Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: albitz on 10 June 2010, 18:39:44
-
A lot about this in the news recently, anyone got any strong opinions on the subject ?
-
looks like cameron has sided with obama, doesnt want to upset the anti british president does he
-
A lot about this in the news recently, anyone got any strong opinions on the subject ?
Plenty. ;)
There's a great deal of anti-BP rhetoric coming out of the States right now, courtesy of Obama, but why is there no mention of Transocean, the US company that was handling the drilling?
Secondly, personally demonising the CEO of BP is hardly fair. Apparently, his family and children have been subjected to abuse and hate mail. Whilst he is head of the company, he was not personally responsible for the failure of the blowback valve.
It may be true that, with the benefit of hindsight, better secondary blow-back systems should have been used, but technology and exploration is littered with accidents that could have been prevented with the benefit of hindsight, e.g. Apollo 13, Columbus. And while some Americans are baying for blood over this, where is the outcry about Warren Anderson, chairman of the US-based Union Carbide Corporation at the time of the Bhopal incident? Yep, living in a nice mansion in NY.
It should be mentioned, of course, Obama has stood firmly against more onshore drilling, thus encouraging oil companies to go offshore into ever deeper waters.
Sh*t happens, especially when you are dealing with cutting-edge exploration. It is sad that it happened and no doubt lessons can be learned, but Obama is turning it into a crusade against BP, probably to divert attention from his own limp response. Plus the fact that he really doesn't like us Brits anyway.
Finally, and I cannot vouch for this, I read the following: In World II five million tons of petroleum were cast into the Atlantic (about 32 million barrels of oil) from tanker ships sunk by Nazi submarines, in a period from 1942 to 1945, and with heavy concentration in the fateful year of 1942. Averaged over 1000 days the loss is equivalent to two to five times the oil now spilled into the Gulf of Mexico – every day – for the duration of the war.
BP has agreed to pick up the bill for the clean-up and to do whatever is necessary to stop the leak (which they seem to be achieving). What more can the company do? Presumably, a few Americans will not be happy until Tony Hayward is publicly beheaded. They can be such hypocritical tw*ts.
>:( >:(
-
The error that you and the UK government are making is to concentrate on the US government opinion of BP et al. What you should be worrying about is the US public opinion of the UK stemming from this.
How would you feel about France if a company called French Petroleum had spilled this much oil 30 miles off Cornwall when they promissed in their application for a drilling permit that they could handle any possible spill, it coated half the beaches in the UK, destroyed sensitive wildlife areas, destroyed the entire UK fishing industry for 20 years, and destroyed all UK tourism for 10 years?
This is a major disaster in the US that is being talked about affecting generations economically on top of the immediate effects.
-
the buck, as they say, stops with the CEO, surely - personally as ive said earlier - i think BP could potentially be accused of putting profit before safety (crazy as that sounds) ironic that it may end up bankrupting them and taking thousands of US jobs with it :(
-
The error that you and the UK government are making is to concentrate on the US government opinion of BP et al. What you should be worrying about is the US public opinion of the UK stemming from this.
How would you feel about France if a company called French Petroleum had spilled this much oil 30 miles off Cornwall when they promissed in their application for a drilling permit that they could handle any possible spill, it coated half the beaches in the UK, destroyed sensitive wildlife areas, destroyed the entire UK fishing industry for 20 years, and destroyed all UK tourism for 10 years?
This is a major disaster in the US that is being talked about affecting generations economically on top of the immediate effects.
With Obama cynically whipping up the anti against BP and the UK , there is little we can do about US public opinion - which is fickle at the best of times. The oil's been spilled and BP have pledged to pay for the clean-up. May I remind you of the Exxon Valdez? Bhopal? Chernobyl? Three-Mile Island? Accidents and incidents will always happen. We have to learn from errors, make good, and move on.
-
to be fair to Obama, BP is one of the largest donors to political parties in the US, roughly splitting it 72% republican /28% democrat - bet BP were wishing that was 50/50 now , or a Bush was still in power :y
-
Im not an expert on any of this but the facts as I understand them are as follows.
The company isnt called British petroleum, it changed to simply BP to reflect the fact that it is a global corporation. It (or part of it)is listed on the London stock exchange, but I believe other parts of it are listed on Wall St.
Huge amounts of revenue from most British pension funds are invested in BP and when its shares fall those pension funds fall with it.
The oil rig which collapsed wasnt owned by BP but was owned by an American company.
BP didnt actually run the rig as such but sub contracted the bulk of that job to an American company.
The impression I have is that BP put up the money and hung their sign on the front and not much more.
The BP director who was responsible for the area which the rig was in isnt British but American.
BP is a very important supplier of oil to the U.S. market, it has a lot of expertise and they were only to happy to grant them licences to drill in the more difficult/ risky locations.A lot of its assets are also U.S. based.
Obama knows the effect his little speeches are having on the capital worth of the company, but he doesnt care, he is in trouble at home, the honeymoon is over the mask is slipping and the people who voted for him are starting to beleive they were conned.
If he can try to turn that around or at least distract attention from it by bigoted,xenophobic,partisan political point scoring against the British (even though its a global corporation and he knows it) he aint going to lose any sleep over it. I dont think he is remotely interested in a "special relationship" with the UK
Finally, does anyone remember the Piper Alpha disaster in the North sea in he late 80,s ?
Iirc there were 167 ? lives lost when the oil rig caught fire and fell into the sea.An American oil company employing British workers and ignoring proper Health and Safety practises - what happened ? did our government stir up anti American hatred, try to ruin the company concerned etc ? ???? I think our response was somewhat more helpful,balanced, dignified and less desperate.
