Another Disgusting Oil Spill!!
- Thread starter ibanez
- Start date
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3264559
The coast guard has been dealing with oil spills for decades, it's part of their job and they should have knowm exactly how much oil was leaking based on the size of the slick.
How do we know it wasn't Clinton's fault?
So what, the Coast Guard has special underwater vision that they can use to see 1 mile underwater and look at the actual leak to see how much oil is coming out? BP didn't even know how much oil was coming out of the thing for two or three days, and they OWN the stinking rig. They based the size of the slick from the data they recieved from BP. Unless they had total access to the same gear and data BP had, there's no way they could determine exactly how much oil was leaking. Has any report come out how BP determined the flow was five times more than they initially reported? Maybe the Coast Guard got to the site, look at the slick and said, "Sorry, but the size of this slick isn't indicative of a leak of 1000/barrels an hour. You sure the flow is bigger?"
http:///forum/post/3264559
The coast guard has been dealing with oil spills for decades, it's part of their job and they should have knowm exactly how much oil was leaking based on the size of the slick.
How do we know it wasn't Clinton's fault?
So what, the Coast Guard has special underwater vision that they can use to see 1 mile underwater and look at the actual leak to see how much oil is coming out? BP didn't even know how much oil was coming out of the thing for two or three days, and they OWN the stinking rig. They based the size of the slick from the data they recieved from BP. Unless they had total access to the same gear and data BP had, there's no way they could determine exactly how much oil was leaking. Has any report come out how BP determined the flow was five times more than they initially reported? Maybe the Coast Guard got to the site, look at the slick and said, "Sorry, but the size of this slick isn't indicative of a leak of 1000/barrels an hour. You sure the flow is bigger?"
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3264598
So what, the Coast Guard has special underwater vision that they can use to see 1 mile underwater and look at the actual leak to see how much oil is coming out? BP didn't even know how much oil was coming out of the thing for two or three days, and they OWN the stinking rig. They based the size of the slick from the data they recieved from BP. Unless they had total access to the same gear and data BP had, there's no way they could determine exactly how much oil was leaking. Has any report come out how BP determined the flow was five times more than they initially reported? Maybe the Coast Guard got to the site, look at the slick and said, "Sorry, but the size of this slick isn't indicative of a leak of 1000/barrels an hour. You sure the flow is bigger?"
Oil floats on water. You don't need a special underwater camera to see the size of the slick. They can look at the size and thickness of the slick and get a pretty good idea of the amount of oil coming out, enough to know if the leak was several time larger than originally thought. Face it, the Obama administration dropped the ball on this one. I think it's because they don't care about the white folks living on the coasts
http:///forum/post/3264598
So what, the Coast Guard has special underwater vision that they can use to see 1 mile underwater and look at the actual leak to see how much oil is coming out? BP didn't even know how much oil was coming out of the thing for two or three days, and they OWN the stinking rig. They based the size of the slick from the data they recieved from BP. Unless they had total access to the same gear and data BP had, there's no way they could determine exactly how much oil was leaking. Has any report come out how BP determined the flow was five times more than they initially reported? Maybe the Coast Guard got to the site, look at the slick and said, "Sorry, but the size of this slick isn't indicative of a leak of 1000/barrels an hour. You sure the flow is bigger?"
Oil floats on water. You don't need a special underwater camera to see the size of the slick. They can look at the size and thickness of the slick and get a pretty good idea of the amount of oil coming out, enough to know if the leak was several time larger than originally thought. Face it, the Obama administration dropped the ball on this one. I think it's because they don't care about the white folks living on the coasts
the maggot
Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3264621
Oil floats on water. You don't need a special underwater camera to see the size of the slick. They can look at the size and thickness of the slick and get a pretty good idea of the amount of oil coming out, enough to know if the leak was several time larger than originally thought. Face it, the Obama administration dropped the ball on this one. I think it's because they don't care about the white folks living on the coasts
Once the oil is on the shore the white folks won't be white anymore!
