|
On May 31 2010 03:54 geometryb wrote:
i thought they already said they would pay for all of it.
This is an interesting misconception. BP will pay upfront costs of clean up. However, as time drags on and clean up events unfold, they will refute some costs as not being part of the "clean up" costs they agreed to.
Reparations to fishermen and local industries of seafood will not be released, EVER. Review the case of Exxon Valdez and you will see that the majority of claims and funds are still sitting in Exxon's accounts. Many fishermen who filed claims pretty much all died before they got to see any money distributed.
Interestingly enough, BP is the middle of the road company as far as size. They have a market cap of about 138 billion, whereas Exxon has 284 billion. Apple actually has a bigger market cap than BP.
I disagree with blaming BP for the oil spill. They did not personally operate the rig however, the buck stops with them. The only thing I can blame them for is not being able to plug the leak. However, they are trying their best. The real test of evil is the aftermath regarding extended clean up and reparations. Once the news media is done covering this event, we then must turn our eyes to BP's actions. Will they deny responsibility of claims or just simply tie up claims in the legal system with their team of lawyers and their war coffer.
|
On May 31 2010 03:31 Pika Chu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 31 2010 03:21 IrT4nkz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 03:13 Assault_1 wrote:
how is BP making money? I thought they're losing billions from this.. I was about to post this as well. So someone enlighten the community, how are they making money if they have to incur additional costs to clean up the oil spill? Don't come typing about some Oh they're drilling another well - BP will obtain the oil even if there wasn't any spill. Besides, processing all of the leaked oil which has contaminated costs MONEY. I think the idea was not that they are making money from this "accident" but actually that they aren't putting enough effort in it. BP continues on making money because obviously they have many other exploitations. They have already spent about 1 billion dollars trying to fix the situation, but that's not so much for them. What they did is so bad that it's going to take hundreds of billions to clean up (and it's just impossible to totally clean it up, marine fauna is screwed there). http://sites.google.com/site/artmarcovici/
Seems like it was my mistake, when I read the OP I had the impression that they were making money in that project itself when the oil spill happened.
|
This is what happens when you deify the profit motive in the name of secular humanism and toss moral relativity into the fray as a method of dismissing objectively unsound action.
Reap what you sow. You're part of the problem.
|
I would like to say that BP actually rented the oil rig from an oil rig company.
You see, aside from the news, BP, the contractor, and the oil rig company are actually arguing with each other who should get the blame (or most of it). Each are pointing fingers at the other. BP gets most of the rap on the news and press well because they were the ones renting it+ their company has a big name. But in reality they were not the ones who engineered the rig or actually built it. The debate comes now.. was it a user error or an engineering error, both?
|
On May 31 2010 04:04 duckett wrote:
wow i just lost all respect i had for travis that i gained when he made all of those blogs on self realization and enlightenment and shit
care to explain why?
even though im pretty sure why. it'd still be nice to hear it so I can explain myself.
|
On May 31 2010 04:09 L wrote:
This is what happens when you deify the profit motive in the name of secular humanism and toss moral relativity into the fray as a method of dismissing objectively unsound action.
Reap what you sow. You're part of the problem.
are you replying to me?
you're using fancy exaggerative words but im not sure I get what you're talking about.
I most certainly was not dismissing objectively unsound action. Nor did I "sow" what is currently happening. I am not "part of the problem".
|
people always think that humanity is good or are optimistic for things to happen the 'good' way. but this is never ever the case. Probably the only thing the catholic church ever got right, everyone is a sinner.
Everything is corrupt to an extent. Everyone has their price. Corporations are literally like psychopaths. There is a good documentary about this appropriately dubbed 'the corporation'.
The funny thing about this, is it talked a lot about this corp. called 'Monsanto' which is mainly a food/drug company. But has their hand in like everything and ties all over the world.
Then later I watch other docus like 'Sweet Remedy' and 'Future of Food' etc. And they all have Monsanto pinned in a bad light. And for all different things.
If I were to go out with a bang I'd be going after people that run companies like this.
Even the gov't is fucked up, just look at the judicial system. Everyone knows a high paid lawyer can easily get you off a terrible crime. OJ, Halle Barry, the list goes on.. If it's that easily exploited by money in the civilian level, imagine how fubar it is in the political and global level. The entire election was obviously rigged when Bush went into office. But it's not like it really matters who's president anyways. Same shit will happen no matter who is in charge.
|
On May 31 2010 02:10 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 01:58 ggrrg wrote:
Because if they go bankrupt the Western world will collapse...
no it wouldn't, what are u talking about? the oil is there whether or not BP is there. BP going bankrupt will not make the oil disappear.
