Quote
sdstonesguy
Let's face it...like everything else important in the world, we really don't care enough to do anything about it. We'll all spend thousands of dollars/euros/whatever on Stones tickets...but we'll donate maybe $20 to Greenpeace/NRDC/Sierra Club/etc. We won't spend thousands to reduce our energy/water uses. We're all talk...all of us.

Totally agree with that...and not only that, I think one of the best things the Stones could do, in terms of legacy and giving back, would be to do the 2 year tour, donating ALL net proceeds to charitable causes including this.

They don't need the money obviously, and they would silence a lot of the criticism.

It would be an amazing way to cap a fabulous career.

It's undeniable that Bush ignored New Orleans. But more so, Chertoff ignored New Orleans even more.

Bush, however, did not create Katrina just as Obama did not drill for oil and make stupid decisions that led to a rig blowing up. Certainly the response to the oil leak has been problematic but I do think, actually, that Obama is doing what he can. Could Bush and FEMA and all have done a better job? Obviously that's a big fat yes. I'm at a loss if Obama and everyone can do more or better with this. It's so much bigger. And just how the hell do you clean this gigantic deep mess up? Well, for one, BP could let Costner in with his 10 centrifuge devices to help. That might be a huge difference. But no...BP needs to think about it some more.

A big problem with this whole BP vs Federal Government Oil Clean Up is the 1990 law. A lot of the talk on WWL is if the feds do take over BP is essentially off the hook - so do we wait for BP to stop thinking and do something or do we take action now and just not concern ourselves with BP because it simply needs to get done?

So that's the heart of why people are calling this Obama's Katrina. But it's utterly different. The Feds ARE helping in clean up. But that is all. It's totally BP's responsibility, hence the 'BP will pay' language.

No matter what - politically, financially, environmentally and whatever else, it's a giant mess that has spun (or leaked) out of control.

Oh and so far that little top hat just doesn't seem to be working does it.

right, and now you will start to blame this on BUSH. Pathetic.

No-bama has done nada but the media will not say it. Also, pathetic.

Quote
mickscarey

No-bama has done nada but the media will not say it.

They HAVE said it, or at least, they've implied it. But wasn't it McCain and Palin who campaigned on the "drill, baby, drill" slogan? If they had won the election, they'd be in the same position Obama is in now. Worse, in fact, since they would have been even slower to react to the crisis than Obama was, and, unlike Obama, they would be conspiring with BP to downplay the magnitude of the disaster as much as possible.

I will always remember what one of Reagan's guys said. He said something like "we write the history now, the facts no longer matter. We will do what we want to do and intellectuals & historians will sit around debating it & seeking the truth. By the time they have settled on what really happened, we'll have long gone on to several other things that we have created...and they will then debate & analyze those things. That now we create our own facts and reality, and everyone else just debates & analyzes it."

That was been so very for some time in this country. We the voters actually argue about sides now rather than issues. If our "side" says X is the right answer to the subject, we follow. If you're on the left...you now debate why military spending is so high, 2 wars ongoing, GITMO still open, minimum wage not increased & indexed for inflation, lack of tax reform to more closely reflect the history of the US and not the trickle down economic concepts adopted since 1981...and you do so defending the President on the left. If you're on the right you blame the left or defend the right for bringing the gov't into your personal lives with gay marriage, abortion, drugs and you defend the massive deficits since Reagan with the trickle down economic theory & massive military spending. You blame the pennies of welfare & ignore wars & massive spending on make believe enemies. Both sides do this b/c we are now Dems & Reps...and we don't actually believe in ideas. Republicans of the past would be hugely against the massive military, the war in Iraq and trickle down economics (strangely, many Republicans were against this absurd concept until Reagan won...Bush Sr. called it Voodoo Economics). They would want the gov't out of our lives...not worrying about who is marrying whom. Dems would never accept the massive military spending either. In fact...of old...it would be Dems for social spending (education/agriculture/infrustructure/energy...which are tiny departments in the fed gov't) and the Reps would be for state rights on most issues with few social services and instead that money spent on defense (which would still be HUGELY less than what we spend now). Instead of this...we fight each other & call the President a fascist/socialist/communist (evidence our educational system is lacking)...and keep ignoring our actual issues.

For those who do not know...the US spends money on 3 things. Healthcare, Defense & the Dept of the Treasury (which inlcludes huge amounts of interest). All the other stuff is nickel & dime...but that is the stuff we fight about.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-07 05:53 by sdstonesguy.

that picture kills me. it kills me. i knew this was happening and i knew it was coming of course we all did. who knows how much the dispersant has itself killed?
omg this a sin of arrogance and destruction that has to change everything. this could threaten the entire world. !! what if another one or two popped? how many have and never made the news? this is evil. it's just evil. it's greed and evil and our culture will forever wear this stain of cruelty and deservedly so...this is exponentially horrifying. this creatures have every right to not be attacked and punishsed like this... the entire game has to change.... and it won't .... much...
every human being on this planet should be ashamed of the entire species...i am devastatsed to see this. i won't look at one more picture of this kind of thing. it's too much for me

mickscarey, I'm sure a lot of people would or do blame it on Bush. The oil leak is what I'm guessing your stupid comment is about. It's not accurate to do that, to blame it on Bushy. Don't know why you'd say such a dumb fukcing thing like that though.