http:///forum/post/3264621
Oil floats on water. You don't need a special underwater camera to see the size of the slick. They can look at the size and thickness of the slick and get a pretty good idea of the amount of oil coming out, enough to know if the leak was several time larger than originally thought. Face it, the Obama administration dropped the ball on this one. I think it's because they don't care about the white folks living on the coasts
Once the oil is on the shore the white folks won't be white anymore!
fishtaco
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3264621
Oil floats on water. You don't need a special underwater camera to see the size of the slick. They can look at the size and thickness of the slick and get a pretty good idea of the amount of oil coming out, enough to know if the leak was several time larger than originally thought. Face it, the Obama administration dropped the ball on this one. I think it's because they don't care about the white folks living on the coasts
Okay, as far as who is to blame. This is what I read today, due to deregulation that happened during the Bush admistration, but was mainly Cheney's deal they where not required to install a fail-safe device that it seems most other countries require. It is also pretty obvious at this point BP did not have anything or anyway to close down the spill. I don't think most people had any idea that there was a safety problem like this. I feel like this is another case of corporate profits above all else and now the people living along the gulf coast are going to pay. I think blaming the government is just more sour grapes, this is BP's rig, BP's spill and BP's bill for everything. If they can't keep this kind of thing from happening then they should let others who can. Less government and less regulation is great except when something like this happens and you can blame the other guy huh?
Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3264621
Oil floats on water. You don't need a special underwater camera to see the size of the slick. They can look at the size and thickness of the slick and get a pretty good idea of the amount of oil coming out, enough to know if the leak was several time larger than originally thought. Face it, the Obama administration dropped the ball on this one. I think it's because they don't care about the white folks living on the coasts
Okay, as far as who is to blame. This is what I read today, due to deregulation that happened during the Bush admistration, but was mainly Cheney's deal they where not required to install a fail-safe device that it seems most other countries require. It is also pretty obvious at this point BP did not have anything or anyway to close down the spill. I don't think most people had any idea that there was a safety problem like this. I feel like this is another case of corporate profits above all else and now the people living along the gulf coast are going to pay. I think blaming the government is just more sour grapes, this is BP's rig, BP's spill and BP's bill for everything. If they can't keep this kind of thing from happening then they should let others who can. Less government and less regulation is great except when something like this happens and you can blame the other guy huh?
Fishtaco
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3264761
Okay, as far as who is to blame. This is what I read today, due to deregulation that happened during the Bush admistration, but was mainly Cheney's deal they where not required to install a fail-safe device that it seems most other countries require. It is also pretty obvious at this point BP did not have anything or anyway to close down the spill. I don't think most people had any idea that there was a safety problem like this. I feel like this is another case of corporate profits above all else and now the people living along the gulf coast are going to pay. I think blaming the government is just more sour grapes, this is BP's rig, BP's spill and BP's bill for everything. If they can't keep this kind of thing from happening then they should let others who can. Less government and less regulation is great except when something like this happens and you can blame the other guy huh?
Fishtaco
There was NO change in regulation under Bush but nice try my little left wing buddy
In all seriousness at this point NOBODY knows who's fault this is, if anybody's. It could have been a freak accident that triggered a set of events nobody saw coming. There is no doubt about BP being responsible. There is also no doubt the federal response was much too slow. Less government regulation is good if you are talking about keeping them out of aspects of our lives where they have no business being. Having EFFECTIVE regulation in those areas where they belong is a good thing. Having people who were actually watching the banking industry rather than constantly watching ---- would have been a nice start.
http:///forum/post/3264761
Okay, as far as who is to blame. This is what I read today, due to deregulation that happened during the Bush admistration, but was mainly Cheney's deal they where not required to install a fail-safe device that it seems most other countries require. It is also pretty obvious at this point BP did not have anything or anyway to close down the spill. I don't think most people had any idea that there was a safety problem like this. I feel like this is another case of corporate profits above all else and now the people living along the gulf coast are going to pay. I think blaming the government is just more sour grapes, this is BP's rig, BP's spill and BP's bill for everything. If they can't keep this kind of thing from happening then they should let others who can. Less government and less regulation is great except when something like this happens and you can blame the other guy huh?
