinal Marijuana. On the federal level we'll never see it legalized, but on the state level we have tons of places where its legal. If it were up to municipalities I promise you there would be places like Amsterdamn in this country but the fact that the power is held at the federal level tends to fuck this up.

I also think if defense responsibility was held at the local level then we would not be involved in so many foreign exercise and we would actually focus on DEFENSE.

I do wonder how corporations would fair in such an environment. There would be far more governments for them to worry about (as opposed to just the members of a national congress) but I wonder if they'd be able to enact more influence over them.

[boutons_deux]

"I wonder if they'd be able to enact more influence over them."

Do you think health/medical insurers, auto insurers in TX don't already own the TX insurance regulators and TX legislature? State legislators and elected judges are even cheaper to buy than federal legislators.

How do you think tort reform occurred in TX? It certainly wasn't voted on by citizens who are denied access to the courts. It was the doctor and insurance lobbyists who bought enough legislators to obtain tort reform.

[Winehole23]

It may be a consensus that a legitimate state has a monopoly on violence but saying that corporations have no forms of coercion because of that is simply non logical.It strikes me as being more pointedly legalistic. Any untoward attribution to corporations can be bracketed as essentially unrelated to its formal raison d'etre. (As if regulatory capture and political venality were to be regarded as being activities strictly unrelated to a corporation's bottom line or rate of profit. Har har.)

Corruption pays, otherwise people wouldn't make the gamble, right mogrovejo?

[RandomGuy]

RG-Some degree of world government is needed.


Why?

Some degree of standardization and settlement of disputes.

Lunch hour is over, but I will expand on this later.

[Yonivore]

Some degree of standardization and settlement of disputes.
Some people call them treaties.

How is a world government going to enforce its will on a nation that doesn't want to agree to some arbitrary standard? How is a world government going to decide what is its will to be foisted on us?

Look at the disaster that's become of Europe since they've unionized; and, you want some form of that globally?

Nah, I like national sovereignty and a people's ability to forge their own nation based on self-interest and compromise with their neighbors. I think the chess board is set and we just need to work with like-minded countries to eliminate the rabble from the planet.

[ChumpDumper]

Any news on the Obama oil platform sabotage conspiracy, yoni?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Some people call them treaties.

How is a world government going to enforce its will on a nation that doesn't want to agree to some arbitrary standard? How is a world government going to decide what is its will to be foisted on us?

Look at the disaster that's become of Europe since they've unionized; and, you want some form of that globally?

Nah, I like national sovereignty and a people's ability to forge their own nation based on self-interest and compromise with their neighbors. I think the chess board is set and we just need to work with like-minded countries to eliminate the rabble from the planet.

in other words kill everyone who doesn't believe the USA is the best country that ever existed

[Yonivore]

in other words kill everyone who doesn't believe the USA is the best country that ever existed
Nope.

But, we could start by eliminating those that don't believe in individual's right to life. liberty, and property, who treat their women like cattle, their gays like pinatas, and their children like conscripts.

I'm pretty sure most Europeans don't believe the USA is the best country that ever existed and I don't advocate eliminating them. There are a least a half dozen 13th-Century Caliphate wanna-be countries out there with which we could start.

[ChumpDumper]

Is Yonivore volunteering to enlist to fight his own personal jihad?

[Winehole23]

There are a least a half dozen 13th-Century Caliphate wanna-be countries out there with which we could start.Don't be shy. Please name them.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Did I hear correctly that they had the oil spill set afire after one or two days, but the government had them put the fire out?

wtf

someone let me know can't find out for sure.

[Wild Cobra]

(feints)
Why? Because I'm an equal opportunity critic?

[RandomGuy]

Why? Because I'm an equal opportunity critic?

It was a reasonable, sensible post that seemed to understand the point I was making. Just not used to it is all. :p:

[MannyIsGod]

Why? Because I'm an equal opportunity critic?

You were in this thread anyway. Unfortunately, I would not label you in that way through most threads.

[Wild Cobra]

It was a reasonable, sensible post that seemed to understand the point I was making. Just not used to it is all. :p:
And I'm not used to you being reasonable from my perspective.

[Wild Cobra]

You were in this thread anyway. Unfortunately, I would not label you in that way through most threads.
There are very few times I disagree so much with what Darrin or others say.

Very few. I disagree with you and others rather often.

That's one problem with the liberal mindset. They think equal opportunity requires quota's. I'm not about to count my criticisms and try to balance it in a quota fashion.

[MannyIsGod]

There are several people on this board I disagree with on a regular basis I believe are reasonable. You are not one of them. You are far more likely to assume unlikely conspiracies than you are an objective viewpoint.

But don't take my word for it, ask around.

[RandomGuy]

And I'm not used to you being reasonable from my perspective.

That makes us even. :lol

[RandomGuy]

There are very few times I disagree so much with what Darrin or others say.

Very few. I disagree with you and others rather often.

That's one problem with the liberal mindset. They think equal opportunity requires quota's. I'm not about to count my criticisms and try to balance it in a quota fashion.

That's one problem with the conservative mindset. They use every opportunity to create ad hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html) and strawmen (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) arguments to make themselves feel superior to "libtards".

It boggles my mind at how much you have to rely on logically unsound arguments to make the cases you do. You are smart, but seemingly unable to objectively analyze anything.

[Wild Cobra]

That's one problem with the conservative mindset. They use every opportunity to create ad hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html) and strawmen (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) arguments to make themselves feel superior to "libtards".

It boggles my mind at how much you have to rely on logically unsound arguments to make the cases you do. You are smart, but seemingly unable to objectively analyze anything.
Well, the definitions don't apply to me as you use them. Funny how you continue to use such ad hominem attack techniques.

[RandomGuy]

Well, the definitions don't apply to me as you use them. Funny how you continue to use such ad hominem attack techniques.

It is not ad hominem to use someones tendency towards illogical arguments to determine how much scrutiny or weight to give to their conclusions.

Ad hominem would be if I outright claimed you were wrong about any given point for the sole reason that you generally are incapable of examining information objectively and honestly.

Your inability to be intellectually honest and apply good critical thinking skills is irrelevant to whether or not you are truthful in any given statement.

The truthfulness of any given statement is independent of the speaker, and must be judged at its face.

One can generally use overall reliability in assigning weight to claims and assertions, and decide that things you say probably deserve a bit more scrutiny, simply because of your marked biases, especially when it comes to analysis of data.

[RandomGuy]

Well, the definitions don't apply to me as you use them.