Yes, it would.
The oil is still there but there will be major shortcomings all over the world since the biggest provider will cease to be. So oil products will not reach the customers and unless another provider conjures up an infrastructure as huge as BP's in a matter of hours, the Western world will have significant problems.
Thinking about the city I live in, over 50% of the gas stations I know are owned by BP. If they shut down, this would cause a freaking chaos. I bet my city is not the only one that would have this problem and I'm also sure that not only private car drivers will suffer...
but regardless, they could clean all of this up with fishing boats and they wouldn't go bankrupt.
(im exaggerating for emphasis. but i wouldn't be surprised if they really could)
It just seemed like too much work to include them all.
I'm far more inclined to believe this statement though. I can imagine that bp could spend far more money on fighting this catastrophy without harming their business. I still don't believe that this would happen...
|
Just curious, is this the only thread about the oil spill on TL? Cause its like a really huge deal. I'd expect a thread with 300+ responses at least.
|
On May 31 2010 10:51 fight_or_flight wrote:
Just curious, is this the only thread about the oil spill on TL? Cause its like a really huge deal. I'd expect a thread with 300+ responses at least.
Exactly what I thought, I used the search engine and when this blog post was the only related thread that came up, I felt extremely disappointed.
This whole situation makes my blood boil. I'm not sure a lot of people quite understand the scale of this "spill" (using the word "spill" to describe what's happening is completely misleading and trivializes how much oil is gushing into the gulf every minute of every day, Matt Bors' editorial comic describes it best...)
![[image loading]](http://i47.tinypic.com/30cnos6.gif)
The Exxon Valdez incident, then considered the worst oil spill in history, was a discrete event with a finite amount of oil spilling into waters (some 19 million barrels). Last estimates for the gulf spill puts the # at 40 million barrels of oil spilled thus far, with an additional 19,000 barrels spewing forth per day. Furthermore, the Exxon Valdez incident was a surface spill; much of the damage was limited to the coastlines of Alaska. The gulf spill is happening a mile underwater, and the impacts not only affect surface ecosystems, damage to deep sea ecosystems and beyond are completely unprecedented. No one knows exactly what the long term effects are going to be.
BP, Halliburton, Transoceanic are literally taking a huge dump on the Gulf of Mexico, and what's worse is the world and the public won't change despite all this. A concerned individual like myself might get angry and decide to start riding my bike to places in protest, but oh wait, my bike frame is made from aluminum manufactured in factories that run on petroleum, the rubber is extracted, shipped, manufactured, then shipped to my local bike shop through a process that requires petroleum, the entire infrastructure of our modern lives depends on the continued existence of parties responsible for this disaster.
Oil will live on, I will continue to suckle on its teat. It's like salt in the wound.
|
On May 31 2010 10:51 fight_or_flight wrote:
Just curious, is this the only thread about the oil spill on TL? Cause its like a really huge deal. I'd expect a thread with 300+ responses at least.
There was one in general when it first happened, if that's what you're inquiring about.
|
I've been following the story closely, and I've learned to not get angry over these matters anymore.
The corporations lobby the politicians and most countries are ran or at least heavily influenced by these giant conglomerates. This is just a fact you'll have to come to term with sooner or later, or end up pissed off and infuriated all your life every time a story like this come up ^_^
|
On May 31 2010 03:25 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 03:13 Assault_1 wrote:
how is BP making money? I thought they're losing billions from this.. ok here i found some article Show nested quote +
BP has made huge profits over the last 10 years. In fact, during the early days of the Gulf of Mexico disaster, BP was making “enough profit in four days to cover the costs of the spill cleanup” so far.
BP made $163 billion in profits from 2001 to 2009 and $5.6 billion in the first quarter of 2010. And The Washington Post found that, “BP said it spent $350 million in the first 20 days of the spill response, about $17.5 million a day. It has paid 295 of the 4,700 claims received, for a total of $3.5 million. By contrast, in the first quarter of the year, the London-based oil giant’s profits averaged $93 million a day.”
in the actual article it has links to sources article is here: http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/27/exxon-valdez-bp-oil-disaste/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: climateprogress/lCrX (Climate Progress)looks like this is a couple weeks old, but still.
it looks like it's already been addressed, but you are totally confusing profiting from the spill with pulling in money from other assets while the spill is going on. bp obviously isn't going to stop drlling and shit elsewhere...
and of course they're not gonna sink all the money into costs now. the govt picks up the tab, and then goes after the company, who will inevitably try to deflect some of the liability elsewhere. this is how it works.
most rational people already know that BP at least has a majority of hte fault here (their lawyers will try to pin it on the subcontractors at the place—which may be true.) No one is really denying that. It's been reported that a bunch of safety regulations were flat out ignored.