Fishtaco
There was NO change in regulation under Bush but nice try my little left wing buddy
In all seriousness at this point NOBODY knows who's fault this is, if anybody's. It could have been a freak accident that triggered a set of events nobody saw coming. There is no doubt about BP being responsible. There is also no doubt the federal response was much too slow. Less government regulation is good if you are talking about keeping them out of aspects of our lives where they have no business being. Having EFFECTIVE regulation in those areas where they belong is a good thing. Having people who were actually watching the banking industry rather than constantly watching ---- would have been a nice start.
mrdc
Active Member
[QUOTE=reefraff;3264800 There is no doubt about BP being responsible.
To pick up on that ... here are some exerts from a BP 2009 document:
BP suggested in a 2009 exploration plan and environmental impact analysis for the well that an accident leading to a giant crude oil spill and serious damage to beaches, fish and mammals was unlikely, or virtually impossible. The company conceded a spill would impact beaches, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, but 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, Mississippi-based environmental lawyer and board member for the Gulf Restoration Network, said he doesn't see anything in the document suggesting BP addressed the kind of technology needed to control a spill at that depth of water.
SO basically BP had no plan for such a disaster. Guess my APR will be going up on my BP card!
To pick up on that ... here are some exerts from a BP 2009 document:
BP suggested in a 2009 exploration plan and environmental impact analysis for the well that an accident leading to a giant crude oil spill and serious damage to beaches, fish and mammals was unlikely, or virtually impossible. The company conceded a spill would impact beaches, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, but 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, Mississippi-based environmental lawyer and board member for the Gulf Restoration Network, said he doesn't see anything in the document suggesting BP addressed the kind of technology needed to control a spill at that depth of water.
SO basically BP had no plan for such a disaster. Guess my APR will be going up on my BP card!
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by mrdc
http:///forum/post/3264807
To pick up on that ... here are some exerts from a BP 2009 document:
BP suggested in a 2009 exploration plan and environmental impact analysis for the well that an accident leading to a giant crude oil spill and serious damage to beaches, fish and mammals was unlikely, or virtually impossible. The company conceded a spill would impact beaches, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, but 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, Mississippi-based environmental lawyer and board member for the Gulf Restoration Network, said he doesn't see anything in the document suggesting BP addressed the kind of technology needed to control a spill at that depth of water.
SO basically BP had no plan for such a disaster. Guess my APR will be going up on my BP card!
So how many spills like this have occured in the last 70 years? I don't think it's ever happened like this before, Going forward the regs will change because now it's painfully obvious it can happen.
http:///forum/post/3264807
To pick up on that ... here are some exerts from a BP 2009 document:
BP suggested in a 2009 exploration plan and environmental impact analysis for the well that an accident leading to a giant crude oil spill and serious damage to beaches, fish and mammals was unlikely, or virtually impossible. The company conceded a spill would impact beaches, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, but 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, Mississippi-based environmental lawyer and board member for the Gulf Restoration Network, said he doesn't see anything in the document suggesting BP addressed the kind of technology needed to control a spill at that depth of water.
SO basically BP had no plan for such a disaster. Guess my APR will be going up on my BP card!
So how many spills like this have occured in the last 70 years? I don't think it's ever happened like this before, Going forward the regs will change because now it's painfully obvious it can happen.
mrdc
Active Member
Seems like backup plans get implemented most of the time after the disaster occurs. That's too bad. At least at my company we have disaster recovery scenarios we have to follow a couple times a year so we can know what to do in case of a major fire, tornado or some sort of other disaster.
I guess Hollywood will be having fund raisers soon.
I guess Hollywood will be having fund raisers soon.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by mrdc
http:///forum/post/3264816
Seems like backup plans get implemented most of the time after the disaster occurs. That's too bad. At least at my company we have disaster recovery scenarios we have to follow a couple times a year so we can know what to do in case of a major fire, tornado or some sort of other disaster.
I guess Hollywood will be having fund raisers soon.
Yep, double hull tankers were a result of the Valdez
http:///forum/post/3264816
Seems like backup plans get implemented most of the time after the disaster occurs. That's too bad. At least at my company we have disaster recovery scenarios we have to follow a couple times a year so we can know what to do in case of a major fire, tornado or some sort of other disaster.