You have directly said that climate scientists are wrong in their conclusions because they have the motive to lie about climate data in order to get more goverment grants to study climate.

You have stated that peer review of climate science papers is also suspect for the same reasons.

Those are direct circumstantial ad hominem fallacies. You repeat this in many guises on many topics, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

[DarrinS]

You have directly said that climate scientists are wrong in their conclusions because they have the motive to lie about climate data in order to get more goverment grants to study climate.






There is still a potential problem with non-linear responses in the very recent period of some biological proxies ( or perhaps a fertilisation through high CO2 or nitrate input) . I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.





You have stated that peer review of climate science papers is also suspect for the same reasons.





From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <[email protected]>
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

Mike,

Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don't pass on. Relevant paras are the last 2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia for years. He knows the're wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !

I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf. The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over now and ice. The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it.

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Cheers
Phil





:toast

[Wild Cobra]

You have directly said that climate scientists are wrong in their conclusions because they have the motive to lie about climate data in order to get more goverment grants to study climate.

You have stated that peer review of climate science papers is also suspect for the same reasons.

Those are direct circumstantial ad hominem fallacies. You repeat this in many guises on many topics, as I have repeatedly pointed out.
So I am guilty of such things because I cannot properly communicate my understanding of such things to you.

OK. No problem. Believe as you wish.

[RandomGuy]

So I am guilty of such things because I cannot properly communicate my understanding of such things to you.

OK. No problem. Believe as you wish.

No, you pretty accurately communicated the thoughts in your head.

Those particular ideas were pretty fair re-statements of things you have said here repeatedly.

I will ask you directly then, since you seem not to believe me and think it is all in my head.

Does the statement:

Climate scientists are wrong about man-made climate change because they only say that stuff for the purpose of scaring people/governments into giving them government grants to study climate.

Accurately reflect what you have stated previously?

Yes or no. Either I re-stated your position or not.

If not, then what exactly did you mean or want to say?

[RandomGuy]

:toast

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15719298


It seems unlikely that the errors, misprisions and sloppiness in a number of different types of climate science might all favour such a minimised effect. That said, the doubters tend to assume that climate scientists are not acting in good faith, and so are happy to believe exactly that. Climategate and the IPCC’s problems have reinforced this position.

Using the IPCC’s assessment of probabilities, the sensitivity to a doubling of carbon dioxide of less than 1.5ºC in such a scenario has perhaps one chance in ten of being correct. But if the IPCC were underestimating things by a factor of five or so, that would still leave only a 50:50 chance of such a desirable outcome. The fact that the uncertainties allow you to construct a relatively benign future does not allow you to ignore futures in which climate change is large, and in some of which it is very dangerous indeed. The doubters are right that uncertainties are rife in climate science. They are wrong when they present that as a reason for inaction.

[DarrinS]

^IPCC's models are already wrong. But you can keep siting them as a source if you want.

[boutons_deux]

Here They Go, Corps hiding behind lawyer whores and weaseling out of their responsbility, just like Exxon, Chervron-Texaco, and all the other heavily taxpayer subsidized energy cos.


THURSDAY 13 MAY 2010

Share
Transocean, Doomed Rig's Owner, Seeks to Limit Its Liability

Thursday 13 May 2010

by: Scott Hiaasen | Miami Herald

Transocean, Ltd., the Switzerland-based offshore contractor that owned the Deepwater Horizon floating drilling rig, has asked a federal court in Houston to limit its liability from the oil spill to less than $27 million.

Invoking a little-known maritime law passed in 1851, the company said it should not have to pay any more than the salvage value of the charred oil rig and its freight, all of which sank in 5,000 feet of water after the April 20 explosion that killed 11 workers. Before the accident, the Deepwater Horizon was valued at more than $500 million.

In a statement, Transocean said the court petition was filed at the request of its insurance companies, and the petition will allow the company to consolidate all outstanding lawsuits before a single federal judge in Houston. The company said it now faces more than 100 lawsuits over the spill in several states.

Lawyers for those injured in the blast said the petition could also prevent any claims filed more than six months after the accident.

"It's very unfair," said Matthew Shaffer, a Houston attorney who represents a handful of Transocean employees injured in the blast. "It's a slap in the face to anyone who has been injured because of their negligence."

Transocean's filing comes as the Obama administration and Congress seek to retroactively raise liability limits that would cap the cost BP, the runaway well's owner, would have to pay. The current limit is $75 million. Some members of Congress have proposed raising that to $10 billion.

Shaffer said Transocean must prove it did nothing wrong to cause the accident in order to successfully limit its damages.

"I think it's hard to believe they didn't have any knowledge of what was going on on their own rig," Shaffer said.

[RandomGuy]

Oopsies. Did we say 5,000 barrels per day, we really meant 70,000 barrels per day


Steven Wereley, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University, analyzed videotape of the seafloor gusher using a technique called particle image velocimetry.

Contract workers load oil booms onto a boat to protect marshlands from the massive oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico on May 13, 2010 in Hopedale, Louisiana. The BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig continues to leak what may be an unprecedented amount of oil and gas into U.S. waters.
A computer program simply tracks particles and calculates how fast they are moving. Wereley put the BP video of the gusher into his computer. He made a few simple calculations and came up with an astonishing value for the rate of the oil spill: 70,000 barrels a day — much higher than the official estimate of 5,000 barrels a day.

The method is accurate to a degree of plus or minus 20 percent.

Given that uncertainty, the amount of material spewing from the pipe could range from 56,000 barrels to 84,000 barrels a day. It is important to note that it's not all oil. The short video BP released starts out with a shot of methane, but at the end it seems to be mostly oil.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126809525&ps=cprs

[Wild Cobra]

No, you pretty accurately communicated the thoughts in your head.

Those particular ideas were pretty fair re-statements of things you have said here repeatedly.

I will ask you directly then, since you seem not to believe me and think it is all in my head.

Does the statement:

Climate scientists are wrong about man-made climate change because they only say that stuff for the purpose of scaring people/governments into giving them government grants to study climate.

Accurately reflect what you have stated previously?

Yes or no. Either I re-stated your position or not.

If not, then what exactly did you mean or want to say?
As a yes or no, I have to say NO. It is only partially correct. I don't know why all believe who believe an AGW believe as they do. I will say with certainty that some believe it, and some are in for profit, and some are in for power. I won't attempt to quantify such percentages however.

[RandomGuy]

As a yes or no, I have to say NO. It is only partially correct. I don't know why all believe who believe an AGW believe as they do. I will say with certainty that some believe it, and some are in for profit, and some are in for power. I won't attempt to quantify such percentages however.

