Notices
Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: oil spill and BP

  1. #1 oil spill and BP 
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Im getting a bit worried by the increasingly aggressive attitude towards BP by the American Government and the anti-British sentiment it is causing in the American public.
    Dont get me wrong, BP has clearly admitted it's responsibility in this, and has stated fully that it will pay all reasonable claims and is working continually to cap the well. Im not one of these "Brits" thats going to blame American contractors that were on the rig, or manufacturers of blowout equipment. I will point out that the story so far still remains dubious though.

    What concerns me is the rage and the language used. Talking about "Kicking ass" and senators shouting about how "you come to our land, operate in our waters" and being insulted. I think some thought needs to be put that BP is in actual fact a massive international corporation, 40% of it American owned, the language used is like some Brits packed up some equipment and raided the Gulf. There is also talk in the right wing of a hostile American takeover due to cheap stock prices. And to be quite honest its getting as out of hand as the spill itself. People need to take a step back and calm down.

    It is beginning to look like the American senate wont be happy until BP is gutted of cash and dismantled, which is of huge consequence to the oil industy, the clean-up operation and UK and US economies. There is also the anti-British sentiment that it is spawning, awash on forums and blogs everywhere. The BP's chairman has had to have his family put under police protection due to death threats. There is this "piss off back to UK" attitude even though BP has been one of the biggest oil operators and contributers to the US economy for decades.

    BP has admitted its mistake and is working to fix the issue and clear up the mess. The investigations so far show that BP was not the only company to be making insufficient safety precautions in the Gulf. The failure is a systemic failure of regulation, as well as negligence.
    There is also talk of prosecutions, which would be reasonable if it didnt make me sick from the hypocrisy of it.
    tell me who got prosecuted when Occidental killed 167 men on a platform in Scotland, due to poor maintenance procedures?
    Who was prosecuted when Union carbide killed thousands of people in Bhopal?
    The answer to that is nobody, whether that is wrong or not is not the point i am making, just that it was not expected when "American" mult-national companies committed similar accidents.
    The difference with these disasters is that companies attempted to blame individuals, when it was a clear systemic negligence present in the whole industry. BP quite rightly had admitted that fact, probably to its eventual demise.
    The senate hearing was a farce, as much because of the BP's chairman's sheepishness as much as the bullying that was going on. The man is faced with the possibility of prosecution, and is a national hate figure, and then is shouted at in the senate for being cautious and making statements without investigations being complete! The strain on him is becoming obvious, I think he needs to get replaced, its only a matter of time before he cracks.

    Im not playing a "Us and them" game, Im trying to put some perspective on it. the gulf spill is a terrible disaster, lets concentrate on getting it sorted rather than parade BP employees on national TV and shout at them and use what is basically hateful language for political gain. It is just making matters worse and getting everyone angry. Lets also not pretend that it some kind of "British caused disaster" when in fact a few companies were involved and also America has had international companies as complicit in such disasters for years, but it was not turned into an Anti-American orgy. No company can simultaneously handle the political shredding BP is having to endure while trying to control (and pay for) one of the biggest environmental disasters of all time. At the end of the day BP is a international company, so lets cool off on the anti UK sentiment as well.

    I sincerely hope that the Gulf does bounce back from this, and all will be forgiven in the years to come! I also hope this will turn our cultures away from this oil guzzling frenzy that has forced us to drill in such dangerous circumstances in the first place.


    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,005
    Obama is most certainly anti British anyway, due to the alleged mistreatment of his grandfather by the British in Kenya.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5276010.ece

    That aside he is a politician, his approval rating among the American public is falling, he is lambasting BP because the American public in general, perceive BP to be a foreign company who has wronged them. Do the American public know about the " Jones Act " ?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchan...ne_Act_of_1920

    http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php

    I feel that he will not be re-elected, and hopefully we will see a Texan in the Whitehouse.


    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    When these idiots point their finger at BP, they have three fingers pointing back at themselves.

    Yes, BP submitted an emergency plan that was a joke. Who approved it? Yes, that's right, the federal regulators, the ones who were appointed by Obama. Who is supposed to be doing the inspections? The federal regulators. Obama's federal regulators. The ones who told him it was perfectly safe but didn't know the first thing about oil drilling.

    The congressmen are the ones who are supposed to be writing the laws that protect the environment, and overseeing the regulatory agency. They were asleep at the switch. So these sanctimonious asses should be on the hot seat right alongside Tony Heyward.

    I don't see a lot of anti-British sentiment here. It's just the politicians trying to cover their own asses and deflect the blame. BP is an international corporation anyway, not British.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    BP is an international corporation anyway, not British
    Exactly, Im only responding to what i saw as a "damn Brits" attitude that was beginning to surface. Some the senators dont seem to think of it as being multi-national, at least in rhetoric. The name of the company isnt exactly helpful though, but thats how it is. At the hearing yesterday I couldnt help but feel the senators were taking turns each to score political points and show "how much they care" rather than actually get to the issues. Hayward was also being cautious due to the threat of prosecution, understandably. it wasnt like he could consult a lawyer. Made for a bad combination.