I'm not surprised though.

blame is a big word and this is a big issue. to think that george w. bush texas oilman and son of cia king his dad who pretty much made kuwait the fiftyfirst state and had huge coziness with his home industry of choice and personal fortune...and the people and culture who control this kind of thing in a regulatory fashion as is the cheif execs responsibility, IF he is on the level, not playing favorites and NOT endanger the world by making the world safe for big oil. we are creeping close to politics but he's not running for anything. and his administrastion and influence and the related regulations and lack of them, is certainly part of ANY reasonable big picture analysis imo.

Nothing to do with the oil spill,but here is a great tribute to New Orleans after Katrina :







I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

In case you haven't been cryogenized for the past month or so, you're probably well aware of the BP/Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It first started as a tragic explosion and fire on April 20, 2010, killing eleven oil platform workers and injuring another 115.

To realize the potential harm this incident can do to both the environment and BP themselves, let's just take a look at the facts known so far. First of all, two whole days had to pass after the Deepwater Horizon oil-drilling platform exploded and succumbed into the ocean until BP announced it was deploying a remotely operated underwater vehicle to "assess whether oil was flowing from the well" or not.

So... let me get this straight. There's an offshore oil platform which explodes while it was drilling an exploratory well, after which it sinks a few kilometers into the ocean, on top of the oil well it was drilling, right? Right. So, amidst the explosion, fire, and sinking of a half a billion US dollars worth of oil rig BP had to wait 48 hours just to start an assessment about a possible oil spill into the ocean?

To make matters worse, BP doesn't exactly have the most exemplary safety record among other oil companies, so their late response to this potentially catastrophic event is dumbfounding. Let's just take a look at a few other examples from BP's safety record in the last few years.

In 2005, BP's Texas City, Texas refinery - one of its largest refineries – exploded, causing 15 deaths, injuring 180 people and forcing thousand of local inhabitants to remain in their homes for shelter from the pollution. Apparently, the explosion happened as a culmination of a series of less serious accidents at the refinery, and the engineering problems had not been addressed by the upper management. Later it was found that maintenance and safety at the refinery had been cut as a cost-saving measure, which just goes to show how much concern BP has for this important aspect of their business.

Just a year later from this incident, one of BP's Alaskan oil pipelines became corroded and spilled no less than 212,252 US gallons of crude oil onto Alaska's North Slope. The funny bit, if you can call it that way, is that the whole oil spill came from a single hole in the pipeline, measuring only a quarter of an inch (0.64 centimeters) in diameter. As usual, it took BP quite a hefty amount of time to realize what was happening. As in the other incident, questions were asked about why the US $200 million a year allegedly spent by BP on maintenance weren't enough to keep the oil pipeline running without suffering any corrosion problems.

In 2007, the same Alaskan oil field which was supplying the aforementioned pipeline was again partially shut down because of some water leaks. The very same year, about 2,000 gallons of methanol and crude oil were spilled onto a frozen tundra pond from a pipeline belonging to the same oil field. These two incidents obviously happened because of poor management concerning the safety part of oil-drilling, but it doesn't stop there.

BP's safety record nightmare and probably first real nail in their coffin happened this year, with the help of the Deepwater Horizon ocean incident. Apparently, the actual oil spill flow rate hasn't even been reliably established yet.

The initial estimates from BP have been multiplied from five to no less than twenty times by individual experts so far, but even they might be a bit too optimistic. Personally, I think that says a lot about BP's more than ineffective PR department, which has only managed so far to deepen the crisis. Not to mention the moronic statement from the company's own CEO, Tony Hayward, whose first public statement about the incident was that the volume of the oil spill and the dispersants that are pumped into the water are "tiny" compared to the size of the ocean.

Sure it is Mr. Hayward, but as an autoevolution commenter said, a 50 caliber bullet hole is tiny compared to the overall volume of a human's body as well, but I'm pretty sure it's also deadly as hell (hey, it even rhymes!). Not to mention the fact that the "tiny" oil leak has been flowing for more than a month now, and the most optimistic opinions give it another three months or so. During this period, the oil spill could reach as far as the Florida shores and even beyond, thus becoming the largest man-made disaster in history.