So at least "some" climate scientists believe there is enough science and enough data to support the theory.

Some are in it purely for profit.

And some are in it for power.

The percentages would make quite a big difference, wouldn't they?

If 98% thought there was enough science and enough data, 1% were in it for profit, and 1% were in it for "power", that would make a difference wouldn't it?

That would make an awful lot of smart people with PhDs doing a lot of science, gathering a lot of data, studying it full time for decades, and improving the theory and its predicative accuracy.

Against which you have skeptics who don't have much, if at all, in the way of peer reviewed literature, who I personally have seen say some pretty shockingly illogical and downright paranoid things (both here and elsewhere).

I had one guy tell me that the entire reason the US is pushing for reductions in greenhouse gases is so we can sell China and Iran uranium, then tried to support that with news articles about the Bureau of Land Managment closing land to new uranium mines, and a blurb from an Obama state of the union where he calls for a push for "clean" energy.

[boutons_deux]

Feds severely neglected inspections of offshore drilling rigs

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0516/ap-feds-severely-neglected-inspections-offshore-drilling-rigs/

Like for the finance sector, "just trust us" self-policing always works.

[MannyIsGod]

The more I read about this the more upset I become on many fronts including Obama's support for more drilling offshore, the extent this is going to harm the GoM and GoM coastal ecology and American public opinion on the situation.

I could work with some of the disappointments I'd felt from Obama's presidency because I feel it is an overal net gain during a period of time in American politics where progressive politics has been demonized in the eyes of the common American. However, the policy decision made by this administration regarding drilling was a stupid one with marginal real world gains at a (realized) sizeable risk. The amount of oil we gain from offshore operations is only a small percentage of our usage and drilling all over the place for more oil in these places isn't worth it to anyone but stock holders for corporations like BP and places so much at risk. The fact of the matter is that companies don't care if they can drill safely they just care if they can drill at any cost. As long as the bottom line is positive then nothing else matters. I realize that Obama's policy decision had nothing to do with this disaster but it sends the worst kind of message and for what? I knew Obama's stances on executive power going in (and the dissapointments in that area have not been unforseen) but the would in the back of environmentalists who believed in him on this issue is still fresh and was a lot more of a surprise. Silly me, I guess.

The more news I read on this the worse it seems. The latest information is that the oil may become trapped in the loop current as soon as this week which would carry it to the keys and then onto the eastern seaboard. That is simply some of the oil on the surface and does not account for the new reports of subsurface plumes which are gigantic in size.

Also, reading a recent post on 538 just blows my mind. Some recent polling of Americans had a sizeable responding that this disaster made them MORE likely to support offshore drilling.

What. The. Fuck?

[boutons_deux]

"What. The. Fuck?"

Americans are pretty stupid, just where the politicians, corps, oligarchy, capitalists want them to. Fat, dumb, ignorant, decrepit physically and mentally, greedy, materialistic, mindless consumers, malleable, and above all distracted by falsities of TV and teabagger-type smokescreens hiding the real criminals.

[RandomGuy]

The more I read about this the more upset I become on many fronts including Obama's support for more drilling offshore, the extent this is going to harm the GoM and GoM coastal ecology and American public opinion on the situation.

I could work with some of the disappointments I'd felt from Obama's presidency because I feel it is an overal net gain during a period of time in American politics where progressive politics has been demonized in the eyes of the common American. However, the policy decision made by this administration regarding drilling was a stupid one with marginal real world gains at a (realized) sizeable risk. The amount of oil we gain from offshore operations is only a small percentage of our usage and drilling all over the place for more oil in these places isn't worth it to anyone but stock holders for corporations like BP and places so much at risk. The fact of the matter is that companies don't care if they can drill safely they just care if they can drill at any cost. As long as the bottom line is positive then nothing else matters. I realize that Obama's policy decision had nothing to do with this disaster but it sends the worst kind of message and for what? I knew Obama's stances on executive power going in (and the dissapointments in that area have not been unforseen) but the would in the back of environmentalists who believed in him on this issue is still fresh and was a lot more of a surprise. Silly me, I guess.

The more news I read on this the worse it seems. The latest information is that the oil may become trapped in the loop current as soon as this week which would carry it to the keys and then onto the eastern seaboard. That is simply some of the oil on the surface and does not account for the new reports of subsurface plumes which are gigantic in size.

Also, reading a recent post on 538 just blows my mind. Some recent polling of Americans had a sizeable responding that this disaster made them MORE likely to support offshore drilling.

What. The. Fuck?

Heard that.

I doubt the pictures of the eventual ecological damage will sustain that trend though.

We just don't have the experience in such deep waters yet to really know how to handle this stuff.

There is data saying that the spill is an order of magnatude larger and that they are finding massive plumes of oil as far down as 1300 meters.

Given that they are estimating the spillage based just one what hits the surface, that has some pretty shocking implications.

Considering they haven't really come anywhere close to stauching the flow yet, I would be willing to bet there are quite a few fishing jobs that will never come back.

There doesn't seem to be any real massive fish kills yet, because I am sure that the fish are trying to get ahead of the oxygen-depleted water. (bacteria that eat oil use up all the oxygen in the water)

[RandomGuy]

Feds severely neglected inspections of offshore drilling rigs

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0516/ap-feds-severely-neglected-inspections-offshore-drilling-rigs/

Like for the finance sector, "just trust us" self-policing always works.

This is shaping up to be another poster-child of the "short term profits at the expense long term good and sound risk management" argument.

[DarrinS]

There doesn't seem to be any real massive fish kills yet, because I am sure that the fish are trying to get ahead of the oxygen-depleted water. (bacteria that eat oil use up all the oxygen in the water)



And in the process, these bacteria produce ... CO2 (gasp). :wow

[admiralsnackbar]

This is shaping up to be another poster-child of the "short term profits at the expense long term good and sound risk management" argument.

If we can make a generalization based on corporate culture at Enron, BP, and Massey, it's that these execs have a personal love for generating gigantic short-term profits for themselves at any risk. When the inevitable tragedy happens, they will long-since have made enough money to protect themselves from (or never even feel) any prosecution or civil suits, and the next wave of sunsabitches assume control and begin the process again.

[admiralsnackbar]

The more I read about this the more upset I become on many fronts including Obama's support for more drilling offshore, the extent this is going to harm the GoM and GoM coastal ecology and American public opinion on the situation.