I guess Hollywood will be having fund raisers soon.
Yep, double hull tankers were a result of the Valdez
ibanez
Member
What do you people expect out of the government. The whole setup of democracy pretty much makes it to where every process is slow. They have to make sure every ground is covered or else everyone tears it apart. If they respond too quickly and weren't needed people say how the government wastes money on worthless stuff when they should be doing other things. If it takes three or four days to make a plan and organize forces, people say it is too slow. IMO, no one person has control in the government to make decisions and act immediately. Even though they make it seem like the president does. His term is only 4 years, he spends the first four years campaining so that he is elected for another 4 years so that at the end of the final four years he can start working on his agendas. Just my opinion.
bulldog123
Member
Im glad they have had "obscene windfall profits" or we the people would be paying for this.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by IbanEz
http:///forum/post/3264937
What do you people expect out of the government. The whole setup of democracy pretty much makes it to where every process is slow. They have to make sure every ground is covered or else everyone tears it apart. If they respond too quickly and weren't needed people say how the government wastes money on worthless stuff when they should be doing other things. If it takes three or four days to make a plan and organize forces, people say it is too slow. IMO, no one person has control in the government to make decisions and act immediately. Even though they make it seem like the president does. His term is only 4 years, he spends the first four years campaining so that he is elected for another 4 years so that at the end of the final four years he can start working on his agendas. Just my opinion.
If they had worried less about photo ops and more about reacting they could have had more resources in place to protect the coasts. I guess we learned nothing from Katrina. They knew days ago this was out of control.
http:///forum/post/3264937
What do you people expect out of the government. The whole setup of democracy pretty much makes it to where every process is slow. They have to make sure every ground is covered or else everyone tears it apart. If they respond too quickly and weren't needed people say how the government wastes money on worthless stuff when they should be doing other things. If it takes three or four days to make a plan and organize forces, people say it is too slow. IMO, no one person has control in the government to make decisions and act immediately. Even though they make it seem like the president does. His term is only 4 years, he spends the first four years campaining so that he is elected for another 4 years so that at the end of the final four years he can start working on his agendas. Just my opinion.
If they had worried less about photo ops and more about reacting they could have had more resources in place to protect the coasts. I guess we learned nothing from Katrina. They knew days ago this was out of control.
ibanez
Member
Your only as strong as your weakest link. It takes time for formulate a plan, he isn't the almighty, he is just a figure head. At least he wasn't on vacation on the ranch when this happened. I don't know why people expect anything extra from the president. He puts his pants on one leg at a time just like us. If he had any power at all, I am sure he would shut down fox news with the snap of his fingers. LOL
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by mrdc
http:///forum/post/3264807
To pick up on that ... here are some exerts from a BP 2009 document:
BP suggested in a 2009 exploration plan and environmental impact analysis for the well that an accident leading to a giant crude oil spill and serious damage to beaches, fish and mammals was unlikely, or virtually impossible. The company conceded a spill would impact beaches, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, but 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, Mississippi-based environmental lawyer and board member for the Gulf Restoration Network, said he doesn't see anything in the document suggesting BP addressed the kind of technology needed to control a spill at that depth of water.
SO basically BP had no plan for such a disaster. Guess my APR will be going up on my BP card!
This is simply not the case, first off, if BP went out and said, we think there is a good chance for an oil spill MMS would not have signed off on drilling. Nor should they have. Be like getting in the car and saying I have a good chance of wrecking. No one does that on purpose...
Secondly BP not having a disaster plan is absurd. BP and other major oil companies all have either oil spill response departments or are part of a larger Co-op. Where they have a fleet of oil spill ships stratigically placed around the gulf. That respond to a potential oil spill, and they are very good at what they do. You should look at a map and see the pipelines, and oil platforms around the gulf. There are thousands. And they've had 4-5 hurricanes a year come through there and stir everything up, with no major problems. Not that there weren't lost platforms after those hurricanes... They went out and responded to the failures, and you never heard a thing about it. They are that good...