Norman Tebbit said today that Obama,s handling of the situation was "despicable", I would tend to agree with him. ;)
-
Im not an expert on any of this but the facts as I understand them are as follows.
The company isnt called British petroleum, it changed to simply BP to reflect the fact that it is a global corporation. It (or part of it)is listed on the London stock exchange, but I believe other parts of it are listed on Wall St.
Huge amounts of revenue from most British pension funds are invested in BP and when its shares fall those pension funds fall with it.
The oil rig which collapsed wasnt owned by BP but was owned by an American company.
BP didnt actually run the rig as such but sub contracted the bulk of that job to an American company.
The impression I have is that BP put up the money and hung their sign on the front and not much more.
The BP director who was responsible for the area which the rig was in isnt British but American.
BP is a very important supplier of oil to the U.S. market, it has a lot of expertise and they were only to happy to grant them licences to drill in the more difficult/ risky locations.A lot of its assets are also U.S. based.
Obama knows the effect his little speeches are having on the capital worth of the company, but he doesnt care, he is in trouble at home, the honeymoon is over the mask is slipping and the people who voted for him are starting to beleive they were conned.
If he can try to turn that around or at least distract attention from it by bigoted,xenophobic,partisan political point scoring against the British (even though its a global corporation and he knows it) he aint going to lose any sleep over it. I dont think he is remotely interested in a "special relationship" with the UK
Finally, does anyone remember the Piper Alpha disaster in the North sea in he late 80,s ?
Iirc there were 167 ? lives lost when the oil rig caught fire and fell into the sea.An American oil company employing British workers and ignoring proper Health and Safety practises - what happened ? did our government stir up anti American hatred, try to ruin the company concerned etc ? ???? I think our response was somewhat more helpful,balanced, dignified and less desperate.
Norman Tebbit said today that Obama,s handling of the situation was "despicable", I would tend to agree with him. ;)
Yes, Occidental. Did we cry out like baying wolves for the blood of Oxy's CEO? Don't recall it, myself.
-
The error that you and the UK government are making is to concentrate on the US government opinion of BP et al. What you should be worrying about is the US public opinion of the UK stemming from this.
How would you feel about France if a company called French Petroleum had spilled this much oil 30 miles off Cornwall when they promissed in their application for a drilling permit that they could handle any possible spill, it coated half the beaches in the UK, destroyed sensitive wildlife areas, destroyed the entire UK fishing industry for 20 years, and destroyed all UK tourism for 10 years?
This is a major disaster in the US that is being talked about affecting generations economically on top of the immediate effects.
to concentrate on the US government opinion of BP et al.
As I see it T it's quite reasonable to consider this to be an Administration based onslaught in light of the forthcoming elections in November, President Obama's current approval rating and the likelihood that the Democrats will have their asses handed to them by a disgruntled public in said election.
-
to be fair to Obama, BP is one of the largest donors to political parties in the US, roughly splitting it 72% republican /28% democrat - bet BP were wishing that was 50/50 now , or a Bush was still in power :y
Oh, I think Barry did OK out of BP, Banjax. ;)
"Obama biggest recipient of BP cash"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
-
As I see it T it's quite reasonable to consider this to be an Administration based onslaught in light of the forthcoming elections in November, President Obama's current approval rating and the likelihood that the Democrats will have their asses handed to them by a disgruntled public in said election.
Nail > Head, Zulu. :y
-
The more Obama goes on the more I hate him, how would Clintons wife coped?
The Americans now know what happened with Blair and us
-
to be fair to Obama, BP is one of the largest donors to political parties in the US, roughly splitting it 72% republican /28% democrat - bet BP were wishing that was 50/50 now , or a Bush was still in power :y
Oh, I think Barry did OK out of BP, Banjax. ;)
"Obama biggest recipient of BP cash"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
obviously wasnt enough ;D but BP did donate far more to the republicans, even if Barack was the largest single recipient - refreshing to see you dont always get the president you paid for ::)
-
here is another factor ; if BP goes in trouble , a simple wind ooops, oil prices will increase.. so the cartels in us will earn more and some strong share holders :D
and also an operation to iran is waiting , why..
dont think the only reason is nukes..
-
here is another factor ; if BP goes in trouble , a simple wind ooops, oil prices will increase.. so the cartels in us will earn more and some strong share holders :D
Nearly 40% of BP shares are held in the US, so I think you can discount that factor, Cem. ;)
-
seriously considering buying a few myself, havent been this cheap for about 15 years. ;)
-
seriously considering buying a few myself, havent been this cheap for about 15 years. ;)
as long as they dont go under.....can you imagine the litigation hell they'll be dragged into? :o
-
here is another factor ; if BP goes in trouble , a simple wind ooops, oil prices will increase.. so the cartels in us will earn more and some strong share holders :D
Nearly 40% of BP shares are held in the US, so I think you can discount that factor, Cem. ;)
so you are regarding other oil companies ;)
thats an area of wolves.. so no mercy for the fallen :-/
-
seriously considering buying a few myself, havent been this cheap for about 15 years. ;)
as long as they dont go under.....can you imagine the litigation hell they'll be dragged into? :o
Indeed, Banjax. I see that US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has said that BP should compensate other oil companies that have had to lay off workers because of a moratorium on deep sea drilling announced by President Obama in response to the Gulf of Mexico spill. ::)
Unfortunately, in the US, this situation is a lawyer's dream. For us, with so much pension money in BP, it is anything but a dream... :(
-
This is interesting: :y
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/06/options_to_plug_the_bp_oil_spi.html
:o :o
-
seriously considering buying a few myself, havent been this cheap for about 15 years. ;)
as long as they dont go under.....can you imagine the litigation hell they'll be dragged into? :o
Indeed, Banjax. I see that US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has said that BP should compensate other oil companies that have had to lay off workers because of a moratorium on deep sea drilling announced by President Obama in response to the Gulf of Mexico spill. ::)
Unfortunately, in the US, this situation is a lawyer's dream. For us, with so much pension money in BP, it is anything but a dream... :(
those production stops are temporary.. and god knows what games are being played behind the scene..