    I dont think it is entirely Obamas fault the regulatory process was so weak though, Bush had been in power for years and had plenty of time to sort it out, no?
    Its only now that this has happened the weaknesses have become so apparent. Obama cant be blamed for that anymore than the years of "drill drill drill" philosophy of republican power. Although I have to admit I was well and truly on the Obama bandwagon and still am to a certain extent. But recent events have definately damaged my opinion of him.

    Dave, this Jones act is interesting, does it apply to oil rigs? Does that explain the contracting of Transocean to man the rig?
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    You're right about that. The situation in the oil industry didn't get that way overnight. But Obama says he approved expanded drilling because he was assured it was safe. Okay, who assured him? The oil companies, and he believed them. Or his own regulatory agency, but he doesn't think he has any resoponsibility for that?

    Anyway, we should be trying to stop the spill first. There is plenty of time to sort out the blame later. I can't believe it is helpful for the BP executives to be worrying about keeping their asses out of jail, when they should be trying to stop the spill.

    Obama doesn't seem to care about that. He has no idea what to do about the spill. He is a community organizer and a lawyer. He knows how to complain about things and sue people, so that's what he's doing. To the person whose only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,005
    Harvestein said

    Dave, this Jones act is interesting, does it apply to oil rigs? Does that explain the contracting of Transocean to man the rig?

    It most certainly applies to all maritime vessels operating in USA waters, it seems that only the president can waiver the act. I do not know if it applies to oil rigs operating in American waters. Do we have any " Grease Monkeys " on this forum, who can give a definitive answer to this question? I came across this link, it may help.
    http://www.jonesactquestions.com/wha...ck-up-rig.html
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Nobody is mad at the British. People are mad at the companies who made mistakes and whose mistakes resulted in this ecological mess. Americans aren't mad at Brits, and if they are, they're paste eaters and can be ignored. The anger is with the corporation, not the country in it's name.







    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Anyway, we should be trying to stop the spill first. There is plenty of time to sort out the blame later. I can't believe it is helpful for the BP executives to be worrying about keeping their asses out of jail, when they should be trying to stop the spill.

    Obama doesn't seem to care about that. He has no idea what to do about the spill. He is a community organizer and a lawyer. He knows how to complain about things and sue people, so that's what he's doing.
    What precisely do you think is not being done already that he should be doing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Nobody is mad at the British. People are mad at the companies who made mistakes and whose mistakes resulted in this ecological mess. Americans aren't mad at Brit's, and if they are, they're paste eaters and can be ignored. The anger is with the corporation, not the country in it's name.
    The Corporation is of the Brit's and those Brit's rely very heavily on that Corporation.

    However the question was aligned to US Government, policy and media's portrayal of the American People, which may in fact be true, "make them pay and pay big." Those Brit's are being asked to indirectly pay for mistakes, which may be results of our OWN Federal Government errors, especially for a CLEAN UP, which has been totally botched.


    What precisely do you think is not being done already that he should be doing?
    Aside from absolutely no knowledge or expertise the Government is doing exactly what Governments do...blame somebody. I would bet and expect, BP is doing everything potentially possible to stop the leak and has involved every person with any knowledge (not many outside BP) to assist in that goal. While what's the Federal doing; Calling all skimmer to port, for inspections of safety equipment which could easily have been communicated. If "Fire Extinguishers" or anything else was needed, it could have been air dropped. This is only the latest of hundreds of Botched US Federal Governments display of total incompetence or the arrogance of an out of control bureaucracy.


    You're right about that. The situation in the oil industry didn't get that way overnight. But Obama says he approved expanded drilling because he was assured it was safe. Okay, who assured him? The oil companies, and he believed them. Or his own regulatory agency, but he doesn't think he has any responsibility for that?
    Harold; While nobody has determined who or what was at fault, blow outs are not really that uncommon and there may be hundreds of sub-contractors involved, it's as likely as not going to end up 'Human Error'. Obviously the retaining equipment failed (probably too small for expected pressure) and something had to ignite the initial fire (should not have been there) and the Transocean Rig was not supposed to sink, even if on fire and did, possibly loaded down with saltwater putting out a natural gas fire (explain that rational), which lead to the rest of the problems major leaks and/or quickly plugging...

    I think there are 3000 active well in water (maybe the gulf, not important) and since nothing had happened to this degree, whether Obama or any current expert would conclude the continuing or expanding ocean access to crude would be prudent, whether it came from BP or any other expert in the field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    What precisely do you think is not being done already that he should be doing?
    Aside from absolutely no knowledge or expertise the Government is doing exactly what Governments do...blame somebody.
    I'll just note that you have completely failed to address my actual question and simply repeated the assertion about which I was seeking clarity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Anyway, we should be trying to stop the spill first. There is plenty of time to sort out the blame later. I can't believe it is helpful for the BP executives to be worrying about keeping their asses out of jail, when they should be trying to stop the spill.

    Obama doesn't seem to care about that. He has no idea what to do about the spill. He is a community organizer and a lawyer. He knows how to complain about things and sue people, so that's what he's doing.
    inow; In the context of Harold's comment, the sentence after the one you quoted*, I believe answers yours comment. If fact Harold was being very polite, as I'd have added the six golf outings and personal time spent, while this event unfolded.