But as much as people are rightfully pissed that this happened, you spewing completely and totally misinformed shit like it's a fact is every bit as retarded as some right wing redneck talking about how this is Obama's fault.
|
United States22883 Posts
The important and horribly sad thing is that there really is no solution, and it's not because people aren't looking. BP has many of the most brilliant people in the world and I'm sure there's thousands trying to find a solution right now, but the logistics of it are just ridiculous.
|
BP Ad from 1999:
![[image loading]](http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/8729/bpad1999.jpg)
Srs.
Like most people in my part of the world, I work in the oil industry. There is a strange culture and attitude that dominates the industry as a whole and I ranted about it some time ago on another forum:
I don't think the real issue here is off-shore drilling, good or bad, but rather the cavalier, devil-may-care attitude that has always existed in the oil industry in sharp contrast to pretty much everything else.
I have no reason to believe that off-shore drilling cannot be accomplished with proper safeguards and contingency plans in place. But such a thing would require a level of forsight that has never existed in an industry guided by a "go get the oil, worry about the rest later" attitude since day one. It's worth noting that the Alberta government once postulated detonating a nuclear weapon underground to free trapped oil in the Alberta oil sands for conventional drilling. And for anyone involved with or familiar with the industry, this doesn't come as much of a surprise.
.....
People have accomplished much more challenging and much more dangerous tasks than offshore drilling without disaster. Realistically, there's no reason they can't do this without catastrophic disaster. They have for 30 years. But the oil industry is a "now" driven business as opposed to a "when we know how" driven business. That's the part that needs to change. It's an industry where technology and regulation is always playing catch-up with production.
Most plans and decisions I see on a day-by-day basis make me think of sending a guy to the moon and only once he's there figuring out how you're going to get him back home. Welcome to the oil industry.
|
United States22883 Posts
Deep sea drilling is the new space exploration.
|
On May 31 2010 01:43 travis wrote:
You know, the worst part is, that BP repeatedly lied and covered up the actual facts on what was happening, and yet THEY ARE STILL IN CHARGE OF IT.
this shit is why i am a "conspiracy theorist". Who doesn't think corporations don't rule the world?
Um, yeah... I don't know how far you push that "conspiracy theorist" thing. I mean, certainly conspiracies happen from time to time.
However, some of you guys come with some seriously wacky stuff. The 9/11 conspiracy theory is quite laughable and the fluoride stuff is just hilarious... I even heard something about the H1N1 virus being an elaborate plan to make us take the vaccine. The vaccine supposedly makes us less intelligent so we're easier to control.
The reason why BP is still in charge is because nobody wants to pay the bill and nobody wants to be responsible for the failure to do any decent damage control. The US could probably take over and give it a shot, if they fail they'll look like idiots. It's not a conspiracy. It's pure capitalism.
If you wonder why people make fun of conspiracy theorists it's not just because you guys often come up with crazy hypotheses, it's also because you tend to be 100% sure about them for no reason despite the complete lack of evidence. When something relevant happens - there's going to be the widely accepted explanation (which most of the time will be true or vastly true) and then somebody is going to come up with some crazy idea. A bunch of people will instantaneously believe that person for no reason - those people will call others "gullible" too - which is so ironic it makes my eyes bleed.
There are gullible people who will accept the mainstream explanation without looking into it and there are people who will accept *ANY* conspiracy theory explanation without looking into it OR by looking into forged sources with no credentials. It's easy to go to a religious website that'll explain that evolution isn't true by saying "did your grandpa look like a monkey". That's basically what happens here.
Do big companies have control? Yes... Is it a conspiracy theory? No. Do they "rule the world". Absolutely not.. They collectively "rule the world" but there's no ONE mind behind all of it. It just happens that money rules the world, so those who sell a lot of stuff, in a sense, are a large part of our lives.