In conclusion, I have a few unanswered questions about this incident, and I'm pretty sure that the answers to each and everyone of them aren't showing up because it would probably result in a Mortal Kombat-like "fatality" blow to the company.

The total costs for containing the spillage are currently around a billion US dollars. If we add the cost of the now-destroyed oil drilling platform - which was $560 million - the hundreds of millions lost because of never getting back all that oil, the upcoming lawsuits from people and industries affected by the spillage and the liabilities imposed by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the total sum should well exceed 10 billion US dollars. That figure will most likely double if the liability limit is increased from the current $75 million to no less than $10 billion, following a legislation change which is currently being pushed by US lawmakers.

OK, since we got through most of the facts, my questions are as follows:

- could this incident have been avoided altogether? Some say that it could have, and I'm inclined to agree.

- did the BP officials tried to cover up the whole thing, only to later on downplay the consequences? Actually, this one is a no-brainer considering the first official statements and the fact that to this day BP has denied access to any independent expert or media at the incident scene.

- will BP collapse because of this or will it be taken over at a dumping price by one of its competitors? Some sources point to Royal Dutch Shell or even Exxon (of Exxon Valdez fame, remember), as potential buyers .

- how big is the actual environment impact of the oil spill, and how long will it last? Since the spillage is far from over, while the official statements on the matter are as contradictory as black and white, no one can tell. Remember that the Gulf War oil spill (largest in history, so far) is still having an effect on the Saudi Arabian shorelines.

- is this the last similar incident on behalf of BP? Taking into account their safety records, chances are it's not, but let's hope they'll prove me wrong.

Probably the biggest irony in all this predicament is the fact that when the Deepwater Horizon explosion happened, there were four BP officials on board the oil rig. What were they doing there, you ask? Well, apparently they were celebrating the platform's safety record... and this is no joke.

[www.autoevolution.com]

---

I am not sure I understod everything here but some facts that are stated here seem to really hit the point .What do you think ?



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

It's downright disgusting . The animals that will suffer needlessly and the impact on the enviornment will be devastating .

The fines that BP are responsible to pay allowable by law are ridiculous !

Please , if you have any care for your world boycott BP !!

Quote
boston2006


Please , if you have any care for your world boycott BP !!

Isn't is stupid to boycott BP when they need all the dollars to compensate from what they did ? Is it going to help the situation in any way ?
BTw, I was just wondering ,how do you know the gasoline you buy comes from BP ? It's not written on the gas pumps in France .

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
boston2006


Please , if you have any care for your world boycott BP !!

Isn't is stupid to boycott BP when they need all the dollars to compensate from what they did ? Is it going to help the situation in any way ?
BTw, I was just wondering ,how do you know the gasoline you buy comes from BP ? It's not written on the gas pumps in France .

Here's my understanding:

BP owns the ruptured well and they sell their oil to refineries.
Those refineries then sell to fuel distributors who, in turn, sell to retailers.
BP's oil turns up as fuel at the retail level under any number of brands, and vice versa.

Boycotting BP gas stations would have little, if any, effect on BP.
Perhaps it could do more harm to small business owners in our local communities.

I'd like someone with more knowledge along these lines to comment on this.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-08 15:01 by Edith Grove.

Gas station owners have a contract with BP. The owner of a Safeway in Alabama is selling BP gas. He can't sell any other gas until the contract is up. If people don't want to support BP they won't buy the gasoline. Period. If the local owner suffers because of that then that's his problem. Afterall, like another BP person said, there are other places to get shrimp than Louisiana.

To my knowledge, having noticed the BP stations in my area disappeared, BP has entirely pulled out of Louisiana, with their own stores and subsidiary stores.

Instead they've gooed all over the state and the Gulf Coast and pretty soon the East Coast.

Here is something good on Haywod, how he wants his life back:

[www.nola.com]

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
boston2006


Please , if you have any care for your world boycott BP !!

Isn't is stupid to boycott BP when they need all the dollars to compensate from what they did ? Is it going to help the situation in any way ?
BTw, I was just wondering ,how do you know the gasoline you buy comes from BP ? It's not written on the gas pumps in France .

You're kidding me right ?

These large oil companies have so much cash in reserves that nom matter what fines they pay they will still be floating on a sea of cash . And where do you think that cash comes from ? I can't wait to see the cost of home heating oil next winter .

Quote
Edith Grove

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
boston2006


Please , if you have any care for your world boycott BP !!

Isn't is stupid to boycott BP when they need all the dollars to compensate from what they did ? Is it going to help the situation in any way ?
BTw, I was just wondering ,how do you know the gasoline you buy comes from BP ? It's not written on the gas pumps in France .

Here's my understanding:

BP owns the ruptured well and they sell their oil to refineries.
Those refineries then sell to fuel distributors who, in turn, sell to retailers.
BP's oil turns up as fuel at the retail level under any number of brands, and vice versa.