    *I would bet and expect, BP is doing everything potentially possible to stop the leak and has involved every person with any knowledge (not many outside BP) to assist in that goal.
    Of course, there is no correct answer for your question to start with, short of the two relief holes being drilled or maybe using conventional explosives at the hole site, there is not much that could be done. Since we now do have and will increase, a massive clean up problem, there are many things that could be done and just as many that could have been started 50+ days ago, that Government could have been helping with...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    And yet, my question remains unanswered. What precisely do you think is not being done already that he should be doing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Junior ArezList's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    229
    Obama: I'll ensure BP will compensate all our damage..

    BP:
    F*** this man....this is oil, you still need us..
    arezliszt.net
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    98
    The equipment wasn't faulty or anything what happens is that BP was cutting corners and when ever an inspector comes to inspect the rig they get fined and BP just pays them off they were and are just to rich. Same goes with most oil companies.
    Once a door is opened it never truly closes
    Once a door is closed new ones are open
    Two concepts forever intwined it is you decision to make them for the better or the worse.

    Being invisble lets you run away from pain
    Being visible gives you irraplacable experiences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    What precisely do you think is not being done already that he should be doing?
    I already mentioned one thing. He should lay off the tough talk and threats and work with BP to solve the problem. Inow, you have studied psychology, so you tell me. What is the most effective way to improve somebody's job performance? Is it putting a boot on their neck, is it kicking their ass, or is it working together with them toward a common goal - stopping the oil spill? BP wants it stopped to limit the damage they will be liable for, and Obama wants it stopped, or should want it stopped, because he cares about the environment and the people in the Gulf area. I'm not saying BP shouldn't be held accountable at some point, but every day they spend talking to their criminal lawyers, or worrying about their company going bankrupt, is a day they are not working on the spill.

    Obama should have met with Tony Hayward and worked with him to find ways that BP and the federal government could cooperate. And he should be cutting through the red tape to get the skimmer barges that the governors of Alabama and Louisiana are begging for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Topalk
    The equipment wasn't faulty or anything what happens is that BP was cutting corners and when ever an inspector comes to inspect the rig they get fined and BP just pays them off they were and are just to rich. Same goes with most oil companies.
    And you know there was no faulty equipment exactly how? They haven't even gotten the blowout preventer up from the ocean floor yet to look at it.
    If you think there is no way to enforce regulations, you are just wrong because I have seen it work in the nuclear industry. A slap on the wrist won't do it, though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    Quote Originally Posted by Topalk
    The equipment wasn't faulty or anything what happens is that BP was cutting corners and when ever an inspector comes to inspect the rig they get fined and BP just pays them off they were and are just to rich. Same goes with most oil companies.
    We don't yet know who is to blame for this accident, so pointing the finger at BP or oil companies in a witch hunt isn't justified, however temping. It may have been the fault of the rig contractors, the equipment manufacturers, BP or even the regulators. Until we have the full story, it's a case of innocent until proved guilty.

    As for the anti-British sentiments. They have been there for some time, probably in connection with the Afghan and Iraq wars and are now simply amplified by this disaster.

    -------

    Sorry if this is off topic, but, would i be right in saying that traditionally the US has become more anti-British/European whenever it has tried to project itself to the world as culturally universal/global rather then western?
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    What precisely do you think is not being done already that he should be doing?
    I already mentioned one thing. He should lay off the tough talk and threats and work with BP to solve the problem.
    Well, again... You haven't answered the question. Sorry, but you haven't. You have mentioned something which you feel the president should NOT be doing. I saw that the first time you said it. I also saw Jackson33 reinforce things which Jackson thought the president should NOT be doing.

    Neither of you answered the question put to you, though.
    I asked what you think the president SHOULD be doing which is not already being done.


    Maybe I'm making a flawed distinction here. I don't know. I'm not oblivious that you think he should be doing some things in different ways. That's sort of irrelevant, though. I want to know what you think is not being done which should be.

    In fairness to you, I'm being a bit pushy with this point because I've been asking this of almost everyone who's put forth the idea that Obama is not doing what he should be doing to close the spew. What PRECISELY should he do which is not already being done? Why is this so hard to answer given the argument you're making?



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Inow, you have studied psychology, so you tell me. What is the most effective way to improve somebody's job performance? Is it putting a boot on their neck, is it kicking their ass, or is it working together with them toward a common goal - stopping the oil spill?
    It's a good question you've asked, but the only valid answer is, "It depends." Different leadership styles work for different people, and there is no "one right way." You have implied there is a right way... a single right way... and that's not the case.

    Different people need different methods of leadership, and the method is situationally based. Further, the style is not person dependent, but task dependent. Even taking a single person... On some tasks one style of leadership is needed, while on another task a different style of leadership is needed... all for the same person.

    I know that is not the answer you wanted, but it's true. Research supports my contention. Just check out the stuff done by folks like Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, for example.


    One area of your contention also lacking is how you imply that Obama is only doing one or the other of the things you listed. He's actually doing a combination of numerous things, as are the rest of the administration. They are working this situation from numerous angles and in numerous ways, and I find it strange when people say he's not doing something he should be, but then are completely unable to name a single thing which they think he should be doing when asked.