here is a link for oil and gas companies ..
http://www.petrostrategies.org/Links/Biggest_US_Based_Oil_and_Gas_Companies.htm
-
seriously considering buying a few myself, havent been this cheap for about 15 years. ;)
as long as they dont go under.....can you imagine the litigation hell they'll be dragged into? :o
Its not impossible that they could go under, but I think its unlikely tbh. The lawyers for the various companies involved will spin the litigation out for years by finger pointing and blaming each others client. By that time most people will have almost forgotten about it and they will all get fined many millions of dollars, no doubt BP will have to pay the biggest fine though. I could be completely wrong of course, but nothing ventured and all that. :-/ ::)
-
As I see it T it's quite reasonable to consider this to be an Administration based onslaught in light of the forthcoming elections in November, President Obama's current approval rating and the likelihood that the Democrats will have their asses handed to them by a disgruntled public in said election.
Nail > Head, Zulu. :y
Unfortunately not. Obama is playing catch-up because he was tragically slow to respond in the first place. He is responding to opinion polls.
-
As I see it T it's quite reasonable to consider this to be an Administration based onslaught in light of the forthcoming elections in November, President Obama's current approval rating and the likelihood that the Democrats will have their asses handed to them by a disgruntled public in said election.
Nail > Head, Zulu. :y
Unfortunately not. Obama is playing catch-up because he was tragically slow to respond in the first place. He is responding to opinion polls.
I certainly can see some truth in what you say T however I would suggest that public opinion in the US, whilst important for the sitting Administration in the context of the oil spill, holds greater sway in terms of the general dissatisfaction being currently expressed with the performance of President Obama's Administration up to this point and, by extension, with the Democrats.
-
As I see it T it's quite reasonable to consider this to be an Administration based onslaught in light of the forthcoming elections in November, President Obama's current approval rating and the likelihood that the Democrats will have their asses handed to them by a disgruntled public in said election.
Nail > Head, Zulu. :y
Unfortunately not. Obama is playing catch-up because he was tragically slow to respond in the first place. He is responding to opinion polls.
TBH, from where I'm standing Obama is tragically slow at everything.
As a POTUS, he's not very good, is he? ;)
-
As I see it T it's quite reasonable to consider this to be an Administration based onslaught in light of the forthcoming elections in November, President Obama's current approval rating and the likelihood that the Democrats will have their asses handed to them by a disgruntled public in said election.
Nail > Head, Zulu. :y
Unfortunately not. Obama is playing catch-up because he was tragically slow to respond in the first place. He is responding to opinion polls.
TBH, from where I'm standing Obama is tragically slow at everything.
As a POTUS, he's not very good, is he? ;)
nope..advisors are slow ;D
-
As usual The Daily Mash has got it about right. ;D
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/obama-starting-to-sound-like-a-bit-of-an-arse-201006102804
Before the oil spill the share price was 658p today it was 365p. :o
-
As I see it T it's quite reasonable to consider this to be an Administration based onslaught in light of the forthcoming elections in November, President Obama's current approval rating and the likelihood that the Democrats will have their asses handed to them by a disgruntled public in said election.
Nail > Head, Zulu. :y
Unfortunately not. Obama is playing catch-up because he was tragically slow to respond in the first place. He is responding to opinion polls.
TBH, from where I'm standing Obama is tragically slow at everything.
As a POTUS, he's not very good, is he? ;)
It's a very difficult Office to hold effectively it must be said, however the more I look at the situation in the US, I'm afraid that as far as I'm concerned the base-line effect of the current President's election appears to be very much a case of style and slick presentation over substance.
This is concerning as I'm of the opinion that the world needs a strong, focused and solvent America.
-
As usual The Daily Mash has got it about right. ;D
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/obama-starting-to-sound-like-a-bit-of-an-arse-201006102804
Before the oil spill the share price was 658p today it was 365p. :o
Brilliant, Albs. Thanks for spotting that. :y :y
It's not often I laugh out loud when I read something online, but that did it for me. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
http://www.theonion.com/articles/massive-flow-of-bullshit-continues-to-gush-from-bp,17564/
::)
-
Why does Mr. Obama think that a daily onslaught of abuse against BP is going to help solve the oil spillage problem?
:(
-
He doesnt, he hopes it might solve his unpopularity problem with the U.S. electorate. - very cynical imo. ;)
-
As usual The Daily Mash has got it about right. ;D
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/obama-starting-to-sound-like-a-bit-of-an-arse-201006102804
Before the oil spill the share price was 658p today it was 365p. :o
Brilliant, Albs. Thanks for spotting that. :y :y
It's not often I laugh out loud when I read something online, but that did it for me. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Obama is causing liberals to agree with Norman Tebbit,they cant handle it. ;D ;D
-
http://www.theonion.com/articles/massive-flow-of-bullshit-continues-to-gush-from-bp,17564/
::)
I couldn't be bothered to read it all. First few sentences showed the way it was going... ::)
I preferred the Daily Mash. ;) ;D ;D
-
http://www.theonion.com/articles/massive-flow-of-bullshit-continues-to-gush-from-bp,17564/
::)
I couldn't be bothered to read it all. First few sentences showed the way it was going... ::)
I preferred the Daily Mash. ;) ;D ;D
yeah - i had no idea where the Mash was going with theirs ::) :y
-
Special relationship?
