Gulf of Mexico oil leak

[Orogun01]

So Obama is channeling his father's struggle instead of just deflecting the U.S. incompetence in dealing with these kinds of disasters. It has been a hot potato game with responsibility since this started and continues with all the morbid details that have been uncovered about the MMP. From the looks of it doesn't seem to end soon, I feel like i'm going to be swimming in oil soon.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Orogun01

[Cycloneman]

Not another attempt to whitewash the entire British Empire as a fiendish exercise in brutality. The simplest possible rebuttal is that if it HAD been it would never have existed in the first place. Britain never possessed sufficient military power to exert its will by pure force of arms. Whether we like it or not they maintained control by a mix of methods which included making life better for many whose lives previously (and since) consisted of eternal tribal violence. Although the relevance to a modern question of corporate accountability totally escapes me.

Oh goody, whitewashing of the British Empire as a perfectly justified, wonderful little altruistic exercise in running your troops into other countries, dividing the local population against itself, and letting them starve whenever doing otherwise would violate laissez-faire economics (all the time).

 

The British Empire survived because it pitted the peoples it conquered against each other. You know where the current troubles in Sri Lanka come from? What their nonsensical redrawing of the British Raj into Pakistan and India did? The British Empire survived on divide and rule tactics, not kindness. Don't forget it.

I'm just not so stupid as to kill off the very entity I'm trying to get compensation from.

If you kill it off by taking its assets, then you've got compensation. QED.

Nor so stupid as to ban exploitation of oil wealth which is an important component of both US jobs, and US security.

I want to ban offshore drilling because it can have extremely detrimental environmental effects (e.g. this). It's silly to talk about "US jobs and US security" as a consequence when this disaster has seriously harmed both. What about towns on the Gulf Coast whose entire economy is built around fishing? Do their jobs not count because they aren't employed by a multinational corporation? Is it somehow not a threat to US security to dump a billion barrels of oil all over our coastline?

If BP cut corners to achieve a few extra bucks profit then they are as a corporation bloody stupid, but I believe the answer is personal individual accountability under criminal law. Punishing the whole body and expecting shareholders to be the agents of control in such serious and technical matters is a nonsense. It betrays a complete lack of understanding of how corporations actually function.

I don't like how corporations actually function. It removes the possibility of liability, because the individuals who make up the corporation (and would be prosecuted) sure as **** aren't going to have the money to pay the $10 billion+ in damages that this disaster has caused.

 

Of course, let's ignore this for a moment and look at a simple fact: under the Clean Water Act, they can be fined up to $4,300 per barrel if the spill resulted from "gross negligence,". The current spilling rate is between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels a day. As you might guess, that adds up very quickly. $4,300 per barrel for 60,000 barrels a day for 60 days is $15,480,000,000. $1,100 per barrel for 35,000 barrels a day for 60 days is $2,310,000,000. That's a lot of money (it's more than BP's total assets).

Not to mention that nationalising corporate assets, besides making Castro go green with envy over the scale, would set a dangerous precedent. Both by making foreign companies more reluctant to invest in the US, but also because overseas nations might be more inclined to think, "They can do it, so can we" and help themselves to American assets in a dispute situation. Moving thresholds and lowering bars can be detrimental.

The United States ain't exactly the Porfiriato, buddy, our corporations can take care of themselves.

[Walsingham]

Condensing things slightly ebcause otherwise no-one will read what we're saying:

 

1. If you think the Raj or anywhere else we conquered (with the exception of the poor bloody hottentots and bushmen) were peaceful harmonious peoples then I think that says everything it needs to about your historical scholarship.

 

2. Killing an animal for its meat rather than keeping it for its milk and offspring - which is what will happen if you strip the so-called 'assets' of BP and collapse it - says much about your grasp of basic economics.