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    BP wants it stopped to limit the damage they will be liable for, and Obama wants it stopped, or should want it stopped, because he cares about the environment and the people in the Gulf area.
    I agree completely that everyone wants this to end, and I'd even say there are far more reasons for why than just those you listed. BP, the president, and the public all want this disgusting gusher to stop gushing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I'm not saying BP shouldn't be held accountable at some point,
    Just so you know, I never thought you were saying that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    but every day they spend talking to their criminal lawyers, or worrying about their company going bankrupt, is a day they are not working on the spill.
    Do you really think they can't do more than one thing at once?
    Do you really think those conversations with lawyers somehow cease all conversations with engineers? You seriously think that the idea sessions and status meetings aren't happening at the same time the lawyers are focusing on the legal stuff?

    Really?

    It's like you're suggesting that they can't walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. We process things in parallel, and this is ESPECIALLY true when discussing a huge corporation like BP. It's not like those lawyers would be designing new versions of top kill if they weren't watching the company's back. Come on, man. We HAVE to agree on this point. Please. If we don't, then there's like no hope of having a reasonable conversation together.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Obama should have met with Tony Hayward and worked with him to find ways that BP and the federal government could cooperate.
    He did. It was done on May 03, 13 days (less than 2 weeks) after the gusher began. Maybe your viewpoint will change as a result of this new data point... this fact... which I just provided you?



    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/...r-bp-oil-spill
    MONDAY, MAY 3

    Secretary Salazar, Secretary Napolitano, EPA Administrator Jackson and other members of the Obama administration met with BP CEO Tony Hayward and BP America Chairman and President Lamar McKay at the Department of the Interior to discuss ongoing, coordinated response efforts and receive an update on BPs mitigation plans for potentially impacted Gulf Coast states. This was the most recent in a series of meetings that have taken place between administration leadership and BP leadership.

    Note: They've met several times since May 3, both in person and by phone... So really, the point you're arguing seems to ignore some very basic facts which are incredibly simple to locate and confirm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    As for the anti-British sentiments. They have been there for some time, probably in connection with the Afghan and Iraq wars and are now simply amplified by this disaster.

    -------

    Sorry if this is off topic, but, would i be right in saying that traditionally the US has become more anti-British/European whenever it has tried to project itself to the world as culturally universal/global rather then western?
    I will admit that Obama seems to have something against Britain, his refusal to support British sovereignty in the Falklands being an example, and returning the bust of Churchill. Other than that, I honestly don't know what you mean by anti-British sentiments. Can you give an example?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Maybe I'm making a flawed distinction here. I don't know. I'm not oblivious that you think he should be doing some things in different ways. That's sort of irrelevant, though. I want to know what you think is not being done which should be.

    In fairness to you, I'm being a bit pushy with this point because I've been asking this of almost everyone who's put forth the idea that Obama is not doing what he should be doing to close the spew. What PRECISELY should he do which is not already being done? Why is this so hard to answer given the argument you're making?
    I am not an oil man, so I don't have all the answers to the specific level you are looking for. But there are plenty of signs that tell me he is more interested in looking for villains and scapegoats than fixing the problem. That's what he talked about in his TV address. If he was doing anything, he would have talked about that.

    Different people need different methods of leadership, and the method is situationally based. Further, the style is not person dependent, but task dependent. Even taking a single person... On some tasks one style of leadership is needed, while on another task a different style of leadership is needed... all for the same person.
    The time to kick somebody's ass is when they are slacking off, not when they are doing the best they can.

    Do you really think they can't do more than one thing at once?
    Do you really think those conversations with lawyers somehow cease all conversations with engineers? You seriously think that the idea sessions and status meetings aren't happening at the same time the lawyers are focusing on the legal stuff?

    Really?

    It's like you're suggesting that they can't walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.
    You seem to be saying they should be able to do the job in spite of what Obama is doing. Maybe they can, maybe they can't.
    We process things in parallel, and this is ESPECIALLY true when discussing a huge corporation like BP. It's not like those lawyers would be designing new versions of top kill if they weren't watching the company's back. Come on, man. We HAVE to agree on this point. Please. If we don't, then there's like no hope of having a reasonable conversation together.
    The company will work most efficiently when there is effective leadership from the top. I want Hayward meeting with the engineering people, not the lawyers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Obama should have met with Tony Hayward and worked with him to find ways that BP and the federal government could cooperate.
    He did. It was done on May 03, 13 days (less than 2 weeks) after the gusher began. Maybe your viewpoint will change as a result of this new data point... this fact... which I just provided you?
    I hardly think there is much cooperation happening while Obama is publicly vilifying BP to the extent that he is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I am not an oil man, so I don't have all the answers to the specific level you are looking for.
    But you're the one making the argument that he's not doing something he should be. I'm not asking you to have all the answers. I'm asking you what gap you see which informs your assertion that he's not doing something he should be. Please don't try to move the goalposts.



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by iNow
    Do you really think they can't do more than one thing at once?
    Do you really think those conversations with lawyers somehow cease all conversations with engineers? You seriously think that the idea sessions and status meetings aren't happening at the same time the lawyers are focusing on the legal stuff?

    Really?