Obama just scoring cheap (except they aren't) points. Needs a clip round the lughole.
Head of BP . Hasn't done enough to contain the bad publicity. he should have been knocking on the White Houses door to show they were all in it together. Instead he moaned about having a bad day. Poor soul. Needs sacking.
Why hasn't someone invented a machine for cleaning up spills? Hovercraft with a vacuum cleaner connected to floating storage. I bet Dyson would come up with something.
Condems? Too busy in Afghanistan scoring cheap points with the armed forces.
-
Special relationship?
Obama just scoring cheap (except they aren't) points. Needs a clip round the lughole.
Head of BP . Hasn't done enough to contain the bad publicity. he should have been knocking on the White Houses door to show they were all in it together. Instead he moaned about having a bad day. Poor soul. Needs sacking.
Why hasn't someone invented a machine for cleaning up spills? Hovercraft with a vacuum cleaner connected to floating storage. I bet Dyson would come up with something.
Condems? Too busy in Afghanistan scoring cheap points with the armed forces.
There's a company that makes natural oil eating bacteria which was successfully used to clean up the ocean and shores after the Exxon Valdez accident. To date, the company which produces up to 200,000 gallons a day of the oil eating bacteria has not had their phone calls returned by Obama's White House or BP. ::) ::)
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/06/options_to_plug_the_bp_oil_spi.html
-
Here is a thought.
Head of BP engages a top lawyer who finds out that BP isn't legally responsible for the oil leak but a small 50 head company that makes a failed blow out valve or similar is. BP walk away Scot free and takes away its business in the USA,meanwhile the small company goes bust with loss of livelihoods and the USA has to pick up the bill that BP would have picked up if Obama hadn't been quite so outspoken.
BP back to profitability, Varche becomes a millionaire having snapped up BP futures yesterday at the bottom. UK pensioners can breath again. :y :y :y
-
>:( Could it be that the Americans are trying to drive BP into bankruptcy so that American oil companies can step in and dominate the market?
-
Come on Obama. If your so clever send Thunderbirds down there to stop the oil leak.If you aint so clever then shut up.
-
The company I work for - www.perryslingsbysystems.com - have made many of the ROV's at the site trying to stop the leak.
We are kept very much up to date on the happenings out there, and I can assure you that everything is being done that can be done, and new ideas are being tried out, so my take is that it doesn't matter who caused the catastrophe, it needs sorting first.
I don't like the idea of wildlife being affected by Man's greed for oil (even though I have four cars on the drive!).
Post-mortem after the well has been capped.
The politicians will blame, counter blame argue and fight until the cows come home - it's what they do and paid very well for. It isn't about Obama, or whether BP is a British company or not (which it once was, but now isn't) - it's about who shouts the loudest and is believed by who has the most power.
Sod the politics for the moment, there's a storm brewing and the well isn't properly capped yet!
If politicians put as much energy into trying to help instead of blowing hot air all day, then we wouldn't need to drill for oil!
-
Come on Obama. If your so clever send Thunderbirds down there to stop the oil leak.If you aint so clever then shut up.
F.A.B. Lioned!
Signed
Barack
;) ;D
-
Here is a thought.
Head of BP engages a top lawyer who finds out that BP isn't legally responsible for the oil leak but a small 50 head company that makes a failed blow out valve or similar is. BP walk away Scot free and takes away its business in the USA,meanwhile the small company goes bust with loss of livelihoods and the USA has to pick up the bill that BP would have picked up if Obama hadn't been quite so outspoken.
BP back to profitability, Varche becomes a millionaire having snapped up BP futures yesterday at the bottom. UK pensioners can breath again. :y :y :y
You are closer to the truth than you know.
A client of mine is the CEO of a company " right on the spot " so to speak .I wish I could say more :-X but suffice to say there is a chain of liability that will be implemented once the post mortem is conducted on the reason for the BOP valves failure .........
-
We've got two versions of events reporting wise here.
1. Broadsheet press who will waffle on endlessly paragraph after paragraph unnecessarily dragging a few lines out into a few pages.
2. Tabloid press. Leased rig, BOP not in place.
More importantly, fuel prices were just starting to drop slowly...that's put paid to that then. UP THEY GO AGAIN so we recoup thier losses for them! ::)
-
Read Jeremy Klaxons page in Saturdays Sun.
Torrey canyon-American
Exxon Valdiz-American (Captain was pissed)
Bohpal Disaster-American
Bp Oil rig AND crew-American
God Bless Help America..
eddie
-
I wonder if the BP settlement to those affected will be as protracted in payment and as small as for Bhopal?
-
I wonder if the BP settlement to those affected will be as protracted in payment and as small as for Bhopal?
