CRIMINAL: BP's Cover-Up of Blow-Out in Caspian Sea

You seem to be confused. This isn't an "energy issue". This is a criminal issue. Or maybe you aren't confused and simply want to AVOID the discussion, which is why you - again - are attempting (and failing) to negatively project that my concern is 'naive and emotion laden'.

Tell you what. When you're ready to have an HONEST discussion, feel free to lay your real cards on the table. No amount of your expertise regarding the oil industry trumps criminal negligence.

Can you name one US oil company that faced up to their responsibilities in the same way that BP did after Deepwater Horizon?

On July 6, 1988 Occidental's Piper Alpha offshore production platform in the UK North Sea was destroyed when an out of service gas condensate pump was started with its pressure safety valve removed. The subsequent gas leak, explosion and fire resulted in the deaths of 167 workers in what remains the world's most deadly offshore disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occidental_Petroleum#Piper_Alpha

Refusal to Accept Responsibility
In addition to its slow response and insufficient communication, the company's attempts to remedy its damaged reputation fell short of their intended goals. Initially, Exxon blamed state and federal officials for the delays in containing the spill. When asked how Exxon intended to pay the massive cleanup costs, one Exxon executive responded by saying it would raise gas prices to pay for the incident. [SUP]15[/SUP] These attempts to evade responsibility and defer blame angered consumers. Ten days after the spill, Exxon spent $1.8 million to take out full-page ad in 166 papers.[SUP]16[/SUP] In the ad, the company apologized for the spill but still refused to accept responsibility. Many saw this approach as insincere and inadequate.



http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring01/Hogue/exxon.html
 
Can you name one US oil company that faced up to their responsibilities in the same way that BP did after Deepwater Horizon?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occidental_Petroleum#Piper_Alpha





http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring01/Hogue/exxon.html

WTF are you talking about? They didn't 'face up' to jack shit.

BP Settlement Sells Out Victims - UPDATE
Deal buries evidence of oil company willful negligence


http://www.gregpalast.com/bp-settle...s-evidence-of-oil-company-willful-negligence/
 
They admitted they knew this drilling required a better, more expensive rig due to prior experience and did what? Used corexit to poison the environment and the people to hide the extent of the damage, then turned around and paid a pittance for the privilege of drilling...not to mention the tax breaks and gov. teat they suck off of. They're part of the effort to deny climate change and their part in it, they want all the money given to them rather than green energy start ups...they have secret meetings with Cheney about energy...we still don't know what went on but we can guess now that we know about fracking. Don't forget that wonderful pipeline snaking across the oglala aquifer that will become poisoned when, not if, there is a spill...yeah they have our own best interests in mind...LMAO
 
They admitted they knew this drilling required a better, more expensive rig due to prior experience and did what? Used corexit to poison the environment and the people to hide the extent of the damage, then turned around and paid a pittance for the privilege of drilling...not to mention the tax breaks and gov. teat they suck off of. They're part of the effort to deny climate change and their part in it, they want all the money given to them rather than green energy start ups...they have secret meetings with Cheney about energy...we still don't know what went on but we can guess now that we know about fracking. Don't forget that wonderful pipeline snaking across the oglala aquifer that will become poisoned when, not if, there is a spill...yeah they have our own best interests in mind...LMAO

I wonder if you are even aware that BP was in the process of sealing that well prior to moving on when the accident occurred? The rig, which was built in 2001, was one of the most technologically advanced in the world.
 
I wonder if you are even aware that BP was in the process of sealing that well prior to moving on when the accident occurred? The rig which was built in 2005 was one of the most technologically advanced in the world.
BP knew they were using inferior equipment to save money...they took a risk, made a gamble, with our ocean and peoples lives and it boils down to cash for them, nothing more than the cost of business. Did you bother to read the OP?
 
BP knew they were using inferior equipment to save money...they took a risk, made a gamble, with our ocean and peoples lives and it boils down to cash for them, nothing more than the cost of business. Did you bother to read the OP?

There is a reason Aoxomoxoa continues to comment, and that all of his comments defend BP. It isn't hard to connect the dots as to why he has nothing to say about the THREAD TOPIC.
 
Yes, I edited the post. You jumped in within seconds of posting before I changed my mind. The fact of the matter is I find your viewpoint to be naive and emotion laden. There is a serious debate to be held about energy issues but that's not happening here.
The right and many on the left in congress have repeatedly fought any effort to reduce energy consumption or develop alternative energy supplies. PERIOD
 
They admitted they knew this drilling required a better, more expensive rig due to prior experience and did what? Used corexit to poison the environment and the people to hide the extent of the damage, then turned around and paid a pittance for the privilege of drilling...not to mention the tax breaks and gov. teat they suck off of. They're part of the effort to deny climate change and their part in it, they want all the money given to them rather than green energy start ups...they have secret meetings with Cheney about energy...we still don't know what went on but we can guess now that we know about fracking. Don't forget that wonderful pipeline snaking across the oglala aquifer that will become poisoned when, not if, there is a spill...yeah they have our own best interests in mind...LMAO

There is much play made about Corexit but the fact is the major constituents biodegrade in seawater in weeks especially in a warm water environment like the Gulf. What are sulfonates anyway but the same damn thing used to clean clothes!!