    It's like you're suggesting that they can't walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.
    You seem to be saying they should be able to do the job in spite of what Obama is doing.
    No, that's not what I'm saying. Your argument suggests that because lawyers are involved, somehow engineers are no longer focused. I think that's baloney... Scratch that... I KNOW that's baloney. The conversations with the lawyers and the conversations with the engineers are independent of one another. They happen in parallel, and are not mutually exclusive. I fail to understand why you continue to suggest otherwise.



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by iNow
    We process things in parallel, and this is ESPECIALLY true when discussing a huge corporation like BP. It's not like those lawyers would be designing new versions of top kill if they weren't watching the company's back. Come on, man. We HAVE to agree on this point. Please. If we don't, then there's like no hope of having a reasonable conversation together.
    The company will work most efficiently when there is effective leadership from the top. I want Hayward meeting with the engineering people, not the lawyers.
    Again... not mutually exclusive. He can do both.



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by iNow
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Obama should have met with Tony Hayward and worked with him to find ways that BP and the federal government could cooperate.
    He did. It was done on May 03, 13 days (less than 2 weeks) after the gusher began. Maybe your viewpoint will change as a result of this new data point... this fact... which I just provided you?
    I hardly think there is much cooperation happening while Obama is publicly vilifying BP to the extent that he is.
    Now you're again trying to move the goal posts. You explicitly said that he hadn't met with Hayward. I quoted you in my post, and I provided evidence that your assertion was false.


    Here's a reminder of the exact claim you made which I was debunking:

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold the Goalpost Mover 14370
    Obama should have met with Tony Hayward and worked with him to find ways that BP and the federal government could cooperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I don't think it's the fact they're a British company so much as the fact they're an oil company. Americans have stood by for a decade and watched oil companies somehow managing to turn record profits while failing to deliver a quality good at a reasonable price. (That's not supposed to be how it works in capitalism. If you fail to deliver either quality or price.... that is supposed to hurt your profits, not bolster them.)

    So, now we have an oil company by the balls, and I don't think most Americans really care why or how they got to be in this position. They want to tighten their grip and twist. BP will get no sympathy, and probably no mercy either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    And yet, my question remains unanswered. What precisely do you think is not being done already that he should be doing?
    inow; The short answer is leadership, decisive and on target. As for the clean up, prevention for even a land fall clean up, the actions at the rig before the major leak (rig sinking), I've gone over these several times and for plugging the hole, mentioned some ideas of others.

    Can you give an example?
    Cat/Harold; I would suggest giving Gordon Brown, 25 DVDs that couldn't be played with equipment sold in England, was either a stupid gaff, or an intended insult.

    From a little different angle; Barrack Obama Sr, father was involved in Kenya's Independence, from what was thought to be British Imperialism and I doubt spoke well of Winston Churchill or Great Britain to Sr. Obama, in turn to Jr's mom (divorced before age 3). Though Lolo Soetoro, our Presidents stepfather, was from Indonesia a Dutch Colony and broke from the Dutch a little earlier, than Kenya from Britain. Along with (up to) five years in Indonesia Schools, I doubt his childhood involved much good about the English.


    I don't think it's the fact they're a British company so much as the fact they're an oil company. Americans have stood by for a decade and watched oil companies somehow managing to turn record profits while failing to deliver a quality good at a reasonable price. (That's not supposed to be how it works in capitalism. If you fail to deliver either quality or price.... that is supposed to hurt your profits, not bolster them.)

    So, now we have an oil company by the balls, and I don't think most Americans really care why or how they got to be in this position. They want to tighten their grip and twist. BP will get no sympathy, and probably no mercy either.
    kojax; Oil Companies have not always made money, in fact even today they earn on average under 10% on invested capital, a far cry from a good many other industries, normally with a stable histories. The one thing here, is the threat of being forced into Chapter 7-11, expressly by a Government attitude or comment, is something new in the Oil Industry. Talk about a reasonable price, if this nonsense with BP continues and other economies improve (demand), your will be paying very unreasonable prices, NOT including what Cap and Trade could mean to prices.

    Refineries, those that produce the final goods, have been forced to formulate dozens of different fuels (refined content) by the Federal Government (ethanol), most all States and some Cities. I have no idea, what your calling quality, but the fuel is being produced to others demand, not the cheapest price.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    I don't think it's the fact they're a British company so much as the fact they're an oil company. Americans have stood by for a decade and watched oil companies somehow managing to turn record profits while failing to deliver a quality good at a reasonable price. (That's not supposed to be how it works in capitalism. If you fail to deliver either quality or price.... that is supposed to hurt your profits, not bolster them.)

    So, now we have an oil company by the balls, and I don't think most Americans really care why or how they got to be in this position. They want to tighten their grip and twist. BP will get no sympathy, and probably no mercy either.
    kojax; Oil Companies have not always made money, in fact even today they earn on average under 10% on invested capital, a far cry from a good many other industries, normally with a stable histories.
    Right.... whatever.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...013003744.html


    The one thing here, is the threat of being forced into Chapter 7-11, expressly by a Government attitude or comment, is something new in the Oil Industry. Talk about a reasonable price, if this nonsense with BP continues and other economies improve (demand), your will be paying very unreasonable prices, NOT including what Cap and Trade could mean to prices.
    This part I agree with. The one time we really don't want to be too harsh is when an oil company is tapping into a new resource, especially one that is considered domestic. Dependency on foreign imports is killing us, but economically, and politically.




