Gulf residents outraged by BP CEO's yacht outing

Study foretold a consequence of oil leak - The Boston Globe

Study foretold a consequence of oil leak


It wasn’t until seven weeks after the BP oil well began gushing that the company acknowledged oil remained hidden under the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, and it continues to dispute the extent of miles-long submerged plumes.

But an unusual experiment conducted in 2000 off the coast of Norway, a trial run of a deep-water oil and gas spill that BP helped pay for, showed that oil could remain underwater for some time.

A BP spokesman last week acknowledged the company participated in the Deep Spill experiment but refused to answer why officials flatly denied the possibility there could be significant amounts of oil trapped underwater — even the day after the federal government confirmed the existence of plumes on June 8.
 
naisho said:
Study foretold a consequence of oil leak - The Boston Globe

Study foretold a consequence of oil leak


It wasn’t until seven weeks after the BP oil well began gushing that the company acknowledged oil remained hidden under the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, and it continues to dispute the extent of miles-long submerged plumes.

But an unusual experiment conducted in 2000 off the coast of Norway, a trial run of a deep-water oil and gas spill that BP helped pay for, showed that oil could remain underwater for some time.

A BP spokesman last week acknowledged the company participated in the Deep Spill experiment but refused to answer why officials flatly denied the possibility there could be significant amounts of oil trapped underwater — even the day after the federal government confirmed the existence of plumes on June 8.
Click to expand...

thats scary. so when or IF they get it stopped it will continue to worsen for weeks as the underwater oil surfaces.
 
exactly. this is the case of corporate irresponsibility and greed. With poster's blame logic - the President is responsible for every single American airline crash.
 
Jiro said:
I'm trying very hard to understand here. You Republicans were raving on about government "socializing" corporations like health care and car companies... and government telling them what to do. And now you want the government to take control of oil company to fix this mess and to regulate it?

Deeply confused... :confused:

BP has full responsibility and total control to fix this mess. Obama let them deal with it. BP has massive funds, political influence, lobbying power, manpower, and resource at their disposal.

:dunno:
Click to expand...

Just a minor correction. No, I do not believe republicans are endorsing anything even remotely close to a Federal takeover of a private business.

However, what Republicans seem to be pointing out is the lack of leadership that President Obama is displaying in dealing with the world's worst recorded ecological disaster. The Obama administration turned down help from 28 different countries. ( http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/143488.pdf ).

Now, to me, it would appear this oil spill is going to affect everyone. So why is it that Obama is using his authority to "turn down" aid? Especially aid from countries that can and will be effected by this crisis?

Why isn't he using his authority as President of the United States to aid with this ecological disaster with any and all means at his disposal?
 
Steinhauer said:
Just a minor correction. No, I do not believe republicans are endorsing anything even remotely close to a Federal takeover of a private business.
Click to expand...
Of course not. But I'm talking about Republican posters whose logic is in contradiction.

Steinhauer said:
However, what Republicans seem to be pointing out is the lack of leadership that President Obama is displaying in dealing with the world's worst recorded ecological disaster.
Click to expand...
No argument there. But how about BP and BP CEO? Lack of leadership and corporate responsibility, yes?

Steinhauer said:
The Obama administration turned down help from 28 different countries. ( http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/143488.pdf ).

Now, to me, it would appear this oil spill is going to affect everyone. So why is it that Obama is using his authority to "turn down" aid? Especially aid from countries that can and will be effected by this crisis?

Why isn't he using his authority as President of the United States to aid with this ecological disaster with any and all means at his disposal?
Click to expand...

1. For past 20 years - we've had several disastrous oil spills so it's obviously oil company's best economical interest to invest in oil cleaning/preventative method but they didn't.... why?

2. How come our oil companies do not have any effective oil cleanup method?

3. Just because every country's offering their help doesn't mean it's a good solution. Their solution may be more harmful than beneficial for us.

4. Do you support the use of chemical dispersant (offered by other countries) when it has been proven to be destructive for our sensitive ecosystem?

5. Do you believe President Obama should micromanage this oil spill task? not Coast Guard Admiral who is in charge of oil spill cleanup?