I could work with some of the disappointments I'd felt from Obama's presidency because I feel it is an overal net gain during a period of time in American politics where progressive politics has been demonized in the eyes of the common American. However, the policy decision made by this administration regarding drilling was a stupid one with marginal real world gains at a (realized) sizeable risk. The amount of oil we gain from offshore operations is only a small percentage of our usage and drilling all over the place for more oil in these places isn't worth it to anyone but stock holders for corporations like BP and places so much at risk. The fact of the matter is that companies don't care if they can drill safely they just care if they can drill at any cost. As long as the bottom line is positive then nothing else matters. I realize that Obama's policy decision had nothing to do with this disaster but it sends the worst kind of message and for what? I knew Obama's stances on executive power going in (and the dissapointments in that area have not been unforseen) but the would in the back of environmentalists who believed in him on this issue is still fresh and was a lot more of a surprise. Silly me, I guess.

The more news I read on this the worse it seems. The latest information is that the oil may become trapped in the loop current as soon as this week which would carry it to the keys and then onto the eastern seaboard. That is simply some of the oil on the surface and does not account for the new reports of subsurface plumes which are gigantic in size.

Also, reading a recent post on 538 just blows my mind. Some recent polling of Americans had a sizeable responding that this disaster made them MORE likely to support offshore drilling.

What. The. Fuck?

I have a feeling his reversal on offshore drilling had more to do with the Russians drilling off Cuba than with energy policy per se, but it's only speculation.

[RandomGuy]

I have a feeling his reversal on offshore drilling had more to do with the Russians drilling off Cuba than with energy policy per se, but it's only speculation.

I think it was a rather easy bargaining chip with Republicans.

There will eventually be enough economic pressure to drill offshore anyways, so why not get the process started.

The thing is that if we hold on to our oil reserves while everybody else sucks theirs up, the longer we wait the more $$$ it is worth.

[boutons_deux]

Russia drilling in Cuban waters is not drilling US oil. WTF?

[RandomGuy]

Russia drilling in Cuban waters is not drilling US oil. WTF?

It just makes some skittish. I don't see it being our business who is drilling for oil in Cuba's territorial waters. Unless of course they have a massive underwater oil blowout because of shitty safety standards... :lol

[admiralsnackbar]

Russia drilling in Cuban waters is not drilling US oil. WTF?

Just politics/business. It's looked upon as an incursion into our "territory," perhaps the first of many to come. As international waters, there's nothing the we can do about it, but we would certainly rather the oil around our continent belong to our corporations and not Russia's. There's probably some vestigial Cold War logic in there, too.

[RandomGuy]

Oopsies. Did we say 5,000 barrels per day, we really meant 70,000 barrels per day



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126809525&ps=cprs

bump.

[boutons_deux]

Low estimate of oil spill's size could save BP millions in court

"BP's estimate that only 5,000 barrels of oil are leaking daily from a well in the Gulf of Mexico, which the Obama administration hasn't disputed, could save the company millions of dollars in damages when the financial impact of the spill is resolved in court"


"Legal experts said that not having a credible official estimate of the leak's size provides another benefit for BP: The amount of oil spilled is certain to be key evidence in the court battles that are likely to result from the disaster"

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/20/v-print/94581/low-estimate-of-oil-spills-size.html

[UV Ray]

"What. The. Fuck?"

Americans are pretty stupid, just where the politicians, corps, oligarchy, capitalists want them to. Fat, dumb, ignorant, decrepit physically and mentally, greedy, materialistic, mindless consumers, malleable, and above all distracted by falsities of TV and teabagger-type smokescreens hiding the real criminals.

That pretty much sums up what you'd like us all to be.

[RandomGuy]

Yet another update:

The original estimate is in the toilet, as BP admits it is now pumping 5,000 barrels a day from the main leak site, but still has a massive amount of oil flowing out.

The professor who earlier estimated up to 70,000 barrels of oil per day looked at some better footage and says that is likely on the low end.

At 31 days out that makes a total spillage of 70,000*31=2,170,000, nine times that of the Exxon Valdez, (250,000 barrels) and rapidly approaching that of the IxToc 1 spill of 3,000,000-3,500,000 barrels of oil.

Another two weeks of seepage and this will be the largest accidental spill in human history. The largest oil spill in human history was the intentional spill by Iraq in the Persian gulf in the first Gulf war of some 10,000,000 barrels of oil.

[boutons_deux]

"McDonald said the spill's surface slick is now more than 14,600 square miles, larger than the states of Maryland and Delaware combined."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/gulf-oil-spill-size-how-b_n_584530.html

http://media.mysanantonio.com/images/20100521oilspill400.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Think EPA will have the balls?

EPA Officials Weigh Sanctions Against BP’s U.S. Operations

http://www.propublica.org/feature/epa-officials-weighing-sanctions-against-bps-us-operations

[MannyIsGod]

Even if they have balls they dont' have teeth so w/e.

[EmptyMan]

If we can make a generalization based on corporate culture at Enron, BP, and Massey, it's that these execs have a personal love for generating gigantic short-term profits for themselves at any risk. When the inevitable tragedy happens, they will long-since have made enough money to protect themselves from (or never even feel) any prosecution or civil suits, and the next wave of sunsabitches assume control and begin the process again.

No different than what politicians achieve.


could work with some of the disappointments I'd felt from Obama's presidency because I feel it is an overal net gain during a period of time in American politics where progressive politics has been demonized in the eyes of the common American.

lol Manny. This is America brah. America. United States of America. "Progressives" will never take over. The very essence of Progressives is Anti-American. Such ideals have been demonized since the dawn of this country.

[DMX7]

http://media.mysanantonio.com/images/20100521oilspill400.jpg

Spill baby, Spill. The free market will take care of it. Don't worry.

[boutons_deux]

That pretty much sums up what you'd like us all to be.

God loves them types, so many of them, aren't you?

[Winehole23]

Cutting the engines, we slide to a stop near Rig 313. We’re not supposed to be in the restricted zone, but other than the dispersant-spraying aircraft passing overhead there’s no one to see us. Despite the thick oil, we’ve seen only two clean-up boats out of the 1,150 that the response claims to have on site: one was broken down, the other was towing it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7134581.ece

[boutons_deux]

And BP is refusing to hire the 100s or 1000s of people with boats who are out of work because of BP's fuck up.

But there is real worry that tryigng to clean the wetlands will make them worse. So maybe it's better to leave them be poisoned.