    Refineries, those that produce the final goods, have been forced to formulate dozens of different fuels (refined content) by the Federal Government (ethanol), most all States and some Cities. I have no idea, what your calling quality, but the fuel is being produced to others demand, not the cheapest price.
    Who do you think lobbies those bills through Congress? My sister, who lives on the Southern border in Arizona, can drive down to Mexico and get her fuel at an appreciably cheaper price because the refining requirements are more lax. Apparently there are only a few refineries in the USA that are capable of meeting the specifications made in our laws.

    I'm just saying..... If I owned one of those refineries, I'd be paying through the nose to lobbyists to keep those requirements right where they are, so everyone will have to get their fuel from me, at whatever marked up price I want to charge them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Oil companies aren't as profitable as you think

    I sometimes get the impression that people think oil executives hold clandestine meetings where they unilaterally decide to set the price of oil and gas in order to maximize their profits. After maniacally laughing about how they are gouging the American public, they then go swimming in pools of gold ala Scrooge McDuck.
    But there's a problem with that theory. Even though many oil companies are reporting record profits, many people forget just how expensive it is for energy companies to engage in the oil business.

    The average net profit margin for the S&P Energy sector, according to figures from Thomson Baseline, is 9.7%. The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. So yes, energy companies are more profitable than many others...but not by an inordinate amount.

    Google, for example, reported a net profit margin of 25% in its most recent quarter. Should we have an online advertising windfall profit tax?
    http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/markets/thebuzz/


    Retail prices;

    http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

    kojax; Keep in mind percentages of small numbers, compared higher numbers have very different results. Those prices peaking in the time period (2008) of your article, with a explanation of the same time period, above. There was no price gouging, the suggestion, at least by the Oil Companies/Refineries.

    Historically, these Companies have had ups and downs like any business, while there was enough supply to allow competition. I can recall times when major suppliers fought for your business or would try and drive others out of business (like any business), with 'gas wars'. Even in the 1990's, I recall truck diesel prices in Arizona went below .50/g, during a local war, South of Phoenix.

    Who do you think lobbies those bills through Congress? My sister, who lives on the Southern border in Arizona, can drive down to Mexico and get her fuel at an appreciably cheaper price because the refining requirements are more lax. Apparently there are only a few refineries in the USA that are capable of meeting the specifications made in our laws.
    Those lobbyist, spend a great deal of money trying to keep Federal Gas/Diesel Excise (Road use) taxes down, as much for their customers as the Company.

    Yes, I lived in Southern Arizona (Benson) in the 1960's, my mothers side of the family from well before it was a State and my folks retired to Green Valley in the 70's, and many things were cheaper in Mexico and we all crossed borders (both Nationalities) for cheaper prices on specific items. I've even been involved with Music Recording sales all through Texas border towns, in the 70's (Spanish & English Recordings, 'Chicago' the best seller for years). In this case is availability alone and in your sisters case and my parents (did the same thing) it's a Mexican Subsidized policy. That same Gasoline is sold in Arizona with both Federal and Arizona Excise Tax, not charged in Mexico, probably around .50+ per gallon difference today (Refiners today sell for about 2.05/g or 16.4 Pesos, another variable as the $ shrinks and the paso has increased in value). You can also get a pretty good meal or night on the town for about half price.

    I'm just saying..... If I owned one of those refineries, I'd be paying through the nose to lobbyists to keep those requirements right where they are, so everyone will have to get their fuel from me, at whatever marked up price I want to charge them.
    Well, there not trying hard enough; Most all requirements are from the States and each State has a different Taxing Policy, as mentioned even some larger towns. All those Rep's and Senators come from States (53+2 from California alone, with the highest tax rates and/or mandated requirements).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    And yet, my question remains unanswered. What precisely do you think is not being done already that he should be doing?
    inow; The short answer is leadership, decisive and on target.
    Is it possible you could be any more vague in your response... any way you could more deeply and thoroughly ignore my usage of the word precisely when I posed my request to you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    And yet, my question remains unanswered. What precisely do you think is not being done already that he should be doing?
    inow; The short answer is leadership, decisive and on target.
    Is it possible you could be any more vague in your response... any way you could more deeply and thoroughly ignore my usage of the word precisely when I posed my request to you?
    I think your request is unreasonable. We are not petroleum engineers, nor were we in on the meetings where the plan of action was discussed, and any requests for federal assistance were aired. So, how are we supposed to know the specifics? Nevertheless, as voters, we have to make some kind of judgment about how our elected officials are performing, based on the available facts.

    What I see is a president who is not engaged in solving the problem. He spends an inordinate amount of time golfing, attending fundraisers and throwing parties. It took nearly two weeks before he met with Hayward. When a newsman asked why, he said it was because he expected Hayward to tell him what he wanted to hear. What??? That alone, shows he is clueless about why he should have been meeting with Hayward. He is taking the wrong approach by vilifying BP. That does NOTHING to fix the problem. It is pure political posturing.

    How about if you tell us precisely what he HAS done. The white house blog you posted was not very specific. His speech was not very specific, to the point even the Obamabots on MSNBC noticed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I think your request is unreasonable. We are not petroleum engineers, nor were we in on the meetings where the plan of action was discussed, and any requests for federal assistance were aired. So, how are we supposed to know the specifics?
    You seem to be missing my point. Let me summarize thusly:


    Harold / Jackson / et. al: "The Obama administration is not doing what they are supposed to be doing to address this oil spew."