I think we all know the answer to that one V :( :( :y
-
due the the US's voracious appetite for oil and the increasingly desperate methods of retrieval as oil becomes more and more difficult to bring up, most oil disasters will happen around the american coast - its the price you pay for being so oil dependent - every spill, every ecological disaster is another warning shot that until now they have always ignored. could have been Shell, could have been Exxon, could have been Texaco....doesn't matter it was BP today, but it'll happen again and again - and quite rightly - we need oil, US needs oil more than ever so its a dangerous game but, like the troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq its a price we in the west seem prepared to pay to get our hands on the stuff - if thats going to be a problem, then i suggest we look at alternatives :o
-
due the the US's voracious appetite for oil and the increasingly desperate methods of retrieval as oil becomes more and more difficult to bring up, most oil disasters will happen around the american coast - its the price you pay for being so oil dependent - every spill, every ecological disaster is another warning shot that until now they have always ignored. could have been Shell, could have been Exxon, could have been Texaco....doesn't matter it was BP today, but it'll happen again and again - and quite rightly - we need oil, US needs oil more than ever so its a dangerous game but, like the troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq its a price we in the west seem prepared to pay to get our hands on the stuff - if thats going to be a problem, then i suggest we look at alternatives :o
Odd that you don't mention the "voracious" appetite of China and India.
There will be no alternative for oil for a long time. Many simple people view oil only in terms of gasoline for cars and planes, but the truth is that oil gives us plastics, pharmceuticals, building materials and much, much, more.
It's not a greed or an addiction (use any hackneyed expression you like), it is a vital ingredient for society. There is plenty more about and it is likely that technology will bring about synthetic versions using recyclables and biomass but, for the time being, there will be more exploration and there will be further spills. These will become fewer as time goes on and technology/engineering improves (note the introduction of twin-hulled VLCCs after the Valdez spill), but right now, without oil, there would be suffering on an unimaginable scale.
-
due the the US's voracious appetite for oil and the increasingly desperate methods of retrieval as oil becomes more and more difficult to bring up, most oil disasters will happen around the american coast - its the price you pay for being so oil dependent - every spill, every ecological disaster is another warning shot that until now they have always ignored. could have been Shell, could have been Exxon, could have been Texaco....doesn't matter it was BP today, but it'll happen again and again - and quite rightly - we need oil, US needs oil more than ever so its a dangerous game but, like the troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq its a price we in the west seem prepared to pay to get our hands on the stuff - if thats going to be a problem, then i suggest we look at alternatives :o
Odd that you don't mention the "voracious" appetite of China and India.
There will be no alternative for oil for a long time. Many simple people view oil only in terms of gasoline for cars and planes, but the truth is that oil gives us plastics, pharmceuticals, building materials and much, much, more.
It's not a greed or an addiction (use any hackneyed expression you like), it is a vital ingredient for society. There is plenty more about and it is likely that technology will bring about synthetic versions using recyclables and biomass but, for the time being, there will be more exploration and there will be further spills. These will become fewer as time goes on and technology/engineering improves (note the introduction of twin-hulled VLCCs after the Valdez spill), but right now, without oil, there would be suffering on an unimaginable scale.
sorry - thought the spill was in the US -'kin 'ell OK OK China and India and every other country use oil too - got to keep Nickbat and the pc brigade happy ;D ;D ;D
by voracious I mean they use over 20,000,000 barrels a day....China(despite having a far larger population) use a third of that, India use 1/7th....again with a far larger population - what word would you use? Conservative? Frugal? Careful? or perhaps the US maybe use slightly more oil than, say, every other nation on the planet....so I'd say voracious was fair :y
defending US and its use of oil is good....even for you, I mean, defending oil corporations pursuit of profit to the detriment of vast swathes of coastline was rich....but this is good Nick, no, really ;D ;D ;D
-
sorry - thought the spill was in the US -'kin 'ell OK OK China and India and every other country use oil too - got to keep Nickbat and the pc brigade happy ;D ;D ;D
by voracious I mean they use over 20,000,000 barrels a day....China(despite having a far larger population) use a third of that, India use 1/7th....again with a far larger population - what word would you use? Conservative? Frugal? Careful? or perhaps the US maybe use slightly more oil than, say, every other nation on the planet....so I'd say voracious was fair :y
defending US and its use of oil is good....even for you, I mean, defending oil corporations pursuit of profit to the detriment of vast swathes of coastline was rich....but this is good Nick, no, really ;D ;D ;D
Perhaps one should consider the more realistic per capita figures which show that the US consumes 68.672 bbl/day per 1,000 people, which is only just more than Belgium (60.478 bbl/day) and less than Iceland (69.95 bbl/day) and Canada (71.009 bbl/day). If you still insist on using "voracious" in a pejorative way, perhaps you need to direct it towards places like Singapore (189.975 bbl/day), Gibraltar (809.94 bbl/day), or the No 1, Virgin Islands (845.382 bbl/day). ;)
"...defending oil corporations pursuit of profit to the detriment of vast swathes of coastline was rich"
My point was that, without oil companies, we would not have the standard of living we now enjoy. Fact.
At this stage, there is no evidence that BP that the failure of the blowback valve in question was in any way related to the "pursuit of profit", i.e cost reduction. Unless you know better, of course... ;)
-
sorry - thought the spill was in the US -'kin 'ell OK OK China and India and every other country use oil too - got to keep Nickbat and the pc brigade happy ;D ;D ;D
by voracious I mean they use over 20,000,000 barrels a day....China(despite having a far larger population) use a third of that, India use 1/7th....again with a far larger population - what word would you use? Conservative? Frugal? Careful? or perhaps the US maybe use slightly more oil than, say, every other nation on the planet....so I'd say voracious was fair :y
defending US and its use of oil is good....even for you, I mean, defending oil corporations pursuit of profit to the detriment of vast swathes of coastline was rich....but this is good Nick, no, really ;D ;D ;D
Perhaps one should consider the more realistic per capita figures which show that the US consumes 68.672 bbl/day per 1,000 people, which is only just more than Belgium (60.478 bbl/day) and less than Iceland (69.95 bbl/day) and Canada (71.009 bbl/day). If you still insist on using "voracious" in a pejorative way, perhaps you need to direct it towards places like Singapore (189.975 bbl/day), Gibraltar (809.94 bbl/day), or the No 1, Virgin Islands (845.382 bbl/day). ;)
"...defending oil corporations pursuit of profit to the detriment of vast swathes of coastline was rich"
My point was that, without oil companies, we would not have the standard of living we now enjoy. Fact.