Maybe a hurricane will come and lift the poison and spread it further inland, coating the refineries and petrochemical plants. :)

[Winehole23]

Pics:

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/oil_reaches_louisiana_shores.html?camp=localsearch :on:twit:bigpic

[Winehole23]

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/20100522_0600_Situation_Status_Map.pdf

[jack sommerset]

I have to say, I am shocked the government has not made BP plug the hole. It's been over a month. What's the hold up?

[PublicOption]

neocon's can't defend this shit. LOLOLOLOLOL.

[PublicOption]

I have to say, I am shocked the government has not made BP plug the hole. It's been over a month. What's the hold up?

dipshit you don't think they are putting the pressure on these assholes to fix this shit quick.:rolleyes

[jack sommerset]

you don't think they are putting the pressure on these assholes to fix this shit quick.:rolleyes

Nope

[jack sommerset]

One flick of the wrist, Obama could have plugged that hole, stop the leak. We have seen every angle...jobs lost, enviromental dangers, cost, where to drill, where not to drill, etc,etc, etc......

For the die hard lefties, you are getting a front row seat to the politician, OBAMA. And they can't even defend what he is doing. Obama is not the smartest guy in the room and he has zero business leading the free world.

This is not Katrina. This is a man made disaster that Obama could have fixed. November can't get here any faster!

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

Yeah why hasn't Obama plugged the hole with his magic wand?

[boutons_deux]

- SpeakEasy - http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy -

UPDATED: New Oil Spill in Alaska, Pipeline is 51% Owned by BP

Posted By Daniela Perdomo On May 25, 2010 @ 5:29 pm In Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Another day, another oil spill. And before you ask: Yes, BP is involved.

We’re only catching snippets of this breaking news, but the AP reports:

Alaska environmental officials say crude oil at a pump station of the trans-Alaska pipeline flowed into a tank and than a containment area when a valve failed to close.The quantity of the release into the containment area, a pad surrounded by berms and underlain with an impervious liner, was not immediately known,

The incident occurred Tuesday afternoon during a scheduled pipeline shutdown at Pump Station 9 near Fort Greely, about 100 miles south of Fairbanks.

Meanwhile, KTVA 11, Anchorage’s CBS affiliate says that the pipeline is 51% owned by BP. Workers have been evacuated due to the threat of explosion.

Updated (@ 5:32 pm PT): KTVA reports that “several thousands of barrels worth of oil have spilled at an Alyeska Pipeline pump station.” It appears the crude oil is flowing into a containment area with a capacity of 104,500 barrels.

State officials indicate that no environmental damage has been wreaked so far and so presumably we ought be thankful the spill occurred in a containment area, but the timing couldn’t be worse — for BP, that is.

Updated (@ 5:55 pm PT): Some background! BP has a terrible track record in Alaska.

The trans-Alaskan pipeline was completed in 1977 and is 800 miles long. BP owns the largest share of it — 51 percent — and the entire thing is managed by a management consortium known as Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.

The pipeline runs to Valdez — as in Exxon-Valdez, yes. (BP was involved in that mess but avoided a lot of the bad press Exxon faced because it settled out of court.)

More recently, in 2006, a pipeline managed by BP in Prudhoe Bay faced the following: “a badly corroded 34-inch-diameter pipeline (…) lost oil for at least five days before a worker driving down a nearby service road on March 2, 2006, smelled oil and spotted the spill, which covered at least two acres of tundra. At 200,000 gallons, it was the largest ever on the North Slope.”
And I’m guessing that’s just the tip of this proverbial iceberg.

Article printed from SpeakEasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy

URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/05/25/breaking-oil-spill-in-alaska-pipeline-is-51-owned-by-bp/

[ChumpDumper]

One flick of the wrist, Obama could have plugged that hole, stop the leak.How?

[PublicOption]

One flick of the wrist, Obama could have plugged that hole, stop the leak. We have seen every angle...jobs lost, enviromental dangers, cost, where to drill, where not to drill, etc,etc, etc......

For the die hard lefties, you are getting a front row seat to the politician, OBAMA. And they can't even defend what he is doing. Obama is not the smartest guy in the room and he has zero business leading the free world.

This is not Katrina. This is a man made disaster that Obama could have fixed. November can't get here any faster!



you are a dope trying to find every way to blame Obama for everything. just face it. its not obama vs. the gop.

its big business vs the people.

the sooner you figure it out the better this country will be.


oh, and by the way. GOP/tea party fuckhead, let the free market figure out how to fix this problem in International Waters.

is that what you fucks stand for.

[RandomGuy]

One flick of the wrist, Obama could have plugged that hole, stop the leak.



http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1316

That may seriously be the dumbest thing I have seen you say and that says a LOT.

[RandomGuy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100526/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill


Witness: BP took 'shortcuts' before well blowout

COVINGTON, La. – Senior managers complained oil giant BP was "taking shortcuts" by replacing heavy drilling fluid with saltwater in the well that blew out, triggering the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to witness statements obtained by The Associated Press.

Truitt Crawford, a roustabout for drilling rig owner Transocean Ltd., told Coast Guard investigators about the complaints. The seawater, which would have provided less weight to contain surging pressure from the ocean depths, was being used to prepare for dropping a final blob of cement into the well.

"I overheard upper management talking saying that BP was taking shortcuts by displacing the well with saltwater instead of mud without sealing the well with cement plugs, this is why it blew out," Crawford said in his statement.

...

Man, oh man BP, Transocean, and Haliburton are going to be taken to the woodshed.

Seems like the case for negligence is getting a bit stronger with each passing bit that comes out.

Damage cap, smamage cap. I heard a sniglet on NPR from a firm that helps corps handle crisis that said that 11 of 12 CEOs in major crises like this were ousted.

Anybody care to bet that the CEO will hang on? I would love to bet against that. Maybe a vbookie on it? heh.

[boutons_deux]

Transocean is one of those great, patriotic, American-loving corps, based in Houston, but with 12 people in Switzerland so Transocean can avoid/evade US laws and taxes.

[RandomGuy]

http://s3.credoaction.com.s3.amazonaws.com/comics/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/TMW2010-05-26colorlowres.jpg

[MiamiHeat]

Live video feed of them trying to top kill

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html

you can see them using the robotic arms right now

[jack sommerset]

Too bad Barry did not tell them to "Plug the damn hole" a month ago.

[FromWayDowntown]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100526/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill



Man, oh man BP, Transocean, and Haliburton are going to be taken to the woodshed.

Seems like the case for negligence is getting a bit stronger with each passing bit that comes out.

Damage cap, smamage cap. I heard a sniglet on NPR from a firm that helps corps handle crisis that said that 11 of 12 CEOs in major crises like this were ousted.