Boycotting BP gas stations would have little, if any, effect on BP.
Perhaps it could do more harm to small business owners in our local communities.

I'd like someone with more knowledge along these lines to comment on this.

That's how I understand it as well. Plus BP is very well diversified. They also make Castrol motor oil. As well as many other products. Very difficult to boycott BP. Instead support gulf coast seafood in your local stores. As well as just hammering your local politicians about hammering BP and making sure they pay for everything.

Quote
boston2006
You're kidding me right ?

These large oil companies have so much cash in reserves that nom matter what fines they pay they will still be floating on a sea of cash . And where do you think that cash comes from ? I can't wait to see the cost of home heating oil next winter .

No,I wasn't kidding you ,boston .
I was just wondering .May I ?

I was just trying to say that may be it's better to "take " all what you can from BP ,because IMO a boycott of BP doesn't sound neither realistic ,nor an efficient solution .

I can't wait to see the cost of home heating oil next winter
We had once this s**** in France, in case you don't know .


What I am just trying to say -and it's worthwhile for United States AND France too ,is :

As oil spill damages Gulf, will U.S. change energy use?
Will you rush to smaller cars or spend more to buy hybrids?
I don't .
Will politicians adopt other measures to punish fossil-fuel burning and encourage alternative energy use?


The true question isn't "Why " but "How "

"No-bama has done nada but the media will not say it."

- --- done nada? What? Just because he doesn't go on TV every half hour, act angry and really accomplish nothing, ala George Bush?

What's Obama supposed to do? Dive to the bottom of the ocean and take a photo op, tread water and point at the leak, nodding and looking like an oil covered pelican?

Obama can't fire BP executives..either ..that's their job..

Yes, beaches and other ecosystems down there are being polluted by this spill, but Obama can't wave a magic wand that could have prevented it or can fix this disaster in an instant.

So, what he's doing is exactly what a President should do; acting professionally and thoughtfully and working on the problem. Who needs another clueless wonder in a cowboy hat going around on TV every half hour reminding everyone that he's "the decider?"

BP is still in charge of executing the leak fix.

Obama going on TV every half hour to show how angry he is isn't going to make the oil stop gushing from the well. Obama going on TV and being angry isn't going to stop oil from spilling onto beaches, either. As long as he is on top of things, mitigating from behind the scenes, which he is, what else matters? That hardly means he is doing 'nada'. The surest way of repairing the leak is the relief well and this will not be done until August. All of these other flashy BP solutions are just publicity stunts from BP, with whom the real outrage belongs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-08 22:05 by stones77.

so sorry skip i thought u had targeted me for some bad comments by name but it cud be so wrong and so sorry if so....totally apologize. yes i will tell my psyche to up the meds....u and sd and others here giving so much heart thought infothank u

Beely - what is all that shit in there? Where did that come from? Did I miss something? I don't understand.

It's obvious someone's off their meds.

Lifted from another board:

Quote
Edith Grove
Lifted from another board:

Don't ya just love irony. Classic the way whoever took the picture,squeezes the welcome sign in between the rv and the sign on the post.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Quote
skipstone
Beely - what is all that shit in there? Where did that come from? Did I miss something? I don't understand.

It's obvious someone's off their meds.

so sorry skip i thought u had targeted me for some bad comments by name but it cud be so wrong and so sorry if so....totally apologize. yes i will tell my psyche to up the meds....u and sd and others here giving so much heart thought infothank u

Just heard on CNN - new figures about the original leak:

20,000 to 40,000 barrels a day BEFORE they cut the top.

After they cut it they're still figuring out but original estimates put it up to 20% more.

Also it's consisted of 40% oil coming out, the rest is gas (although they did not specifically say that, not sure what else it could be).

I would think right now it's leaking maybe 10,000 or more a day outside of the top hat.

It just keeps getting worse and worse. Now they're talking 300 years of it being in the Gulf as things get stirred around. That three generations of people will go by before the Gulf gets remotely close to being what is was prior to the Macondo well blowing up. Mass extinction of animals in the region are possible ie they just won't exist on that part of the planet anymore. And it's getting to be a bigger part of the planet every day.

And the total size of all the oil now resembles the curve of the eastern Gulf Of Mexico roughly the size of Florida and if you were to only include say the bottom 60 miles of the states of Alabama and Mississippi and of course Louisiana. That's my view of it, I'm sure that's not scientifically correct or anything - it just looks that way and it's HUGE.

That was then, this is then

Quote
open-g

So true .

Great videos, both of them, Edith Grove and open-g.

Interesting how the oil industry brags about how advanced they have become, when the only thing they have become better at is drilling deeper into the ocean. The risks are higher, but the emergency routines are the same ...

20,000 barrels a day to 40,000 barrels a day and most likely more than that:

[www.nola.com]