6. Do you believe breaking up and reorganizing Minerals Management Service as "Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement" is good idea?
 
Last edited:
Jiro said:
Of course not. But I'm talking about Republican posters whose logic is in contradiction.


No argument there. But how about BP and BP CEO? Lack of leadership and corporate responsibility, yes?



1. For past 20 years - we've had several disastrous oil spills so it's obviously oil company's best economical interest to invest in oil cleaning/preventative method but they didn't.... why?

2. How come our oil companies do not have any effective oil cleanup method?

3. Just because every country's offering their help doesn't mean it's a good solution. Their solution may be more harmful than beneficial for us.

4. Do you support the use of chemical dispersant (offered by other countries) when it has been proven to be destructive for our sensitive ecosystem?

5. Do you believe President Obama should micromanage this oil spill task? not Coast Guard Admiral who is in charge of oil spill cleanup?
Click to expand...

I am not as familiar with chemical dispersant as you may be, but isn't oil a more dangerous threat?

The help offered from these countries may have included what you suggest, but the majority has been oil cleanup vessels and manpower.

I will agree with you that oil companies should invest in oil cleanup technologies. One of the things that has baffled Kevin Costner for years is lack of enthusiasm and interest in his oil cleanup centrifuge. BP bought a number of these from him and are using it now.

There was absolutely no contingency plan for this - not even a Federal one. Whether the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of BP or not, playing the blame game is not deterring some very very rough times ahead for everyone.

Trying to score political points over a disaster is ..... disgusting ... IMHO. However, if there is anything that can stop the bickering and divisiveness between political parties, it can be this disaster. Now is not the time to point fingers and play the blame game.

Now is the time to be innovative and cooperative. This oil spill is the worst one ever. The more oil that lies on the surface means the less sunlight for the plants that provide O2 for sea life. It is going to be quite a disastrous chain of death the longer nothing is done.

BTW, yes, I am mad at the CEO of BP racing in a yacht while all this is going on. I am also mad at the POTUS for turning down much needed help.


There is much wisdom in the words of this song:

http://www.alldeaf.com/deaf-musicians/62256-what-song-you-listening-9.html#post1605731
 
Steinhauer said:
I am not as familiar with chemical dispersant as you may be, but isn't oil a more dangerous threat?
Click to expand...
chemical dispersant is much more harmful than oil. That is why we rejected some countries' offers. We are using Corexit right now. and probably some other chemicals too. Problem is - we have never used those in large quantities. This method is banned in UK. The chemical dispersant breaks up the oil into small droplets so that our shoreline won't be coated with crude oil. However - it is carcinogenic... bad for marine life.

Steinhauer said:
The help offered from these countries may have included what you suggest, but the majority has been oil cleanup vessels and manpower.
Click to expand...
Yes but I don't know what's going on there and why it's taking so long to review the proposals but I understand that it's not that simple because it's full of technical stuff. My best guess is that it's the methods these vessels are using that are questionable because it can damage our sensitive ecosystem. If you're going to pick the method that will effectively clean up the oil but will destroy the ecosystem... then there's no point in preserving our nature. It'll end up just like NYC's Hudson River. dead... dirty... filthy.... radioactive... disgusting....EPA superfunded water. :ugh: I've lived here for over 25 years and I've never ever touched Hudson River in my life.

Steinhauer said:
I will agree with you that oil companies should invest in oil cleanup technologies. One of the things that has baffled Kevin Costner for years is lack of enthusiasm and interest in his oil cleanup centrifuge. BP bought a number of these from him and are using it now.

There was absolutely no contingency plan for this - not even a Federal one. Whether the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of BP or not, playing the blame game is not deterring some very very rough times ahead for everyone.

Trying to score political points over a disaster is ..... disgusting ... IMHO. However, if there is anything that can stop the bickering and divisiveness between political parties, it can be this disaster. Now is not the time to point fingers and play the blame game.
Click to expand...
Agree. As long as all parties (BP, Obama, etc.) came forward, apologized, and acknowledged their gaffes - that should end it right there. To continue harping on it... it's detrimental to all.

