• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Disaster looms as oil slick reaches US coast

I heard the same-- and ya, that's really very exciting to me :) I think there are some long-term plans to un-reverse the chicago river, too.

As it should be exciting to every southerner :) it's crazy that southern louisiana has been asking for help since hurricane betsy and it's just now starting the process? insane.

According to NPR (or it might have been the economist) there is good reason for this. If you work near fresh oil, a respirator is a must, because so much of the oil is volatile. However, if you're on the beach or near the shore, where the oil is oldest, there is no need for one-- moreover, since a respirator impedes your breathing, it can cause heart attack and strokes if you stress your body too much. If these workers are employed by BP for the cleanup (they are) then BP can be liable for any accidental deaths. They are enforcing the safety regulations that are imposed on them.

More worrisome to me is the subcontractors who are selling/renting the safety equipment to their own workers.

compounded with being on a southern beach in june...i assume there would be lots of fainting going on, especially as the month of july approaches. anything to keep people as healthy as possible..
 
Moony: There is a very pertinent point in the above post. Unlike people of the Old World, people of the Americas seem to have never quite wrapped their heads around the notion of RAILWAY. Oh sure there are lots of freight trains transporting goods. But it seems that the Americas - both of them - are designed with the automobile in mind. I find this quite frustrating.
 
article

Last week, G. Paul Kemp, a former professor of marine science at Louisiana State University and current vice president of the National Audubon Society's Louisiana Coastal Initiative, sent a memo to the Environmental Protection Agency proposing an additional strategy, which calls for using upstream dams to increase the flow of the Mississippi River into the Gulf. Kemp says the river is "the biggest tool in the toolbox" when it comes to keeping oil out Louisiana's swamps and marshes, which make up nearly 40 percent of the nation's wetlands.

For the most part, the winds have kept the oil plume from moving toward the Louisiana coast, Kemp says, instead pushing it toward Florida and Alabama. Last month, the winds shifted to the northwest. Even then, when the oil seemed as though it should have been blowing towards the mouth of the river, it didn't, says Denise Reed, a proponent of Kemp's plan and professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of New Orleans. "That seems to be because there's been enough water coming out of the mouth of the river to have a little bit of a push out into the Gulf of Mexico," Reed says.

Since then, however, the water level in the Mississippi has dropped off drastically, due to seasonal changes in climate. "Time is of the essence. Every day we are losing another 40,000 to 50,000 cubic feet per second out of the river. I'm very concerned that all we need is a shift in the winds offshore, and when the oil comes in this time there won't be enough to keep it from coming into the interior of the marshes," Kemp says. The water level can be raised using large concrete dams, called the Old River Control Structure, which sit 315 miles upstream from the river's mouth. These dams, which are maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, control flow between the Mississippi and a smaller tributary to the west called the Atchafalaya River. Usually, they direct about 70 percent of the water down the Mississippi, with the remaining 30 percent diverted to the Atchafalaya. Kemp's plan calls for a gradual daily increase in the amount directed to the Mississippi, so that over the course of 10 days the river's proportion would increase to about 81 percent—maintaining the approximate level of the river in May. He is also looking into manipulating additional dams even further upstream.

An additional benefit of the plan, according to Kemp and Reed, is that a higher river could help clean off the oil that has already collected on the fringes of the marshes. This effect, called gentle flushing, is one of the few methods that can remove oil from the wetlands while minimizing ecosystem damage. "These are very soft soils and very easily disrupted, so we have to kind of be careful about too much intervention," Reed says. "If we can flow water through the marsh, we can take the oil that is attached to the stems of the plants and get it into the open water," where it is significantly easier to remove.

do it do it!
 
Heard an interesting report on NPR this morning about possibly re-engineering (which means partially UN-engineering) the Mississippi Delta, finally giving southern Louisiana some of the attention it desperately needs.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/northern...-revaluing-natural-capital-as-natural-assets/

Earth Economic’s evaluation of the lower Mississippi Delta finds that:

The Mississippi River Delta ecosystems provide at least $12-47 billion in benefits to people every year. If this natural capital were treated as an economic asset, the delta’s minimum asset value would be $330 billion to $1.3 trillion (3.5% discount rate). This study is the most comprehensive measure of the economic value of Mississippi River Delta natural systems to date. Marine waters, wetlands, swamps, agricultural lands and forests provide natural goods and services. The goods and ecosystem services valued in this study include hurricane and flood protection, water supply, water quality, recreation and fisheries. The Mississippi River Delta is a vast natural asset, a basis for national employment and economic productivity. It was built by literally gaining ground: building land with sediment, fresh water and the energy of the Mississippi River.
 
Volundr... what are you even talking about?

BP was operating the rig and is obviously responsible. Over 100 mil gallons of crude are in open water. End of discussion.