    Me: "What precisely do you think needs to be done which isn't being done already?"

    Harold / Jackson / et. al: "They're being mean to BP. That's no way to get things done."

    Me: "Okay, but what precisely do you think needs to be done which isn't being done already?"

    Harold / Jackson / et. al: "Because BP had to get their lawyers involved, their engineers can no longer work the problem. They can only focus on one thing at a time, and if their lawyers weren't involved with legal questions they'd be solving the spew."

    Me: "Okay, but what precisely do you think needs to be done which isn't being done already?"

    Harold / Jackson / et. al: "You're being unreasonable. I'm not a petroleum engineer."

    Me: "Shouldn't you be able to answer that question since your entire argument rests on the premise that the Obama administration is not doing what they are supposed to be doing to address this oil spew?"




    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    What I see is a president who is not engaged in solving the problem.
    I think you noticed the pattern above, but I'll ask you again. What precisely do you think he should be doing which is not being done already?


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    He spends an inordinate amount of time golfing, attending fundraisers and throwing parties.
    So your argument is that he should stop being president and allow all other matters on his agenda to go unaddressed because there is oil spewing in the gulf? Interesting position. Does your ire apply equally to Hayward the BP CEO who has been out spelunking on yacht races for the past few days?


    Yes yes yes... Obama is wrong. That's the narrative. I've heard it before and will hear it again. I'm simply comparing your narrative to fact, and it's full of holes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    How about if you tell us precisely what he HAS done. The white house blog you posted was not very specific. His speech was not very specific, to the point even the Obamabots on MSNBC noticed.
    Since when was I the one making claims? There is no onus on me to do anything of the sort since I've not made assertions in this thread (or, those I've made I've supported with reference).

    I appreciate your attempt to shift the burden of proof, but I'll have none of it. You're the one making the argument, and you're the one unable to back it up.


    In the meantime, maybe these will help.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...e_to_the_spill
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwat...pill#Reactions
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/deepwater-bp-oil-spill
    http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/
    http://www.geoplatform.gov/gulfresponse/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    He spends an inordinate amount of time golfing, attending fundraisers and throwing parties.
    So your argument is that he should stop being president and allow all other matters on his agenda to go unaddressed because there is oil spewing in the gulf? Interesting position. Does your ire apply equally to Hayward the BP CEO who has been out spelunking on yacht races for the past few days?
    I wasn't aware that golf outings and presenting music awards were part of the president's official duties. Obama is setting some new records for number of rounds of golf by a president.

    As far as I know, that is Hayward's first break from work since the accident. Everybody needs a little time off. Besides, according to your theory, it is not important for Heyward to be there personally. His staff can handle it, just like they do when he is in meetings with his defense lawyers or being grilled by Congress.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Everybody needs a little time off.
    I agree, but you're being inconsistent here since you are implying the exact opposite for the president. Apparently he should not be allowed to play golf or listen to music after his meetings and briefings. That is your argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Besides, according to your theory, it is not important for Heyward to be there personally. His staff can handle it, just like they do when he is in meetings with his defense lawyers or being grilled by Congress.
    With the exception of you calling it a "theory," you are correct. I agree fully with the above. He doesn't need to be there, as he has a team in place to handle it who will rollup summaries and scenario proposals for his review. That's just how it works.

    If he needs more information, he will ask for it or they will provide it to him. You get smart people to be in charge of pieces of a project and you have them report back. I'm getting the sense that you are not familiar with corporate life, as your claims indicate a deep ignorance about how large firms are run, and how those firms deal with specific issues. That's the same for the president and it's the same for Hayward.

    Finally... Remember, Harold... YOU'RE the one who raised the specter of the president playing golf and listening to music, not me. I really don't care about that stuff. Couldn't care less, in fact. I think a bright mind needs to dissociate from the stress from time to time to find insight and to achieve clarity. I also recognize that he's still got his blackberry and his advisers are all there and he'd end the round or leave the concert immediately if his attention were needed.

    I don't care about those things... I didn't bring them into this conversation. You did.

    On top of that, I find it rather interesting how that tiny comment is the ONLY part of my entire articulate post on which you chose to focus. Yes, let's ignore the actual issue so we can spend more time bashing the president for listening to music after the first 15 hours of his day dealing with the worlds troubles or for squeezing in a round of golf between his meeting with the joint chiefs and the chairman of the fed and the economic committee and the leaders on the hill and the school kids he's visiting to inspire them and ad infinitum... How DARE he play 9 holes in between. I think he should skip lunch, too. I mean, really... What kind of president needs time to eat? Stupid socialist nazi stalinist from kenya... having the gall to eat and shower.

    Good grief.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,005
    inow said,
    " I mean, really... What kind of president needs time to eat? Stupid socialist nazi stalinist from kenya... having the gall to eat and shower. "

    I think that we need to take, " time out "
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    inow; Yesterday was the 7th or 8th golf outing since in the 2 months of this incident. This morning Administrative Officials were chastising Hayward for boating, BP said his first day off since and forgetting during the same day Obama was on the golf course. This self indulgence, self glorification, celebration of life is fine, even with two wars going on, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Israel/Gaza, runaway spending, but when you start playing the blame game (BP), you best be prepared to argue your points rationally. I don't know where your description is coming from, but if you want mine, it would be "King" or someone larger than life. "I WON" and "that the difference", Obama.