Steinhauer said:
Now is the time to be innovative and cooperative. This oil spill is the worst one ever. The more oil that lies on the surface means the less sunlight for the plants that provide O2 for sea life. It is going to be quite a disastrous chain of death the longer nothing is done.

BTW, yes, I am mad at the CEO of BP racing in a yacht while all this is going on. I am also mad at the POTUS for turning down much needed help.

There is much wisdom in the words of this song:

http://www.alldeaf.com/deaf-musicians/62256-what-song-you-listening-9.html#post1605731
Click to expand...
Despite of gaffes that all parties made.... good results have come out from this disaster. We are human, right? We make bad decisions. I do not expect Obama to make all right decisions in timely manner. Bush did not do this. Clinton did not do this. None of the Presidents did.

Let us look at what positive things came out of this:

1. Minerals Management Service is now called Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement. Another agency is created to collect royalties from oil companies. This is good for us as it eliminates conflict of interest and certain corporate/political agenda

2. Kevin Costner's invention is finally fully functional last month and BP bought several of it. I don't know if they have started using it or not.

3. Dutch skimmers are currently cleaning it up and it's producing a very good result. With additional skimmers - we can reduce the use of chemical dispersant or remove it.

4. This is probably the last wake-up call to all oil companies that it will not be tolerated again. Enough is Enough. Buck Stops Here. There will be hearings to be held and legislation bills to pass. Who is mainly responsible for having oil cleanup equipments - government or oil companies? Who will pay for it? Should we do what other countries do that drill oil offshore? In other countries - the government is responsible for oil spill cleanups so do we want our government to do same? Maintaining and acquiring oil spill equipments are very expensive so who should pay for it? government or oil companies or both?

Equipment and techniques to clean up gulf oil spill has been inadequate
We should be doing what other countries that drill for oil offshore do. In other countries, the government is responsible for cleaning up oil spills. They have equipment prepositioned and ready so that they can respond to oil spills from any company and source. Having each company maintain equipment for oil spills is not very efficient.

Instead of creating more regulations and reviewing oil company plans, the government should focus on making sure all of its equipment is properly working and ready to go. Sort of like a fire department always makes sure its equipment is in proper working order ready to respond quickly to any fire. The government can inspect to make sure that drilling is following safety regulations to prevent spills but they need to be ready to combat spills at any time.
Click to expand...
 
Steinhauer said:
I am not as familiar with chemical dispersant as you may be, but isn't oil a more dangerous threat?

The help offered from these countries may have included what you suggest, but the majority has been oil cleanup vessels and manpower.

I will agree with you that oil companies should invest in oil cleanup technologies. One of the things that has baffled Kevin Costner for years is lack of enthusiasm and interest in his oil cleanup centrifuge. BP bought a number of these from him and are using it now.

There was absolutely no contingency plan for this - not even a Federal one. Whether the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of BP or not, playing the blame game is not deterring some very very rough times ahead for everyone.

Trying to score political points over a disaster is ..... disgusting ... IMHO. However, if there is anything that can stop the bickering and divisiveness between political parties, it can be this disaster. Now is not the time to point fingers and play the blame game.

Now is the time to be innovative and cooperative. This oil spill is the worst one ever. The more oil that lies on the surface means the less sunlight for the plants that provide O2 for sea life. It is going to be quite a disastrous chain of death the longer nothing is done.

BTW, yes, I am mad at the CEO of BP racing in a yacht while all this is going on. I am also mad at the POTUS for turning down much needed help.


There is much wisdom in the words of this song:

http://www.alldeaf.com/deaf-musicians/62256-what-song-you-listening-9.html#post1605731
Click to expand...

:gpost:
 
Jiro said:
chemical dispersant is much more harmful than oil. That is why we rejected some countries' offers. We are using Corexit right now. and probably some other chemicals too. Problem is - we have never used those in large quantities. This method is banned in UK. The chemical dispersant breaks up the oil into small droplets so that our shoreline won't be coated with crude oil. However - it is carcinogenic... bad for marine life.