Anybody care to bet that the CEO will hang on? I would love to bet against that. Maybe a vbookie on it? heh.

Come on! That witness is not to be believed over the representations of the corporation. Any objective and open-minded thinker who demands context before believing anything that is contrary to his fundamental belief in the primacy of corporate existence would know that.

I'm still not willing to rule out terrorism, acts of God, or inevitability as the real causes of the spill. I refuse to believe that BP could be at all culpable for this minor problem until every other possibility has been ruled out.

[jack sommerset]

Live feed if anyone is interested. Still cranking out oil.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/26/bp-oil-spill-live-feed-vi_n_590635.html

[ChumpDumper]

Live feed if anyone is interested. Still cranking out oil.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/26/bp-oil-spill-live-feed-vi_n_590635.htmlTell us all how Obama could stop it with a flick of his wrist.

[DarrinS]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-oil-spill-stopped-top-kill-link,0,1045555.story?track=rss





Reporting from Houma, La.Engineers have succeeded in stopping the flow of oil and gas into the Gulf of Mexico from a gushing BP well, the federal government's top oil spill commander, Adm. Thad Allen, said Thursday morning.

The so-called "top kill" effort, launched Wednesday afternoon by industry and government engineers in Houston, has pumped enough drilling fluid to block all oil and gas from the well, Allen said. The pressure from the well is very low, but persistent, he said.

Once engineers have reduced the well pressure to zero, they will begin to pump cement into the hole to entomb the well. To help that effort, he said, engineers are also pumping some debris into the blowout preventer at the top of the well.


Get the Chicago Tribune delivered to your home for only $1 a week >>

Allen said one ship that was pumping fluid into the well has run out of the fluid, or "mud," and that a second ship is on the way. He said he was encouraged by the progress.

"We'll get this under control," he said.

Allen also said that later today, an interagency team will release a revised estimate of how much oil was flowing from the well into the Gulf. The Coast Guard has estimated the flow at 5,000 barrels a day, but independent estimates suggest it is much higher -- perhaps tens of thousands of barrels a day.

[jack sommerset]

Tell us all how Obama could stop it with a flick of his wrist.

You're witnessing it.

[Wild Cobra]

Tell us all how Obama could stop it with a flick of his wrist.
So you too, are a tool for the demonrats.

It happened on his watch. If it happened under president Bush's watch, what would you be saying?

[DarrinS]

So you too, are a tool for the demonrats.

It happened on his watch. If it happened under president Bush's watch, what would you be saying?


That Bush hates black people.

[admiralsnackbar]

So you too, are a tool for the demonrats.


How do you expect anybody to take you seriously when you resort to saying dumb shit like this? It's like when boutons says "Rethugs"... all it does is betray the fact that you make all your arguments along party lines and demonize (literally, in this case) your opponents.

If you have a point, make it, and spare us the lame puns.

[boutons_deux]

I haven't taken WC or JackAss seriously for years. I read them for laughs.

Magic Negro's MMS lady got canned. dubya would have never canned anybody in MMS.

The Repug/conservative strategy is to sow hate for all govts, and destroy govts wherever they can, except when govt is tranferring taxpayers wealth to conservatives and conservative causes and corps.

[Blake]

So you too, are a tool for the demonrats.

It happened on his watch. If it happened under president Bush's watch, what would you be saying?

you're just a tool

[RandomGuy]

So you too, are a tool for the demonrats.

It happened on his watch. If it happened under president Bush's watch, what would you be saying?

I would be saying that the federal government is generally not in the business of drilling/capping wells, and should defer to the judgment of people who are in that business when it comes to the best approach, which is pretty much what happened here.

[jack sommerset]

I haven't taken WC or JackAss seriously for years. I read them for laughs.

Magic Negro's MMS lady got canned

Right back at you.

[MannyIsGod]

To say this is Obama's fault or that he hasn't done enough is pretty laughable. To compare this to the response to Katrina is downright ridiculous. Mike Brown anyone? Mike fucking Brown!!!!

In any event, I DO think this is a great reason to show just how stupid Obama was with his offshore drilling policy and if he loses support for this then good. You should lose support when you make stupid policy and then within a few weeks you have a huge example for the American public to see just why your policy is so god damn stupid.

[RandomGuy]

I haven't taken WC or JackAss seriously for years. I read them for laughs.

Magic Negro's MMS lady got canned. dubya would have never canned anybody in MMS.

The Repug/conservative strategy is to sow hate for all govts, and destroy govts wherever they can, except when govt is tranferring taxpayers wealth to conservatives and conservative causes and corps.

The real problem is the culture of deregulation that was brought to new heights under the Bush adminstration.

Conscientious government oversight was viewed as the Ultimate Evil by the Bush administration, so a very "hands off" approach was taken by just about every goverment agency charged with overseeing any aspect of business.

Cut back on FDA inspections and you get tainted milk products. (btw that "taint" was likely in the form of cow urine in the milk)

Cut back on SEC oversight of the "innovators" in the financial sector and you get credit default swaps and the recent, near-catastrophic meltdown.

Cut back on mine safety oversight, and you get people killed in easily preventable mine accidents.

Cut back on oversight of offshore drilling and you get people killed in a preventable explosion and a massive oilspill.

Sur-fucking-prise, the chickens have come home to roost.

The GOP response to this is to turn the logical conclusion on its ear, and attempt to say that any government oversight at all is the problem, when the real culprit is the LACK of oversight. When the brake system on your car fails because of a corroded brake line, you don't say "well the problem is that we have braking systems on cars", you say "fix the brake system".

It is time to get government back to being the referee that the free market system needs, and not some on-the-court spectatator.

[Wild Cobra]

To say this is Obama's fault or that he hasn't done enough is pretty laughable. To compare this to the response to Katrina is downright ridiculous. Mike Brown anyone? Mike fucking Brown!!!!

In any event, I DO think this is a great reason to show just how stupid Obama was with his offshore drilling policy and if he loses support for this then good. You should lose support when you make stupid policy and then within a few weeks you have a huge example for the American public to see just why your policy is so god damn stupid.
I agree, it's not president Obama's fault. I do find it so funny, the responses from the Peanut Gallery to my asking what would be said if it happened under President Bush's watch. I thi8nk anyone with intelligence would agree that the MSM's and liberals would "blame Bush."

Rememberv people...

I didn't blame president Obama, I only asked what the response would be if it happened under president Bush's watch.

Wow... Some of you really proved yourselves as libtards!