It has nothing to with countries. I could care less if it was once a British company. They need to pay up for the damages they caused by cutting corners.

BP was drilling with a 35% owned American rig with American built equipment that failed?

Yep they sure were. If I crash my car because I'm negligent do I blame Honda? No.
 
Volundr... what are you even talking about?

BP was operating the rig and is obviously responsible. Over 100 mil gallons of crude are in open water. End of discussion.

It has nothing to with countries. I could care less if it was once a British company. They need to pay up for the damages they caused by cutting corners.



Yep they sure were. If I crash my car because I'm negligent do I blame Honda? No.

Also for the record: I haven't heard BP largely referred to as "British Petroleum" during this mess.

It would be about as relevant as referring to AIG as "American International Group".
 
Also for the record: I haven't heard BP largely referred to as "British Petroleum" during this mess.

It would be about as relevant as referring to AIG as "American International Group".

because the US President and the quoted senator didn't at all?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/jun/14/obama-britain-bp-michael-white have a read.

And aanallein, again avoiding all i say that brings America's hypocrisy to light, unsurprising. If you crash your car because the a part fails regardless of whether you are a good or bad driver, yes you do blame Honda...



The other arguement is that of the 3 tiers of the the rig, the top tier was BP operated, the bottom two were operated by the two previously mentioned US oil companies. Now they claim that BP told them to cut corners, which is arguably probable considering BPs track record of late, however, if you know an instruction [not an order, an instruction] will endanger lives, and cause risks to the environment, you do not follow it. These bottom two tiers were where the fault happened, and thus almost all the blame can be attributed to them, ignoring EVERYTHING else that I have said, ok, that's your prerogative, but to state that it is entirely BP at fault is complete bullshit.



Oh and http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/37583/ evidence of America rejecting countless help, interesting consider all the stick BP has got for dictating the clean up?
 
Last edited:
You're the one ignoring reality here.

BP cut corners, thus, parts failed. If I don't take a corner safely and roll my honda and die because it wasn't designed to survive that kind of impact, Honda isn't to blame.

What is with your fascination/loyalty to a company that wears your country's name but holds zero loyalty to you in return?


As I said before:
This has nothing to do with nations.
BP is responsible because they cut corners.
The other parties responsible supplied the rig but didn't cut corners.

As an aside:
If the other companies were held responsible I would support that too simply because I want to see companies held accountable. Exxon got off for Valdez and Shell has gotten off in Nigeria. Companies need to pay up and this is a beginning for that.

Do you work for BP or something? How can you possibly sit there and say it is a bad thing for BP to pay out? Do you even understand their revenue and profit streams? They can pay and they are paying and that's a victory for any of us.


Or did you simply have a bunch of money invested in BP and this is impacting your bottom line?

Because seriously if this is about blind nationalism/patriotism.. wow.
 
What is with your fascination/loyalty to a company that wears your country's name but holds zero loyalty to you in return?


Considering BP does not wear Britains name, and that my rants have all been about our association with this international company...I do hope you're trolling rather than being that stupid.


I do want companies to be accountable for their mistakes, and this is a huge problem, however you cannot now want this to happen now a non-American company is at the heart of it. None of your government batted an eyelid when 15k people died due to an American companies failure but now an international company is partially at fault for a disaster that affects America, it is attacked at a completely inappropriate level by the American government, and this is me ignoring the fact that the government is trying to distance themselves from any blame by consistently calling BP, British Petroleum.

Good attempts at witty rhetoric, sadly it does nothing for the arguement.

and:

Because seriously if this is about blind nationalism/patriotism.. wow.

yet if you could read, you would see that I clearly stated:

Edit: Note that I am not annoyed due to Britain somehow entering this problem, I am annoyed that time and time again on the world stage the American government will not accept any responsibility behind disasters that they cause, yet in their self-righteousness feel they have a right to demand £20b from an international company.

I am not at all patriotic, or nationalistic, so please refrain from making ignorant assumptions with your condescending 'wow' at the end.
 
lol I had to.

You do realize that it may seem dumb to you but Obama wasn't in office when prior incidents occurred. It is possible to have policy decisions that aren't always consistent. That's how things will be when you have different leadership in office every 4-8 yrs. It is also possible to have a changing policy that evolves over time.

Things can change. We haven't simply been lenient on American Corporations. We've been lenient on all corporations. We polluted our own country silly and let others do it to us too until we started being concerned about it. This isn't unique to America. Maybe you missed the big Superfund movement and recent environmental movement? People have changed their concerns here. Exxon got off with their spill in Alaska and other companies have gotten off elsewhere. Hopefully that is changing. I see no problem with charging BP 20 billion for their responsibility in this.

With luck this will be the start of a better world for all of us where companies are held accountable.


But to you this is all about tit for tat against an imaginary list of times the American government has let American corporations get away with murder and has held internationals suddenly accountable (BP is 40% owned by Americans btw........).