    Obama ran for this office, nobody forced him to and in the process of running he worked very hard, it appears to me a whole lot harder than he is currently doing running a very complex Government. He is supposedly (records unavailable) also a Harvard Law School Graduate in Constitutional Law, which has a good deal of American History involved. Not only should he understand Government from a Constitutional viewpoint, he supposedly should be aware of the job, as it pertains to family and/or social life.

    I do feel, leadership, whether I'm blaming Obama or delegated members of his staff is seriously lacking. Frankly, I'm not sure anybody is in charge at the White House, with the possible exception of some speech writer feeding the teleprompter, be it Jon Favreau or somebody else.This indecisive rhetoric, delayed action or reaction on anything not already the outlined agenda is IMO inexcusable and unacceptable for a President of the US.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    I'll just note now for like the twelfth time that you've completely ignored my actual question, and entered yet more red herrings and personal unsupported character attacks as your quote unquote response.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I'll just note now for like the twelfth time that you've completely ignored my actual question, and entered yet more red herrings and personal unsupported character attacks as your quote unquote response.
    Look here. If your transmission breaks, and you take your car to the shop, you don't expect the mechanic to say, "what am I supposed to do to fix it." That's his job. If you knew that, you'd probably fix it yourself. But if he tells you it's going to take 6 weeks to fix, and you need it to go on a trip, you are probably going to be asking him about it. Especially if he's actually a lawyer and never worked on a transmission before. Then if you see him out on the golf course every other day, you might start to get a little concerned. If you ask him about the progress of the repair, you expect him to be able tell you what parts are on order, etc. Not tell you what a piece of crap your Ford is and how you got ripped off, and how you should sue Ford and you should probably be riding a bicycle instead.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    I'll just note now for like the twelfth time that you've completely ignored my actual question, and entered yet more red herrings and personal unsupported character attacks as your quote unquote response.
    inow; Rather than responding consistently, arguing others are evading your question, would you please respond to the 'Leadership' or lack of it that's coming from the White House. If you feel that's a non issue, fine then we can ague that out, but you need to confirm confidence in what you perceive that leadership and some examples.

    I see this as a very important issue, since it's symbolic of Chicago Politics (hard handed rule) and against political/social/economic entities not supporting the current Administration. Additionally the Federal Executive Branch, is not the total US Government, seen in my eyes as intruding on or by passing, both the Legislature and Judicial Branch's (power grab).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    What specifically do you think should be done which is not being done already?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I'll just note now for like the twelfth time that you've completely ignored my actual question, and entered yet more red herrings and personal unsupported character attacks as your quote unquote response.
    Look here. If your transmission breaks, and you take your car to the shop, you don't expect the mechanic to say, "what am I supposed to do to fix it." That's his job. If you knew that, you'd probably fix it yourself. But if he tells you it's going to take 6 weeks to fix, and you need it to go on a trip, you are probably going to be asking him about it. Especially if he's actually a lawyer and never worked on a transmission before. Then if you see him out on the golf course every other day, you might start to get a little concerned. If you ask him about the progress of the repair, you expect him to be able tell you what parts are on order, etc. Not tell you what a piece of crap your Ford is and how you got ripped off, and how you should sue Ford and you should probably be riding a bicycle instead.
    Have you considered the possibility that maybe there's nothing that can be done, and so, while sitting at his desk all day and glaring at his computer screen (trying to look busy) would probably satisfy your sense of propriety, it probably wouldn't actually change anything?

    If Obama takes the matter out of BP's hands, into who's capable hands can he possibly assign it? Does the USA military, Halliburton, or any other potential contractor have the means to do anything BP isn't already trying to do?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Obama himself said he was in charge. Of course, that was back when the top kill looked like it might work, and he could get credit for it.

    The federal government has a definite role to play in the recovery. They control the skimmers that are being deployed. By all accounts, that is all hosed up.
    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/r...mers-from-gulf

    If Obama cannot think of a way for the federal government to support or assist the capping efforts by BP, then he isn't trying very hard. Either that or he hasn't got a clue what to do. But I have no doubt there are ways to support the effort. There always are when people work together and have effective leadership.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    If Obama cannot think of a way for the federal government to support or assist the capping efforts by BP, then he isn't trying very hard. Either that or he hasn't got a clue what to do. But I have no doubt there are ways to support the effort.
    What specifically do you think should be done which is not being done already?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370

    If Obama cannot think of a way for the federal government to support or assist the capping efforts by BP, then he isn't trying very hard. Either that or he hasn't got a clue what to do. But I have no doubt there are ways to support the effort. There always are when people work together and have effective leadership.
    Depends on how much you want him to spend. The least cost to tax payers involves leaving BP as much in charge of its own mess as possible. Take control of the situation away from them and you'll start having to pay your own people to do work BP's people were previously doing.

    I'm not saying to do nothing at all, but it's best to stay as far back as can reasonably be done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •