The Gushing Oil Leak Disaster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swoop

I'm sure this will help us all to hide away in memory all the things that happened to poor old Georgy Porgy Boy.
That wasn't my point and reguardless how you feel about Obama he too should have and could have done more. Only difference between George's Katrina and Obama's BP is Obama still has time to do the right thing.

---

Still has time? When is the statute of limitations up on that Swoop? When the oil is in Key West? How about on the beach in Clearwater? How about South Padre??

Good god, the guy has done nothing but dither about what his role should be other than riding BP. Great, give them hell all you want, but don't tie up the US Corp in Engineers in a waiting game in putting out booms. Don't keep enforcing the Jones act, which stops foreign flagged ships from helping boom duty in domestic waters. Don't stop and tie up with studies the effects of putting up berms as Gov. Jindal wanted on the Louisana barrier beaches.

In short, He has talked a good game...but I think he is spending more time trying to figure out how to use this for his own political gain in getting cap and trade going then actually stopping the oil from coming ashore in the Gulf.

Bush was being burned at the stake 2 DAYS after Katrina....and the only reason that mess was as bad as it was because the brain dead governor of Louisana at the time, and that idiot Ray Nagin didn't make sure people LEFT New Orleans....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BT46B

I believe Obama is indeed trying to do the 'right thing' whatever that may be his hands are really tied with lack of options I believe. But if this had happened on Georgy Porgy's watch it would have been a grand cover up for all his buddies in BP and Halliburton, at least to the best of his ability to do so.

---

I agree whit that this however am Very perplexed by the BP people walking around so smugly waiting for the broom to push everything under the rug.
Notice I stated the BP people and not the British. Lets not get the two confused.

I love how people want to drag Dubya and Halliburton into this. This is BP's doing..period. What happens now the oil is leaking is BP's and Obama's resposibility to deal with. Obama is dropping his ball, and BP is dropping theirs.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

I too often reply to the rhetoric in kind. (Admittedly not a good habit to get into.)

I said, in my opinion, you were better than grade school or wiki twit responses, but if you prefer the former, you got it.
I will simply take your posts as grade school blather or wiki twit type.
I apologize for thinking more highly of your usual rhetoric than you prefer.

As to how much attention you give, or do not give, que sera, sera this is a inter-net forum. As a leisure activity, opinions are considered, as such.
And you are overly sensitive.
Fini.
Bob

---

Could we be regaled with your academic record, please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

I love how people want to drag Dubya and Halliburton into this. This is BP's doing..period. What happens now the oil is leaking is BP's and Obama's resposibility to deal with. Obama is dropping his ball, and BP is dropping theirs.....

---

It is odd that many people on the right who preach personal responsibility, believe in the superiority of an unfettered private sector and dislike the interference of the state are so quick to insist that the state must become involved in a crisis which is entirely the making of a private sector company and are critical when it fails to clean up said company's mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

It is odd that many people on the right who preach personal responsibility, believe in the superiority of an unfettered private sector and dislike the interference of the state are so quick to insist that the state must become involved in a crisis which is entirely the making of a private sector company and are critical when it fails to clean up said company's mess.

---

Unfortunately, the arguments between government control and free market and socialism and capitalism frequently go from one extreme to another. Due mainly to the often heated debates on this forum, I have come to the conclusion there are valid arguments for each and that the various philosophies can work together. It's merely a question of balance. Nobody will get all they want. In applying your paragraph above to the BP incident, there are conditions that need to be taken into account. Firstly, the BP rig is on an area that is claimed, controlled, and the responsibility of the United States Federal Government. Secondly, by our law, the Feds have the responsibility to police and protect the environment in the area, regardless of who makes the mess. That doesn't mean BP doesn't have to try to clean it up but it does mean that the Feds have a duty and a responsibility to make every effort to contain and control the spill. Thirdly, apparently the rig met and was operated under, at the very least, the minimum operational standards required by the Feds to drill in that area.

The criticism of the Fed's handling of the BP blow out is justified to a large extent. They have environmental responsibility in an area they want to control being used by an industry that must operate under the controls, standards, and regulations of the Federal Government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Unfortunately, the arguments between government control and free market and socialism and capitalism frequently go from one extreme to another. Due mainly to the often heated debates on this forum, I have come to the conclusion there are valid arguments for each and that the various philosophies can work together. It's merely a question of balance. Nobody will get all they want. In applying your paragraph above to the BP incident, there are conditions that need to be taken into account. Firstly, the BP rig is on an area that is claimed, controlled, and the responsibility of the United States Federal Government. Secondly, by our law, the Feds have the responsibility to police and protect the environment in the area, regardless of who makes the mess. That doesn't mean BP doesn't have to try to clean it up but it does mean that the Feds have a duty and a responsibility to make every effort to contain and control the spill. Thirdly, apparently the rig met and was operated under, at the very least, the minimum operational standards required by the Feds to drill in that area.

The criticism of the Fed's handling of the BP blow out is justified to a large extent. They have environmental responsibility in an area they want to control being used by an industry that must operate under the controls, standards, and regulations of the Federal Government.

---

All very good points, and most eloquently put.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

It is odd that many people on the right who preach personal responsibility, believe in the superiority of an unfettered private sector and dislike the interference of the state are so quick to insist that the state must become involved in a crisis which is entirely the making of a private sector company and are critical when it fails to clean up said company's mess.

---

I am going to first off say Fiero put it a little better than I did. What I am pointing out merely is that there are a lot of people wanting to blame this on Halliburton (they were involved in the consultation in the drilling of the well but advised against the BOP BP used) and Bush (just because that is the fashionable thing to do).

Ben, I know I may not always make this as clear as I should, but I can also say a number of times I have preached government is there to regulate and make sure the law is followed. Companies should be personally responsbile, but it is government that has to protect the public. Where I take issue with this situation is the sheer fact that now the oil is spilling, Obama and his various minions have at times gotten in the way of protecting the shore from damage, and have more or less let BP muck about without any firm idea of what they are doing.

In short, it is a mess...and there is a lot of blame to go around on this one. No easy or simple solutions for sure, but the best thing the government can do is cut the red tape....

This is a good, and based upon experience, I'd say accurate initial account of the problems on the rig. I might also note this is an accurate portrayal of how the heavy industry still in the US has been operating for the last 12 years. Maintenance is performed on items that are convenient to work on or may be taken off line for short periods of time without affecting production. Maintenance on items that directly affect production simply isn't done. Run it until it breaks, jump in and fix it or jerry rig it to run awhile longer, and roll. Safety is usually pretty good if it can be addressed at the local level without corporate getting involved. Like I've said in earlier posts, if you think you know how these things run and really believe that safety is the number 1 priority all the time you're actually clueless and don't know sh!t. You have to spend 3-4 years in the field on your tools to understand how the game is played. I'd bet I could even guess the brand names of the equipment that gave them the most trouble. Those items have bad reps in field use. Why are they used? Because they work real good in static demonstrations and in the lab. They meet the minimum requirements. They are high tech and engineers love them them so in they go.

Round up the usual suspects. The production guys ignored the warnings of the guys in the field doing the work and something went boom. Nothing new.

I forgot the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/us...nted=1&_r=1&hp