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think Obama should have put a wet suit one and dived down to thw well and turned it off..

[admiralsnackbar]

COVINGTON, La. - Marine scientists (http://www2.tbo.com/topic/k/marine-scientists/) from the University of South Florida (http://www2.tbo.com/topic/k/university-of-south-florida/) have discovered a massive new plume of what they believe to be oil deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico, stretching 22 miles from the leaking wellhead (http://www2.tbo.com/topic/k/wellhead/) northeast toward Mobile Bay, Alabama.
The discovery by researchers on the College of Marine Science's Weatherbird (http://www2.tbo.com/topic/k/weatherbird/) II vessel is the second significant undersea plume recorded since the Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 20.
The thick plume was detected just beneath the surface down to about 3,300 feet, and is more than 6 miles wide, said David Hollander, associate professor of chemical oceanography (http://www2.tbo.com/topic/k/chemical-oceanography/) at USF.
Hollander said the team detected the thickest amount of hydrocarbons, likely from the oil spewing from the blown out well, at about 1,300 feet in the same spot on two separate days this week.
The discovery was important, he said, because it confirmed that the substance found in the water was not naturally occurring and that the plume was at its highest concentration in deeper waters. The researchers will use further testing to determine whether the hydrocarbons they found are the result of dispersants or the emulsification (http://www2.tbo.com/topic/k/emulsification/) of oil as it traveled away from the well.
The first such plume detected by scientists stretched from the well southwest toward the open sea, but this new undersea oil cloud is headed miles inland into shallower waters where many fish and other species reproduce.
The researchers say they are worried these undersea plumes may are the result of the unprecedented use of chemical dispersants (http://www2.tbo.com/topic/k/chemical-dispersants/) to break up the oil a mile undersea at the site of the leak.
Hollander said the oil they detected has dissolved into the water, and is no longer visible, leading to fears from researchers that the toxicity from the oil and dispersants could pose a big danger to fish larvae (http://www2.tbo.com/topic/k/fish-larvae/) and filter feeders (http://www2.tbo.com/topic/k/filter-feeders/) such as sperm whales.
"There are two elements (http://www2.tbo.com/topic/k/two-elements/) to it," Hollander said. "The plume reaching waters on the continental shelf could have a toxic effect on fish larvae, and we also may see a long term response as it cascades up the food web."
An untested procedure to plug the blown-out oil well in the Gulf seemed to be working, officials said Thursday, but new estimates from scientists showed the spill has already surpassed the Exxon Valdez as the worst in U.S. history.
A team of scientists trying to determine how much oil has been flowing since the offshore rig exploded found the rate was more than twice and possibly up to five times as high as previously thought.
The fallout from the spill has stretched all the way to Washington, where the head of the federal agency that oversees offshore drilling resigned under pressure Thursday.
Even using the most conservative estimate, the new numbers mean the leak has grown to nearly 19 million gallons over the past five weeks, surpassing the size of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska, which at about 11 million gallons had been the nation's worst spill. Under the highest Gulf spill estimate, nearly 39 million gallons may have leaked, enough to fill 30 school gymnasiums.
"Now we know the true scale of the monster we are fighting in the Gulf," said Jeremy Symons, vice president of the National Wildlife Federation. "BP has unleashed an unstoppable force of appalling proportions."
BP did not immediately comment on the new estimate.
U.S. Geological Survey Director Marcia McNutt said two different teams of scientists calculated that the well has been spewing between 504,000 and more than a million gallons a day.
BP and the Coast Guard estimated soon after the explosion that about 210,000 gallons a day was leaking, but scientists who watched underwater video of well had been saying for weeks it was probably more.
Last week, BP inserted a mile-long tube to siphon some of the oil into a tanker. It sucked up 924,000 gallons, but engineers had to dismantle it so they could start the risky procedure known as a top kill to try to cut off the flow altogether by shooting heavy drilling fluid into the well.
If that works, BP will inject cement into the well to seal it. The top kill has been used above ground but has never been tried 5,000 feet beneath the sea. BP pegged its chance of success at 60 to 70 percent.
Lt. Commander Tony Russell, an aide to Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, said Thursday the mud was stopping some oil and gas but had a ways to go before it proved successful. The top kill started Wednesday night and it could be several days before officials know if it is working.
"As you inject your mud into it, it is going to stop some hydrocarbons," Russell said. "That doesn't mean it's successful."
BP spokesman Tom Mueller also discounted news reports that the top kill had worked.
"We appreciate the optimism, but the top kill operation is continuing through the day today - that hasn't changed," he said Thursday morning. "We don't anticipate being able to say anything definitive on that until later today."
In Washington, meanwhile, Minerals Management Service Director Elizabeth Birnbaum stepped down just hours before a planned White House press conference where President Barack Obama was expected to extend a moratorium on new deepwater oil drilling.
Birnbaum and her agency came under withering criticism from lawmakers of both parties over lax oversight of drilling and cozy ties with industry. An internal Interior Department report released earlier this week found that between 2000 and 2008, agency staff members accepted tickets to sports events, lunches and other gifts from oil and gas companies and used government computers to view pornography. Birnbaum had run the service since July 2009.
After receiving the results of a 30-day safety review from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Obama also planned to delay controversial lease sales off the coast of Alaska and cancel entirely plans for drilling lease sales in the Western Gulf and off the coast of Virginia, according to a White House aide.
Polls show the public is souring on the administration's handling of the catastrophe, and fishermen, hotel and restaurant owners, politicians and residents along the 100-mile stretch of Gulf coast affected by the spill are fed up with BP's failures to stop the spill. Thick oil is coating birds and delicate wetlands along the Louisiana coast.
"I have anxiety attacks," said Sarah Rigaud, owner of Sarah's Restaurant in Grand Isle, La., where the public beach was closed because blobs of oil that looked like melted chocolate had washed up on shore. "Every day I pray that something happens, that it will be stopped and everybody can get back to normal."
Seven cleanup crew members who reported dizziness, severe headaches and nausea while working in boats off the Louisiana coast remained hospitalized Thursday. The Coast Guard pulled commercial fishing boats from cleanup efforts in Breton Sound on Wednesday after workers first reported feeling sick.
If the top kill fails, BP says it has several backup plans, including sealing the well's blowout preventer with a smaller cap, which would contain the oil. An earlier attempt to cap the blowout preventer failed. BP could also try a "junk shot" - shooting golf balls and other debris into the blowout preventer to clog it up - during the top kill process.
The only permanent solution is drilling a second well, but that will take a couple of months. BP plans to go ahead with that even if the top kill works.
Though the spill is now the biggest in U.S. history, it's not the biggest ever in the Gulf. An offshore drilling rig in Mexican waters - the Ixtoc I - blew up in June 1979, releasing 140 million gallons of oil.


http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/may/27/271308/bp-shoots-mud-oil-obama-halts-drilling-plans/news-breaking/

[Wild Cobra]

It only matters if it makes landfall before the bio nature of the ocean metabolizes it.