At this stage, there is no evidence that BP that the failure of the blowback valve in question was in any way related to the "pursuit of profit", i.e cost reduction. Unless you know better, of course... ;)
my point would be that we'll have to get used to increasingly dangerous practices as we pursue dwindling oil supplies and we either accept the consequences or look elsewhere sooner. and whilst i cant be sure, i'm willing to bet that cost cutting and profiteering were at least part of the problem, if not wholly to blame :(
-
sorry - thought the spill was in the US -'kin 'ell OK OK China and India and every other country use oil too - got to keep Nickbat and the pc brigade happy ;D ;D ;D
by voracious I mean they use over 20,000,000 barrels a day....China(despite having a far larger population) use a third of that, India use 1/7th....again with a far larger population - what word would you use? Conservative? Frugal? Careful? or perhaps the US maybe use slightly more oil than, say, every other nation on the planet....so I'd say voracious was fair :y
defending US and its use of oil is good....even for you, I mean, defending oil corporations pursuit of profit to the detriment of vast swathes of coastline was rich....but this is good Nick, no, really ;D ;D ;D
Perhaps one should consider the more realistic per capita figures which show that the US consumes 68.672 bbl/day per 1,000 people, which is only just more than Belgium (60.478 bbl/day) and less than Iceland (69.95 bbl/day) and Canada (71.009 bbl/day). If you still insist on using "voracious" in a pejorative way, perhaps you need to direct it towards places like Singapore (189.975 bbl/day), Gibraltar (809.94 bbl/day), or the No 1, Virgin Islands (845.382 bbl/day). ;)
"...defending oil corporations pursuit of profit to the detriment of vast swathes of coastline was rich"
My point was that, without oil companies, we would not have the standard of living we now enjoy. Fact.
At this stage, there is no evidence that BP that the failure of the blowback valve in question was in any way related to the "pursuit of profit", i.e cost reduction. Unless you know better, of course... ;)
my point would be that we'll have to get used to increasingly dangerous practices as we pursue dwindling oil supplies and we either accept the consequences or look elsewhere sooner. and whilst i cant be sure, i'm willing to bet that cost cutting and profiteering were at least part of the problem, if not wholly to blame :(
cant be sure, i'm willing to bet that cost cutting and profiteering were at least part of the problem
Whilst it doesn't make commercial sense for the drilling operator to adopt these short-sighted practices - in terms of the liability they might face should things go wrong - considering the economic woes presently being experienced by global economy, the need for oil and the desire to maximise profits certainly lends credence to this suspicion.
Although having said that, it should be remembered that drawing oil from these depths, with all that it entails, must be incredibly difficult.
-
sorry - thought the spill was in the US -'kin 'ell OK OK China and India and every other country use oil too - got to keep Nickbat and the pc brigade happy ;D ;D ;D
by voracious I mean they use over 20,000,000 barrels a day....China(despite having a far larger population) use a third of that, India use 1/7th....again with a far larger population - what word would you use? Conservative? Frugal? Careful? or perhaps the US maybe use slightly more oil than, say, every other nation on the planet....so I'd say voracious was fair :y
defending US and its use of oil is good....even for you, I mean, defending oil corporations pursuit of profit to the detriment of vast swathes of coastline was rich....but this is good Nick, no, really ;D ;D ;D
Perhaps one should consider the more realistic per capita figures which show that the US consumes 68.672 bbl/day per 1,000 people, which is only just more than Belgium (60.478 bbl/day) and less than Iceland (69.95 bbl/day) and Canada (71.009 bbl/day). If you still insist on using "voracious" in a pejorative way, perhaps you need to direct it towards places like Singapore (189.975 bbl/day), Gibraltar (809.94 bbl/day), or the No 1, Virgin Islands (845.382 bbl/day). ;)
"...defending oil corporations pursuit of profit to the detriment of vast swathes of coastline was rich"
My point was that, without oil companies, we would not have the standard of living we now enjoy. Fact.
At this stage, there is no evidence that BP that the failure of the blowback valve in question was in any way related to the "pursuit of profit", i.e cost reduction. Unless you know better, of course... ;)
none of those countries declare war to any country with foolish reasons for more oil .. they buy.. ;)
-
sorry - thought the spill was in the US -'kin 'ell OK OK China and India and every other country use oil too - got to keep Nickbat and the pc brigade happy ;D ;D ;D
by voracious I mean they use over 20,000,000 barrels a day....China(despite having a far larger population) use a third of that, India use 1/7th....again with a far larger population - what word would you use? Conservative? Frugal? Careful? or perhaps the US maybe use slightly more oil than, say, every other nation on the planet....so I'd say voracious was fair :y
defending US and its use of oil is good....even for you, I mean, defending oil corporations pursuit of profit to the detriment of vast swathes of coastline was rich....but this is good Nick, no, really ;D ;D ;D
Perhaps one should consider the more realistic per capita figures which show that the US consumes 68.672 bbl/day per 1,000 people, which is only just more than Belgium (60.478 bbl/day) and less than Iceland (69.95 bbl/day) and Canada (71.009 bbl/day). If you still insist on using "voracious" in a pejorative way, perhaps you need to direct it towards places like Singapore (189.975 bbl/day), Gibraltar (809.94 bbl/day), or the No 1, Virgin Islands (845.382 bbl/day). ;)
"...defending oil corporations pursuit of profit to the detriment of vast swathes of coastline was rich"
My point was that, without oil companies, we would not have the standard of living we now enjoy. Fact.