Really you're just shaping your worldview to be angry about this incident.


But w/e. Be concerned about the company. The rest of us are more concerned about the millions of gallons of toxic sludge that have contaminated our (shared) oceans.

I'd rather have a world where big companies feared the reprisals of the people (via government) than are able to do what they are doing in Nigeria.


I just have to shake my head in wonder at a person who is concerned about BP.. as if BP gives a shit about any of us. You're basically angry that the US government, British Govt., Indian Govt., Mexican govt.. and other governments around the world gave companies a free ride for centuries and suddenly it's ending. What you're angry about, I'm celebrating. Finally some justice for the people and for the planet.
 
Last edited:
lol I had to.

You do realize that it may seem dumb to you but Obama wasn't in office when prior incidents occurred. It is possible to have policy decisions that aren't always consistent. That's how things will be when you have different leadership in office every 4-8 yrs. It is also possible to have a changing policy that evolves over time.

Things can change. We haven't simply been lenient on American Corporations. We've been lenient on all corporations. We polluted our own country silly and let others do it to us too until we started being concerned about it. This isn't unique to America. Maybe you missed the big Superfund movement and recent environmental movement? People have changed their concerns here. Exxon got off with their spill in Alaska and other companies have gotten off elsewhere. Hopefully that is changing. I see no problem with charging BP 20 billion for their responsibility in this.

With luck this will be the start of a better world for all of us where companies are held accountable.


But to you this is all about tit for tat against an imaginary list of times the American government has let American corporations get away with murder and has held internationals suddenly accountable (BP is 40% owned by Americans btw........).

Really you're just shaping your worldview to be angry about this incident.


But w/e. Be concerned about the company. The rest of us are more concerned about the millions of gallons of toxic sludge that have contaminated our (shared) oceans.

I'd rather have a world where big companies feared the reprisals of the people (via government) than are able to do what they are doing in Nigeria.


I just have to shake my head in wonder at a person who is concerned about BP.. as if BP gives a shit about any of us. You're basically angry that the US government, British Govt., Indian Govt., Mexican govt.. and other governments around the world gave companies a free ride for centuries and suddenly it's ending. What you're angry about, I'm celebrating. Finally some justice for the people and for the planet.

Again more assumptious bullshit. Considering I can't stand the hyper-capitalism America among others has doomed this world into, everything you're saying is assumptious rubbish.

On a personal level I am completely against the mass oil drilling and mass-scale petroleum usage, I personally use as little as possible, but me being against it is hardly going to change anything on an international level. However, you cannot just completely change the way the world runs because a president that has failed to live up to any of his expectations is trying to cover his failing ass at the white house.

Are you so naïve that you honestly thing anything would've been said on a governmental level if a rig had exploded off another nations coast?

You seem to think you're getting smartarse 1-ups on me, by pleading how you love the world and I simply care about business? What good does it do me to come online and moan about a terrible environmental incident? However I am arguing in referrence to the sudden change in opinion once America comes under environmental threat, albeit the original source of my annoyance was the incorrect usage of the term 'British Petroleum', and that is all. However as you cannot read past your self-righteousness on the matter, and your failing to see the point I am arguing, choosing instead to use your disrespectful rhetoric to try and further you're missing of the point, I have no interest in pursuing this. Arguing on the internet is always going to be an unwinnable situations as all that happens is ego's clash with both sides on a plinth so much higher than the other that they refuse to accept anything that challenges their own opinion.

I think we both know that deep down the oil spill has nothing to do with Obama's sudden urge to make a difference, I mean, it's not like before this his popularity was plummeting horribly.
 
So basically you aren't arguing any point. Anytime you say something you immediately twist it to something even more vague.

I don't like Obama's policies either. I don't like our dependence on oil. I don't like our environmental track record. I've even mentioned how oil companies are doing ridiculous damage in other nations.


In otherwords: You aren't saying anything unique or special. I can't imagine anybody here feels differently about those things. You're just somehow trying to justify the fact that you disagree with billing BP for their mistake.

/clap

I guess.


I'm not trying to 1up you. I'm trying to figure out wtf you're on about. You haven't said anything of substance this entire time or given 1 quality reason why BP shouldn't be fined.
 
I'm not trying to 1up you. I'm trying to figure out wtf you're on about. You haven't said anything of substance this entire time or given 1 quality reason why BP shouldn't be fined.

My final post on the matter, but have you seriously been ignoring every single fucking point I state on how it is not solely BP that caused this disaster yet it is solely BP taking the blame, the fact that this is the first time America has tried to hold a company responsible after it has ignored diaster after disaster before. You claim it is Obama trying to change the way way things have previously been, yet it isn't anything like that at all. Obama is using the crisis to gain votes and that is it. You claim i have no point, but that is purely because you are being entirely selective with your original reading, which led to me arguing against your ignoring of my posts?