 

3. This has nothing to do with BP and everything to do with your opposition to corporations in general. As you yourself confess.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Walsingham

[Oblarg]

Condensing things slightly ebcause otherwise no-one will read what we're saying:

 

1. If you think the Raj or anywhere else we conquered (with the exception of the poor bloody hottentots and bushmen) were peaceful harmonious peoples then I think that says everything it needs to about your historical scholarship.

 

2. Killing an animal for its meat rather than keeping it for its milk and offspring - which is what will happen if you strip the so-called 'assets' of BP and collapse it - says much about your grasp of basic economics.

 

3. This has nothing to do with BP and everything to do with your opposition to corporations in general. As you yourself confess.

 

If we're going with the animal metaphor, BP may prove a fairly difficult animal to milk. Litigation is not fun and tends to make it fairly hard to get companies to pay for ****ups like this.

[Cycloneman]

1. If you think the Raj or anywhere else we conquered (with the exception of the poor bloody hottentots and bushmen) were peaceful harmonious peoples then I think that says everything it needs to about your historical scholarship.

As opposed to the peaceful, harmonious Brits who just rampaged across the globe and formed the largest empire in history.

2. Killing an animal for its meat rather than keeping it for its milk and offspring - which is what will happen if you strip the so-called 'assets' of BP and collapse it - says much about your grasp of basic economics.

BP has caused serious economic damage to the US economy. Once again: do the people whose livelihoods rely, directly or indirectly, on the marine life of the Gulf not count?

3. This has nothing to do with BP and everything to do with your opposition to corporations in general. As you yourself confess.

I dislike the lack of any real liability of a corporation for any illegal behavior it may engage in, not corporations per se.

[Darque]

One thing is certain, there needs to be accountability in this - real accountability.

 

Not a slap on the wrist.

 

Seeing as I've heard a lot of people say this is the greatest ecological disaster ever... (dunno if that's true or exaggeration)

[Gorth]

Seeing as I've heard a lot of people say this is the greatest ecological disaster ever... (dunno if that's true or exaggeration)

I don't know if it is worse than Chernobyl, but it sure tries very hard.

[Raithe]

1. If you think the Raj or anywhere else we conquered (with the exception of the poor bloody hottentots and bushmen) were peaceful harmonious peoples then I think that says everything it needs to about your historical scholarship.

As opposed to the peaceful, harmonious Brits who just rampaged across the globe and formed the largest empire in history.

 

While no-ones trying to claim the British Empire was all sweetness and light, it's quite bizarre to view it as the end-all of evil.

 

I mean, examine the territories before the Empire came about, and just how many places they were cheerfully commiting slavery, genocide, and general nastiness before the Empire was involved.. Sure there were problems, there was some unfairness, discrimination that bounced around on several levels - but a lot of the Empire was designed on having the "natives" of those territories educated and brought into the process of governing said territories.

 

Since the whole notion of "Empire" became politically incorrect after WW2 and most of the colonies were released to their own rule.. How many of them have dissolved back into the same attitude of tribalism genocide and slavery? Frankly, if the behaviour was going on before the Empire, why do so many people say it has to have the blame for it all starting up once we stepped away from contol?

 

With the British Raj, I always remember the issue of religion and how various important locals made complaints to the Governor over British troops interfering in funeral ceremonies (notably, widows being thrown on the fires). Said locals told the Governor that he was interfering in their traditions. His prompt reply "Gentlemen, let us then follow our traditions. You may follow yours.. and I shall follow mine which include hanging any man who kills a woman."

 

Culture clash at it's best.

[Cycloneman]

While no-ones trying to claim the British Empire was all sweetness and light, it's quite bizarre to view it as the end-all of evil.

The truth? Your empire killed millions.

I mean, examine the territories before the Empire came about, and just how many places they were cheerfully commiting slavery, genocide, and general nastiness before the Empire was involved.. Sure there were problems, there was some unfairness, discrimination that bounced around on several levels - but a lot of the Empire was designed on having the "natives" of those territories educated and brought into the process of governing said territories.