At this stage, there is no evidence that BP that the failure of the blowback valve in question was in any way related to the "pursuit of profit", i.e cost reduction. Unless you know better, of course... ;)
none of those countries declare war to any country with foolish reasons for more oil .. they buy.. ;)
none of those countries declare war to any country with foolish reasons for more oil .. they buy
That's a fair enough point cem 8- ) but I would suggest that the reason for the US invading Iraq goes far beyond the simplistic assertion that it was wholly for the acquisition of a guaranteed oil supply in a competitive market or cheap oil – and certainly not much to do with the terrorist strikes in New York and Washington DC in 2001.
-
If there is going to be legal action over this, then isn't it way past time for Obama to clamp his gob shut? His comments are clearly prejudicial to any chance of an impartial hearing that BP might get.
Not that there is much chance of that in an American court anyway. It looks like the only guilty parties here (as far as the Yanks are concerned) are the non-Americans.
-
sorry - thought the spill was in the US -'kin 'ell OK OK China and India and every other country use oil too - got to keep Nickbat and the pc brigade happy ;D ;D ;D
by voracious I mean they use over 20,000,000 barrels a day....China(despite having a far larger population) use a third of that, India use 1/7th....again with a far larger population - what word would you use? Conservative? Frugal? Careful? or perhaps the US maybe use slightly more oil than, say, every other nation on the planet....so I'd say voracious was fair :y
defending US and its use of oil is good....even for you, I mean, defending oil corporations pursuit of profit to the detriment of vast swathes of coastline was rich....but this is good Nick, no, really ;D ;D ;D
Perhaps one should consider the more realistic per capita figures which show that the US consumes 68.672 bbl/day per 1,000 people, which is only just more than Belgium (60.478 bbl/day) and less than Iceland (69.95 bbl/day) and Canada (71.009 bbl/day). If you still insist on using "voracious" in a pejorative way, perhaps you need to direct it towards places like Singapore (189.975 bbl/day), Gibraltar (809.94 bbl/day), or the No 1, Virgin Islands (845.382 bbl/day). ;)
"...defending oil corporations pursuit of profit to the detriment of vast swathes of coastline was rich"
My point was that, without oil companies, we would not have the standard of living we now enjoy. Fact.
At this stage, there is no evidence that BP that the failure of the blowback valve in question was in any way related to the "pursuit of profit", i.e cost reduction. Unless you know better, of course... ;)
none of those countries declare war to any country with foolish reasons for more oil .. they buy.. ;)
none of those countries declare war to any country with foolish reasons for more oil .. they buy
That's a fair enough point cem 8- ) but I would suggest that the reason for the US invading Iraq goes far beyond the simplistic assertion that it was wholly for the acquisition of a guaranteed oil supply in a competitive market or cheap oil – and certainly not much to do with the terrorist strikes in New York and Washington DC in 2001.
yep.. oil was not the whole reason.. it was #1 in the list only ;D
seriously, there we are witnessing a case of ambition surpassing intelligence..
actually the initial aim was changing the map in middle east during the Bush era..including my country :( the proof and evidence is a bit long so I dont go in the details here.. only thing briefly I'll say is a half occupied Turkey map in Pentagon is more than enough me thinks.. :(
now looking in iran situation within a few months it wont be an exegeration to say we will see us warplanes bombing iran :-/
one thing I'm sure, although many here wont accept,
Obama is not leading the country, he is the speaker of decision makers, nothing more..
-
Im quite relieved to hear that Obama isnt making the decisions, he,s far to dim for that job. :y ;D ;D
-
Im quite relieved to hear that Obama isnt making the decisions, he,s far to dim for that job. :y ;D ;D
yep - we were far safer with religious fundamentalist Dubya - I've owned pets smarter than that idiot ;D ;D)
-
Im quite relieved to hear that Obama isnt making the decisions, he,s far to dim for that job. :y ;D ;D
yep - we were far safer with religious fundamentalist Dubya - I've owned pets smarter than that idiot ;D ;D)
Yep, I'm sure you have loads of pets that can fly Convair F-102s. ::) ::)
And in what way was he a religious fundamentalist? :-?
-
Im quite relieved to hear that Obama isnt making the decisions, he,s far to dim for that job. :y ;D ;D
yep - we were far safer with religious fundamentalist Dubya - I've owned pets smarter than that idiot ;D ;D)
Yep, I'm sure you have loads of pets that can fly Convair F-102s. ::) ::)
And in what way was he a religious fundamentalist? :-?