Yes but I don't know what's going on there and why it's taking so long to review the proposals but I understand that it's not that simple because it's full of technical stuff. My best guess is that it's the methods these vessels are using that are questionable because it can damage our sensitive ecosystem. If you're going to pick the method that will effectively clean up the oil but will destroy the ecosystem... then there's no point in preserving our nature. It'll end up just like NYC's Hudson River. dead... dirty... filthy.... radioactive... disgusting....EPA superfunded water. :ugh: I've lived here for over 25 years and I've never ever touched Hudson River in my life.


Agree. As long as all parties (BP, Obama, etc.) came forward, apologized, and acknowledged their gaffes - that should end it right there. To continue harping on it... it's detrimental to all.


Despite of gaffes that all parties made.... good results have come out from this disaster. We are human, right? We make bad decisions. I do not expect Obama to make all right decisions in timely manner. Bush did not do this. Clinton did not do this. None of the Presidents did.

Let us look at what positive things came out of this:

1. Minerals Management Service is now called Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement. Another agency is created to collect royalties from oil companies. This is good for us as it eliminates conflict of interest and certain corporate/political agenda

2. Kevin Costner's invention is finally fully functional last month and BP bought several of it. I don't know if they have started using it or not.

3. Dutch skimmers are currently cleaning it up and it's producing a very good result. With additional skimmers - we can reduce the use of chemical dispersant or remove it.

4. This is probably the last wake-up call to all oil companies that it will not be tolerated again. Enough is Enough. Buck Stops Here. There will be hearings to be held and legislation bills to pass. Who is mainly responsible for having oil cleanup equipments - government or oil companies? Who will pay for it? Should we do what other countries do that drill oil offshore? In other countries - the government is responsible for oil spill cleanups so do we want our government to do same? Maintaining and acquiring oil spill equipments are very expensive so who should pay for it? government or oil companies or both?

Equipment and techniques to clean up gulf oil spill has been inadequate
Click to expand...

:gpost:

Your post got endorsed by seafood lovers.
 
Foxrac said:
:gpost:

Your post got endorsed by seafood lovers.
Click to expand...

Just so you know .... I grew up in a Gulf side town. My best friend's family were shrimpers. The old WWII vet that babysat me was a longshoreman.

So, yes, a lot of folks I know intimately depend on the Gulf for their livelihood. Loving seafood is one thing - depending on the Gulf's resources for your livelihood and that of your family is quite another.

Picture taken by my dad when I was 6 (less than 2 miles from where I grew up):


az3.jpg


(picture of sunset taken at Green Key, Florida - beautiful orange clouds)


My cousin at the same place less than 2 months ago (a special place for our family):

emily1.jpg


(picture of my female cousin standing near a palm tree at the same location)
 
Steinhauer said:
Just so you know .... I grew up in a Gulf side town. My best friend's family were shrimpers. The old WWII vet that babysat me was a longshoreman.

So, yes, a lot of folks I know intimately depend on the Gulf for their livelihood. Loving seafood is one thing - depending on the Gulf's resources for your livelihood and that of your family is quite another.
Click to expand...

we love seafood. we depend on those shrimpers to feed us, not foreigners.
 
Steinhauer said:
Just so you know .... I grew up in a Gulf side town. My best friend's family were shrimpers. The old WWII vet that babysat me was a longshoreman.

So, yes, a lot of folks I know intimately depend on the Gulf for their livelihood. Loving seafood is one thing - depending on the Gulf's resources for your livelihood and that of your family is quite another.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's interesting and my relative lives in Louisiana, not far away from New Orleans and they are fishing in some of weekend.

I'm seafood lover and worried about oil spill and kind of chemical that used to deal with oil spill cleanup. I don't want any harmful chemical to get in ocean that affect seafood without our knowledge and oil spill is bad, it need clean up as soon as possible and I found out from CNN article said in 21 years after oil spill in AK so fishermen are struggling to catch salmons, fishes, etc. That promote me to concern about happen to FL, AL, MS and Louisiana.
Alaska fishermen still struggling 21 years after Exxon spill - CNN.com
 
Back
Top