[h=3]Corexit 9500[/h] In response to public pressure, the EPA and Nalco released the list of the six ingredients in Corexit 9500, revealing constituents including sorbitan, butanedioic acid, and petroleum distillates.[SUP][4][/SUP] Corexit EC9500A is made mainly of hydrotreated light petroleum distillates, propylene glycol and a proprietary organic sulfonate.[SUP][18][/SUP] Environmentalists also pressured Nalco to reveal to the public what concentrations of each chemical are in the product; Nalco considers that information to be a trade secret, but has shared it with the EPA.[SUP][19][/SUP] Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used as a solvent or moisturizer in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, and is of relatively low toxicity. An organic sulfonate (or organic sulfonic acid salt) is a synthetic chemical detergent, that acts as a surfactant to emulsify oil and allow its dispersion into water. The identity of the sulfonate used in both forms of Corexit was disclosed to the EPA in June 2010, as dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate.[SUP][20][/SUP]
 
The right and many on the left in congress have repeatedly fought any effort to reduce energy consumption or develop alternative energy supplies. PERIOD

So you should be supporting nuclear power which is the safest form of energy bar none. Will you be giving up your aircon this summer?
 
So you should be supporting nuclear power which is the safest form of energy bar none. Will you be giving up your aircon this summer?

Nuke power? Heck we do not even have a storage site for nuke wastes.

Safest? Ask Japan.

so you do not deny that the right fight all efforts at increasing energy independence and efficiency?
 
Tommy TuTu sees any mention of BP as an attack on England, apparently.
 
Yeah...I heard that, of course it's safe to eat!! This comes after the news that the amount of dangerous radioactivity was under-reported at the time...who's surprised?! They'll say anything. Japan is standing up against them though...did anyone else see where the Prime Minister (I think that was his title) said that the nuclear industry has a strangle hold on their government? Amazing...he came out and said it.
 
Yeah...I heard that, of course it's safe to eat!! This comes after the news that the amount of dangerous radioactivity was under-reported at the time...who's surprised?! They'll say anything. Japan is standing up against them though...did anyone else see where the Prime Minister (I think that was his title) said that the nuclear industry has a strangle hold on their government? Amazing...he came out and said it.

As Prime Minister, can't he do anything about that stranglehold?
 
Isn't the Justice Department investigating some BP execs for lying about Gulfmageddon?
 
As I've already pointed out, there is so much shit going on now that $200+ per barrel oil is just over the horizon. If that happens I doubt there will be much bellyaching about evil oil companies and more about how to get that shit out of the ground ASAP. If you think that putting up windmills will save you then you are sadly mistaken, for too long energy policy has been influenced by scientific illiterates. Don Quixote should have warned you of the futility of tilting at windmills!

From Wiki;

Wind power, as an alternative to fossil fuels, is plentiful, renewable, widely distributed, clean, produces no greenhouse gas emissions during operation and uses little land.[SUP][5][/SUP] Any effects on the environment are generally less problematic than those from other power sources. As of 2010 wind energy production was over 2.5% of worldwide power, growing at more than 25% per annum. The overall cost per unit of energy produced is similar to the cost for new coal and natural gas installations.[SUP][6][/SUP] Although wind power is a popular form of energy generation, the construction of wind farms is not universally welcomed.[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP][SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP][SUP][13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

And;
The use of wind power in the United States has expanded quickly over the last several years. Construction of new wind power generation capacity in the first quarter of 2012 totaled 1695 megawatts (MW) bringing the cumulative installed capacity to 48,611 MW.[SUP][1][/SUP] This capacity is exceeded only by China.[SUP][2][/SUP] In February 2012 the electricity produced from wind power in the US amounted to 11 terawatt-hours (TW·h) or 3.6% of all electric power.[SUP][3][/SUP] In 2010, the wind power industry in the US received 42% ($4.986 billion) of all federal subsidies for electricity generation.[SUP][4][/SUP]
New wind farms can produce electricity in the 5-8 cents per kWh range, making wind power competitive with the cost of fossil fuel electricity generation in many markets.[SUP][5][/SUP] Fourteen states have installed over 1,000 MW of wind capacity, and a total of 37 states now have installed at least some utility-scale wind power.[SUP][6][/SUP] Texas, with 10,337 MW of capacity, has the most installed wind power capacity of any U.S. state, followed by Iowa with 4,322 MW.[SUP][7][/SUP] The Alta Wind Energy Center in California is the largest wind farm in the United States with a capacity of 1020 MW of power[SUP][8][/SUP].
The U.S. wind industry generates tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity.[SUP][9][/SUP] Wind projects boost local tax bases, and revitalize the economy of rural communities by providing a steady income stream to farmers with wind turbines on their land.[SUP][10][/SUP] GE Energy is the largest domestic wind turbine manufacturer.[SUP][10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States[/SUP]

Scientific American provided proof that the US could entirely eschew fossil fuels by the year 2030 without adding nuclear capacity.
Now that President Obama has authorised the construction of two new nuclear plants it is even more doable.

Your archaic view that fossil fuels can not be replaced is all the more laughable coming from you.
[/SUP]
 
Citing Wiki (when it debunks an idiot's argument) is often an excuse for the aggrieved party to attack the source...
 
Back
Top