i would look into his aptitude tests - i think its more poetic license than pilots license on his part :y
he publicly stated he speaks to "god" and lets his words guide him :o, errrr ok Georgie.....if you could just move away from that button now please............. ;D ;D
so you're a Dubya fan Nick?......will wonders never cease ;)
-
Im quite relieved to hear that Obama isnt making the decisions, he,s far to dim for that job. :y ;D ;D
yep - we were far safer with religious fundamentalist Dubya - I've owned pets smarter than that idiot ;D ;D)
While I considered G W to have made some reckless decisions while President I would suggest that he is far from being an idiot BJ. :( :(
-
Im quite relieved to hear that Obama isnt making the decisions, he,s far to dim for that job. :y ;D ;D
yep - we were far safer with religious fundamentalist Dubya - I've owned pets smarter than that idiot ;D ;D)
While I considered G W to have made some reckless decisions while President I would suggest that he is far from being an idiot BJ. :( :(
thats your prerogative Zulu :y- i can only go on what he's said, what he's done and what he believes ::)
-
[
yep.. oil was not the whole reason.. it was #1 in the list only ;D
seriously, there we are witnessing a case of ambition surpassing intelligence..
actually the initial aim was changing the map in middle east during the Bush era..including my country :( the proof and evidence is a bit long so I dont go in the details here.. only thing briefly I'll say is a half occupied Turkey map in Pentagon is more than enough me thinks.. :(
now looking in iran situation within a few months it wont be an exegeration to say we will see us warplanes bombing iran :-/
one thing I'm sure, although many here wont accept,
Obama is not leading the country, he is the speaker of decision makers, nothing more..
it was #1 in the list only
I wouldn't have put it at the top of the list cem.
seriously, there we are witnessing a case of ambition surpassing intelligence
I would agree with that in terms of the military intelligence and strategic assessment being wholly inadequate to ensure a satisfactory outcome to the invasion.
actually the initial aim was changing the map in middle east
You're nearly there cem 8-) 8-) :y
wont be an exegeration to say we will see us warplanes bombing iran
It could well happen :y
Obama is not leading the country, he is the speaker of decision makers, nothing more
I quite agree with that cem. He's a partisan politician first and foremost, not a natural leader. This is always the trouble with falling into stride with the populist daydreamers, wide-boys, spivs, media darlings, and those whose analysis of most situations stems from half-baked utterances gleaned from second rate university lecturers who fit well into the mould that forms the hoards greatly inexperienced in anything but esoteric theory. :y :y
-
Im quite relieved to hear that Obama isnt making the decisions, he,s far to dim for that job. :y ;D ;D
yep - we were far safer with religious fundamentalist Dubya - I've owned pets smarter than that idiot ;D ;D)
Yep, I'm sure you have loads of pets that can fly Convair F-102s. ::) ::)
And in what way was he a religious fundamentalist? :-?
i would look into his aptitude tests - i think its more poetic license than pilots license on his part :y
he publicly stated he speaks to "god" and lets his words guide him :o, errrr ok Georgie.....if you could just move away from that button now please............. ;D ;D
so you're a Dubya fan Nick?......will wonders never cease ;)
Whether or not his aptitude was high, he nevertheless flew the aircraft, which takes some doing.
As far as his belief in a deity is concerned, there are many Christians who believe in God and pray regularly and who who seek comfort and spiritual guidance. That is not fundamentalism - well, only in the minds of fundamentalist atheists, perhaps. ::) ::)
-
Im quite relieved to hear that Obama isnt making the decisions, he,s far to dim for that job. :y ;D ;D
yep - we were far safer with religious fundamentalist Dubya - I've owned pets smarter than that idiot ;D ;D)
While I considered G W to have made some reckless decisions while President I would suggest that he is far from being an idiot BJ. :( :(
thats your prerogative Zulu :y- i can only go on what he's said, what he's done and what he believes ::)
Thank you for your understanding in this matter BJ :y
-
im not going to argue about how intelligent dubya is - its rather like debating the dryness of water ;D
-
im not going to argue about how intelligent dubya is - its rather like debating the dryness of water ;D
Thank you for your consideration BJ :y :y
-
[
yep.. oil was not the whole reason.. it was #1 in the list only ;D
seriously, there we are witnessing a case of ambition surpassing intelligence..
actually the initial aim was changing the map in middle east during the Bush era..including my country :( the proof and evidence is a bit long so I dont go in the details here.. only thing briefly I'll say is a half occupied Turkey map in Pentagon is more than enough me thinks.. :(
now looking in iran situation within a few months it wont be an exegeration to say we will see us warplanes bombing iran :-/
one thing I'm sure, although many here wont accept,
Obama is not leading the country, he is the speaker of decision makers, nothing more..
it was #1 in the list only
I wouldn't have put it at the top of the list cem.
seriously, there we are witnessing a case of ambition surpassing intelligence
I would agree with that in terms of the military intelligence and strategic assessment being wholly inadequate to ensure a satisfactory outcome to the invasion.
actually the initial aim was changing the map in middle east
You're nearly there cem 8-) 8-) :y
wont be an exegeration to say we will see us warplanes bombing iran
It could well happen :y
Obama is not leading the country, he is the speaker of decision makers, nothing more
I quite agree with that cem. He's a partisan politician first and foremost, not a natural leader. This is always the trouble with falling into stride with the populist daydreamers, wide-boys, spivs, media darlings, and those whose analysis of most situations stems from half-baked utterances gleaned from second rate university lecturers who fit well into the mould that forms the hoards greatly inexperienced in anything but esoteric theory. :y :y
I'm glad to see, you agree wth me mostly Zulu :y :y
-
since 1909 theres been 43 major oil spills in US waters(almost all US companies) including Red Butte Creek oil spill which polluted the Great Salt Lake in Utah 2 days ago!!! (American company - no ones bothered by that) and in the Gulf of Mexico oil continues to spew from the Taylor Energy wells(independent US oil company) after a rig was destroyed in a hurricane................on 16 September [size=14]2004[/size][/b] !!!! :o
seems its ok as long as its a US company :y