They just aren't this good, apperantly...
http:///forum/post/3264807
To pick up on that ... here are some exerts from a BP 2009 document:
BP suggested in a 2009 exploration plan and environmental impact analysis for the well that an accident leading to a giant crude oil spill and serious damage to beaches, fish and mammals was unlikely, or virtually impossible. The company conceded a spill would impact beaches, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, but 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, Mississippi-based environmental lawyer and board member for the Gulf Restoration Network, said he doesn't see anything in the document suggesting BP addressed the kind of technology needed to control a spill at that depth of water.
SO basically BP had no plan for such a disaster. Guess my APR will be going up on my BP card!
This is simply not the case, first off, if BP went out and said, we think there is a good chance for an oil spill MMS would not have signed off on drilling. Nor should they have. Be like getting in the car and saying I have a good chance of wrecking. No one does that on purpose...
Secondly BP not having a disaster plan is absurd. BP and other major oil companies all have either oil spill response departments or are part of a larger Co-op. Where they have a fleet of oil spill ships stratigically placed around the gulf. That respond to a potential oil spill, and they are very good at what they do. You should look at a map and see the pipelines, and oil platforms around the gulf. There are thousands. And they've had 4-5 hurricanes a year come through there and stir everything up, with no major problems. Not that there weren't lost platforms after those hurricanes... They went out and responded to the failures, and you never heard a thing about it. They are that good...
They just aren't this good, apperantly...
zman1
Active Member
Once again, inept BIG BUSINESS needing bailed out by Big Government... Katrina was a natural disaster, this is man made. Government failed here in believing business could take care and had plans in place for their core business. One again we were let down by business.
Drill Baby Drill
Drill Baby Drill
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3265051
Once again, inept BIG BUSINESS needing bailed out by Big Government... Katrina was a natural disaster, this is man made. Government failed here in believing business could take care and had plans in place for their core business. One again we were let down by business.
Drill Baby Drill
lol that would be like saying the government failed bc the challenger blew up.
http:///forum/post/3265051
Once again, inept BIG BUSINESS needing bailed out by Big Government... Katrina was a natural disaster, this is man made. Government failed here in believing business could take care and had plans in place for their core business. One again we were let down by business.
Drill Baby Drill
lol that would be like saying the government failed bc the challenger blew up.
bionicarm
Active Member
BP has a check valve on the drill site. Problem is, they can't get it to turn off. They've sent remote subs down to try and do it, and it won't shut off. I also read there's now three different leaks at the site. Don't know if that's from the platform breaking up, or excess pressure from the original hole. The only other thing I read is they were going to try and put a temporary line over the top of the valve and pump the oil directly into tankers. Problem is, they've never successfully tried this at this depth.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by IbanEz
http:///forum/post/3265007
Your only as strong as your weakest link. It takes time for formulate a plan, he isn't the almighty, he is just a figure head. At least he wasn't on vacation on the ranch when this happened. I don't know why people expect anything extra from the president. He puts his pants on one leg at a time just like us. If he had any power at all, I am sure he would shut down fox news with the snap of his fingers. LOL
So when Bush, while on vacation offered to send in help before the storm, and was refused by the governor of LA he was doing nothing? I guess declaring the area a disaster area before the storm even hit was doing nothing either.
Obama gave a nice spreach about the spill. He sent a couple of officials down to to talk.
You are right about one thing. If Obama could shut down Fox news he would. These Chicago politician don't like having their BS exposed.
http:///forum/post/3265007
Your only as strong as your weakest link. It takes time for formulate a plan, he isn't the almighty, he is just a figure head. At least he wasn't on vacation on the ranch when this happened. I don't know why people expect anything extra from the president. He puts his pants on one leg at a time just like us. If he had any power at all, I am sure he would shut down fox news with the snap of his fingers. LOL
So when Bush, while on vacation offered to send in help before the storm, and was refused by the governor of LA he was doing nothing? I guess declaring the area a disaster area before the storm even hit was doing nothing either.
Obama gave a nice spreach about the spill. He sent a couple of officials down to to talk.
You are right about one thing. If Obama could shut down Fox news he would. These Chicago politician don't like having their BS exposed.