[admiralsnackbar]

Maybe we should all be drunk right now to appreciate the quality of your brilliant analysis.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe we should all be drunk right now to appreciate the quality of your brilliant analysis.

LOL...

Right now, I will 2nd that opinion.

I don't do this very often, so be astute to the differences my opinion may be.

Believe it or not, I like to be schooled in my failings.

[boutons_deux]

WTF is "bio nature"?

Not only do you think all your thoughts are self-verifying just because they're your thoughts, but same goes for your vocab.

continuously drunk on your own self-regard

[PublicOption]

So you too, are a tool for the demonrats.

It happened on his watch. If it happened under president Bush's watch, what would you be saying?



It happened on BP's watch in International Waters......are you all brain dead or something

that fucking Drill Here/Drill Now, Corporate Lobbyist/Frank Lutz Party(GOP) is trying to blame Obama.

...........are you fucking kidding.

BP fucked up and the President is telling them to clean the fucker up, what is he supposed to do?


I think Obama should get into one of those little subs and try and plug the hole with his bare hands.:rollin

[PublicOption]

It only matters if it makes landfall before the bio nature of the ocean metabolizes it.


BIONATURE???


I bet Frank Lutz made that shit up.

[boutons_deux]

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-05-26-oilspill_large.jpg

[jack sommerset]

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-05-26-oilspill_large.jpg


Thanks alot BP and Obama!

[PixelPusher]

http://imgur.com/3mtck.jpg

[MiamiHeat]

So you too, are a tool for the demonrats.

It happened on his watch. If it happened under president Bush's watch, what would you be saying?

lol remember the time Dubya Bush was warned that Al Qaeda was determined to attack the USA using hijacked airplanes, and then 2 weeks later, Al Qaeda attacked and 3,000 americans died in the worst terrorist attack in american history?

yeah...

yeah, good times.

[PublicOption]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4ltGLlU122g/S7N_e-FfStI/AAAAAAAAAVE/cNriOMLaIdk/s400/che-guevara1242900104-1.jpg

[PublicOption]

Thanks alot BP and Obama!


:lmao

you fucks are just mental.

[PublicOption]

If you analyze carefully what the gop is doing is protecting the oil companies. that gulf oil doesn't even come to the U.S. it is exported to whoever pays more for it.

[PublicOption]

the gop doesn't want to raise the cap on BP........why?

[PublicOption]

So you too, are a tool for the demonrats.

It happened on his watch. If it happened under president Bush's watch, what would you be saying?


it would not be bush's fault. but I bet he would be trying to defend BP.:nope

[boutons_deux]

"two photos show thousands of little fish washed up dead in Waveland, Mississippi."

http://www.energyboom.com/sites/default/files/u22/waveland%20missippi%20dead%20fish.jpg


http://www.energyboom.com/sites/default/files/u22/waveland%20missippi%20dead%20fish%202.jpg

http://www.energyboom.com/policy/photos-thousands-tiny-dead-fish-washing-oil-contaminated-beach

[boutons_deux]

...

[spursncowboys]

I wonder if after a month, under Bush, would there still be oil spilling? I don't see how Pelosi can blame bush's appointees on this when obama has had plenty of time to get rid of the group who he blamed for all our previous problems (deregulation).

[boutons_deux]

"I wonder if after a month, under Bush, would there still be oil spilling"

dubya would have sent Brownie out there to do a Heckuva Job (c)

I wonder if after a month, under dubya (eww!), would BP have been doing anything different?

I'm disappointed that Magic Negro didn't clean out all dubya's and dickhead's industry lobbyists and employees stuck into regulatory agencies to compromise and gut all regulatory enforcement.

[spursncowboys]

"I wonder if after a month, under Bush, would there still be oil spilling"

dubya would have sent Brownie out there to do a Heckuva Job (c)

I wonder if after a month, under dubya (eww!), would BP have been doing anything different?

I'm disappointed that Magic Negro didn't clean out all dubya's and dickhead's industry lobbyists and employees stuck into regulatory agencies to compromise and gut all regulatory enforcement.
would they be handcuffed to clean their mess? Would there be as much red tape for them to clean their own mess?

[boutons_deux]

BP is handcuffed? G M A F B

[ChumpDumper]

Handcuffed?

Red tape?

The main delay for BP is that they really don't know what they are doing since they had no contingency plan for this. This is all experimentation. It would be taking the same time under Bush.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

Handcuffed.

[boutons_deux]

BP Says So Far, Gulf Well Plug Isn't Working


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/29/bp-says-so-far-gulf-well-_n_594501.html?view=print


BP needs to throw off those Magic Negro handcuffs and "Plug Here, Plug Now"

[boutons_deux]

He was for the tiny-ness of his oil before he was against the tiny-ness of his oil

"BP's beleaguered chief executive, Tony Hayward, yesterday drastically scaled upwards his assessment of the spill in the Gulf of Mexico. "This is clearly an environmental catastrophe. There is no two ways about it," he told CNN. "It's clear that we are dealing with a very significant environmental crisis and catastrophe." "

http://readersupportednews.com/off-site-news-section/49-49/2073-gulf-oil-spill-is-public-health-risk-top-kill-effort-continues

[spursncowboys]

I am kind of out of the loop on this one. I was in the field all month and pretty much missed this one. I read somewhere that Jindel is asking for access and federal aid and is not getting it. I also thought I read that bp has to clear everything through barry.

[ChumpDumper]

I am kind of out of the loop on this one. I was in the field all month and pretty much missed this one. I read somewhere that Jindel is asking for access and federal aid and is not getting it.That isn't BP.
I also thought I read that bp has to clear everything through barry.Actually, they have to clear it with the Coast Guard officer in charge. It would be exactly the same under any president.

[MannyIsGod]

Here's an idea, get informed before saying really stupid shit like "handcuffed".

:lol

[spursncowboys]

Here's an idea, get informed before saying really stupid shit like "handcuffed".

:lol

you're looking in the mirror while typing right?

[jack sommerset]

Blow it up. Problem solved. Barry needs to make the order.