As opposed to the brits, who never engaged in slavery, genocide and general nastiness.

Since the whole notion of "Empire" became politically incorrect after WW2 and most of the colonies were released to their own rule.. How many of them have dissolved back into the same attitude of tribalism genocide and slavery? Frankly, if the behaviour was going on before the Empire, why do so many people say it has to have the blame for it all starting up once we stepped away from contol?

Perhaps because we have a passable awareness of the methods that the British Empire used to maintain control of its colonies? Divide and rule policies exaggerated and worsened any difficulties than were there and in some cases (such as Sri Lanka), purposefully manufactured ethnic troubles that did not previously exist which still deal serious harm to the peoples involved.

[Gorgon]

Actually Chernobyl was a massive boon to the local wildlife who don't live long enough to worry about getting cancer in 10 years. Strange thing about radiation is that you can have an area of insta-death and then 5 metres to the left very little above normal.

[lord of flies]

Not another attempt to whitewash the entire Soviet Union as a fiendish exercise in brutality. The simplest possible rebuttal is that if it HAD been it would never have existed in the first place. The Soviets never possessed sufficient military power to exert their will by pure force of arms. Whether we like it or not they maintained control by a mix of methods which included making life better for many whose lives previously (and since) consisted of eternal tribal violence.

Woop woop woop woop.

[Bos_hybrid]

The United States ain't exactly the Porfiriato, buddy, our corporations can take care of themselves.

 

Pity your banks couldn't.

[Raithe]

Although BP wasn't even running the oil rig when it had the nice kablooey... The other note of fact, there are several other oil rigs in the gulf there that have been shut down (although these ones are owned by American companies) because they've also admitted that they have no emergency plans in place if a similar accident happened.. Mostly because it's considered to be a rather bizarre accident to happen...

 

Besides standard corporate policy... why is there this big stink over BP's greed causing the disaster? I mean, beyond the fact that it's considered a British company? (although these days nearly half the stockholders are American..)

[Irrelevant]

Isn't it good to get rid of something that is good in the short term but bad in the long term?

[~Di]

Seeing as I've heard a lot of people say this is the greatest ecological disaster ever... (dunno if that's true or exaggeration)

I don't know if it is worse than Chernobyl, but it sure tries very hard.

 

That's what I was thinking. Chernobyl is the worst ecological disaster ever... so far. If this thing reaches Chernobyl levels, the entire world ecology as we know it will be radically changed, probably forever.

[Gorgon]

Life is resilient. We might lose some local species for good, others will move in. The oil will dissipate eventually.

[~Di]

Life is resilient. We might lose some local species for good, others will move in. The oil will dissipate eventually.

 

No doubt, but entire ecologies will be lost... entire species of plants, animals, sea life could be gone forever, altering the entire life cycle of both oceans and land masses. Fragile areas like the LA wetlands, once destroyed, would never return. There are thousands of fragile ecologies around the globe. If this spill becomes massive enough to circumnavigate the planet, ecological damage could be immense beyond comprehension for generations, if not centuries... perhaps beyond.

 

The oil will only dissipate after the gushing is stopped, and frankly, I'm losing hope that we have the technology to stop it. Imagine if the well keeps pumping into the oceans for months, or a year, or even longer. The mind boggles at the potential.

 

It is not a legacy we would wish on our children. Scary, because it's already the largest ecological disaster I've seen, and there simply is no end in sight.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Although BP wasn't even running the oil rig when it had the nice kablooey... The other note of fact, there are several other oil rigs in the gulf there that have been shut down (although these ones are owned by American companies) because they've also admitted that they have no emergency plans in place if a similar accident happened.. Mostly because it's considered to be a rather bizarre accident to happen...

 

Besides standard corporate policy... why is there this big stink over BP's greed causing the disaster? I mean, beyond the fact that it's considered a British company? (although these days nearly half the stockholders are American..)