Money gives you a firm grasp on the economy. The economy has a firm grasp on my day-to-day life. I believe that no illuminatis or free masons are involved. Again, it's pure capitalism. People who make a lot of money make a lot of money because they give us something we want or need.
|
On June 01 2010 23:01 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 03:25 travis wrote:On May 31 2010 03:13 Assault_1 wrote:
how is BP making money? I thought they're losing billions from this.. ok here i found some article
BP has made huge profits over the last 10 years. In fact, during the early days of the Gulf of Mexico disaster, BP was making “enough profit in four days to cover the costs of the spill cleanup” so far.
BP made $163 billion in profits from 2001 to 2009 and $5.6 billion in the first quarter of 2010. And The Washington Post found that, “BP said it spent $350 million in the first 20 days of the spill response, about $17.5 million a day. It has paid 295 of the 4,700 claims received, for a total of $3.5 million. By contrast, in the first quarter of the year, the London-based oil giant’s profits averaged $93 million a day.”
in the actual article it has links to sources article is here: http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/27/exxon-valdez-bp-oil-disaste/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: climateprogress/lCrX (Climate Progress)looks like this is a couple weeks old, but still. it looks like it's already been addressed, but you are totally confusing profiting from the spill with pulling in money from other assets while the spill is going on. bp obviously isn't going to stop drlling and shit elsewhere... and of course they're not gonna sink all the money into costs now. the govt picks up the tab, and then goes after the company, who will inevitably try to deflect some of the liability elsewhere. this is how it works. most rational people already know that BP at least has a majority of hte fault here (their lawyers will try to pin it on the subcontractors at the place—which may be true.) No one is really denying that. It's been reported that a bunch of safety regulations were flat out ignored. But as much as people are rightfully pissed that this happened, you spewing completely and totally misinformed shit like it's a fact is every bit as retarded as some right wing redneck talking about how this is Obama's fault.
how did I misinform people? It could be argued that I misled people into thinking that they were making money from this current well, but it wouldn't be a very good argument, since it was immediately addressed in this thread that that isn't the case and really it wouldn't even make sense in the first place.
I didn't misinform people, they misunderstood me.
Djzapz: you are fighting with a strawman here
|
On June 02 2010 01:36 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 23:01 Hawk wrote:On May 31 2010 03:25 travis wrote:On May 31 2010 03:13 Assault_1 wrote:
how is BP making money? I thought they're losing billions from this.. ok here i found some article
BP has made huge profits over the last 10 years. In fact, during the early days of the Gulf of Mexico disaster, BP was making “enough profit in four days to cover the costs of the spill cleanup” so far.
BP made $163 billion in profits from 2001 to 2009 and $5.6 billion in the first quarter of 2010. And The Washington Post found that, “BP said it spent $350 million in the first 20 days of the spill response, about $17.5 million a day. It has paid 295 of the 4,700 claims received, for a total of $3.5 million. By contrast, in the first quarter of the year, the London-based oil giant’s profits averaged $93 million a day.”
in the actual article it has links to sources article is here: http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/27/exxon-valdez-bp-oil-disaste/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: climateprogress/lCrX (Climate Progress)looks like this is a couple weeks old, but still. it looks like it's already been addressed, but you are totally confusing profiting from the spill with pulling in money from other assets while the spill is going on. bp obviously isn't going to stop drlling and shit elsewhere... and of course they're not gonna sink all the money into costs now. the govt picks up the tab, and then goes after the company, who will inevitably try to deflect some of the liability elsewhere. this is how it works. most rational people already know that BP at least has a majority of hte fault here (their lawyers will try to pin it on the subcontractors at the place—which may be true.) No one is really denying that. It's been reported that a bunch of safety regulations were flat out ignored. But as much as people are rightfully pissed that this happened, you spewing completely and totally misinformed shit like it's a fact is every bit as retarded as some right wing redneck talking about how this is Obama's fault. how did I misinform people? It could be argued that I misled people into thinking that they were making money from this current well, but it wouldn't be a very good argument, since it was immediately addressed in this thread that that isn't the case and really it wouldn't even make sense in the first place. I didn't misinform people, they misunderstood me - and stupidly I might add. How could they be making money from a leaking well. Djzapz: you are fighting with a strawman here
Well I guess I made the misstep to quote you before I started railing on (some) conspiracy theorists after you called yourself one. Sorry about that.
|
hawk I will agree that I am pretty angry without direction in my OP but I already understand how these corporations work(don't we all?) and I know exactly what will happen, as always this is all about money for them and they don't give a shit about what happens to the environment other than how it will effect them financially
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