Go back and read the original posts and sit back in shock horror as you see that you are entirely selective and thus divert the topic at hand. Good work.
 
BP IS solely responsible though. They cut corners and the well blew out. Or have you not been reading the news on the testimonies? I'm ignoring your arguments not because I'm being selective but because they are irrelevant. There is a major difference there.

The people who provided the equipment that was improperly used, so far, haven't been held responsible. Why should they? They didn't cut corners. The government leased the land, they didn't tap into a well 7 miles under the sea floor. The American people consume oil, they aren't responsible for how it is produced. Obama's approval rating is slipping, but that doesn't change anything about the fact that 100 million gallons of crude are in the Gulf of Mexico. Disasters in the past haven't been handled in the same way in any country, but what does that have to do with anything?

You are trying to tenuously link other people, companies, and issues to the blame for this incident. Those people/companies someday might assume some kind of responsibility if they can be found to have it (ie, we find that the equipment provided was faulty through an investigation), and in the future other issues may be handled similarly, but BP is undoubtedly the single most responsible part by a huge margin and thus, are paying for it. Very very simple.

The investigation isn't even complete yet and already BP has agreed to a 20bil fund. This money needs to be in place right now because people's livelihoods are being impacted right now. That's why it was done so quickly. If it is found that other parties should also contribute to the fund, I'm sure that'll be done, but that takes time for investigators to uncover. BP's role in it is pretty much given and so they have already been held accountable.
 
http://tv.gawker.com/5565156/stephen-colbert-chastises-the-marshall-islands-and-fate

Stephen Colbert on the BP spill....
He brings up the point that the oil rigs are boats pretty much and that that the BP "Oil rig Boat" was flying a flag from this country....
images

Watch the Video.....

I now do not blame the impotence on Obama, Nor his Staff nor BP.... I BLAME THE COUNTRY Stephen Colbert talks about ;)

who is with me.... lets invade
 
BP IS solely responsible though. They cut corners and the well blew out
If it is found that other parties should also contribute to the fund, I'm sure that'll be done, but that takes time for investigators to uncover
BP has gotten smaller oil companies also involved in the oil rig explosion to agree to contribute to the 20 bil fund along with BP. companies that had plenty to do with the safety equipment etc. the boat was a joint venture, even if mostly BP

also... lol @ first lol of thread. aan you do seem to keep missing all of his points yet still manage to get rants out
 
BP Oil Spill: As Pay Czar Promises Money, Workers Turned Away From BP Claims Center
Feinberg Says Money is on the Way; Coast Guard Defends Spill Response, Saying Regulations Got in the Way

Kenneth Feinberg arrived at the Louisiana State Capitol today in Baton Rouge with a mandate from President Obama -- get the money flowing to the people of the Gulf.

Millions of dollars worth of claims have been filed by businesses and people who've lost their livelihoods because of the BP oil spill, but 60 days into the crisis, lawmakers say the company has paid only 12 percent of them.

Feinberg promised that will soon change and encouraged workers to file their claims. President Obama this week named Feinberg as his "pay czar" for BP's oil spill escrow account.

"We'll decide who will get paid," he promised, saying "we're going to get them paid immediately. [...] A matter of days."

But even as Feinberg made that promise today, ABC News watched as BP turned workers away from a claims center in Mobile, Alabama. They were told they didn't have the right paperwork -- the trip tickets, deposit slips, bank statements and tax returns needed.

Feinberg said he can fix the problem.

"We're going to make sure people get emergency money and accelerate the process," he said.

For Gulf Coast workers like deckhand Dan Wolfer, the relief can't come soon enough. He filed a claim a month ago but, so far, hasn't received a single check. Wolfer had to give up the family car after they couldn't make payments, and his wife is now walking to work.

For business owners who have received checks, like charter fishing captain Dave Joachim, the payments that have come have not covered their losses. He said he's lost more than $40,000 already, but his check from BP was for $5,000.

The average payment from BP is just $3,000, but Feinberg said today that those checks will soon get "much higher."

"Even BP has admitted to me that these are emergency payments," he said, promising that people will be paid in full on his timeline.

In a helicopter off the coast over the site of the BP spill today, Coast Guard Capt. Roger Laferriere defended the government's response while acknowledging problems in an exclusive interview with ABC News.

"We could do better and we are doing better," said Laferriere, who is number-two in charge of the federal response, under Adm. Thad Allen.

Laferriere is the man who temporarily ordered Gov. Bobby Jindal's oil-sucking barges stopped two days ago, a decision that outraged many when they heard the news.

"Safety is my number one priority," he said, arguing that the Coast Guard is fighting the spill with everything it has.

Source:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-ken-feinberg-promises-money-abc/story?id=10956385
 
Top