BP was running the rig, even though the crew was contracted, BP had the final say on everything. At issue is whether they cut corners to save costs and didn't follow standard industry procedures. BP was also responsible for a refinery explosion in Texas City and an oil spill in the Alaska pipeline. I also heard that even their contractors say really bad things about how they run things.

[Humodour]

Actually Chernobyl was a massive boon to the local wildlife who don't live long enough to worry about getting cancer in 10 years. Strange thing about radiation is that you can have an area of insta-death and then 5 metres to the left very little above normal.

 

Areas of nuclear testing are some of the most pristine on earth due to the unwillingness of humans to predate on the area.

 

I wouldn't argue that makes nuclear testing or accidents good things, though.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Krezack

[Humodour]

Life is resilient. We might lose some local species for good, others will move in. The oil will dissipate eventually.

 

No doubt, but entire ecologies will be lost... entire species of plants, animals, sea life could be gone forever, altering the entire life cycle of both oceans and land masses. Fragile areas like the LA wetlands, once destroyed, would never return. There are thousands of fragile ecologies around the globe. If this spill becomes massive enough to circumnavigate the planet, ecological damage could be immense beyond comprehension for generations, if not centuries... perhaps beyond.

 

The oil will only dissipate after the gushing is stopped, and frankly, I'm losing hope that we have the technology to stop it. Imagine if the well keeps pumping into the oceans for months, or a year, or even longer. The mind boggles at the potential.

 

It is not a legacy we would wish on our children. Scary, because it's already the largest ecological disaster I've seen, and there simply is no end in sight.

 

A sad assessment, but a good one.

[Gorgon]

How much oil is down there. They must have had some idea how big the cavity was when they started drilling.

[Walsingham]

Not another attempt to whitewash the entire Soviet Union as a fiendish exercise in brutality. The simplest possible rebuttal is that if it HAD been it would never have existed in the first place. The Soviets never possessed sufficient military power to exert their will by pure force of arms. Whether we like it or not they maintained control by a mix of methods which included making life better for many whose lives previously (and since) consisted of eternal tribal violence.

Woop woop woop woop.

 

 

The Soviet Union never had sufficient means to exert their will by pure force of arms? That's supposed to be wittily ironic?

[RPGmasterBoo]

Whoever said that Chernobyl wasn't as bad as one would think was apparently right. The area around Pripyat is happily overgrown with even some rare species showing up. The worst hit area of effect was actually pretty small (apart from the radioactive cloud that circled the globe, but its effects did not prove to be really terrible or long lasting).

 

Funnily enough, judging by the Zone (the area around Chernobyl NPP and Pripyat) it would seem that Man is the largest ecological disaster ever. Remove man, and in two decades nature becomes pristine.

 

The Gulf of Mexico spill is obviously far worse, its effects wider and practically instant.

[lord of flies]

Not another attempt to whitewash the entire Soviet Union as a fiendish exercise in brutality. The simplest possible rebuttal is that if it HAD been it would never have existed in the first place. The Soviets never possessed sufficient military power to exert their will by pure force of arms. Whether we like it or not they maintained control by a mix of methods which included making life better for many whose lives previously (and since) consisted of eternal tribal violence.

Woop woop woop woop.

 

 

The Soviet Union never had sufficient means to exert their will by pure force of arms? That's supposed to be wittily ironic?

You seem to think that the country which ran one of the greatest navies in the world never had the means to exert their will by pure force of arms. And then you think... what, the Soviet Union ran on its military might alone? The Soviet Union (excepting high Stalin) used far less force to maintain control than the British Empire did. The suppression of perceived counterrevolution in Czechoslovakia killed less than a hundred people, for example.

[Wrath of Dagon]

That night, 200,000 Warsaw Pact troops and 2,000 tanks entered the country

Yes, no force. In the face of overwhelming show of force, there was no military resistance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring