That's a pretty ironic statement given the transparent bias and jingoism in your own posts (your steadfast refusal to use the correct name of the legal entity responsible for the operation of the rig, for example).

I really find myself wondering whether all this outrage and hyperbolae would be flying about in the US

- if the company were called US Oil, or

- if this event had happened somewhere else in the world

@mooo2a

Just to clarify nutball's post for you:


- and it's a lot quicker just to type BP...

As far as your comment about me being concerned with the nationality of who will get blamed - what actually does concern me is how the US media is spinning this story to give the impression (successfully it seems, given your ignorance of the fact that "British Petroleum" ceased to exist 10 years ago) that this appalling disaster can be blamed on foreigners!!!
So typical of the American psyche.

And please stop putting so much store in this eye-witness account that was on the TV show. The man was some electronics/computer guy - nothing to do with the drill crew. The rubber parts he mentioned that the driller told him not to worry about that turned up in the drilling mud could easily have been from a wiper plug:

"A rubber-bodied, plastic- or aluminum-cored device used to separate cement and drilling fluid as they are being pumped down the inside of the casing during cementing operations. a wiper plug also removes drilling mud that adheres to the inside of the casing."

There would also have been cooks and cleaners on board who probably had never set foot outside the accommodation module let alone ventured onto the rig floor. Should we also listen to their expert opinion?

Is it not significant that none of the people who would actually know what was going on have been on TV? There's too much uninformed speculation by the media looking for a convenient scapegoat. Please wait for the results of the enquiry and stop speculating about a highly technical business that you know little about.

These are the facts:

Dick Cheney convened secret meetings with energy company people, and they hashed out the rules. These are the rules that let the fox guard the hen house. The rules that let the employees of MMS feel that it was okay to do illicit drugs and have sex with employees of energy companies; or to solicit jobs from the companies they were regulating *while* they working for the MMS, doing on site inspections of those companies.

Dick Cheney would was the CEO of Halliburton right before he was Vice President of the United States -- Halliburton is the company who was doing the cementing of this very oil well ~20 hours before it exploded. Halliburton is allowed to make it's own decisions, that affect us all; no matter what country we live in.

BP was licensed to drill down to 18,000 feet below the ocean floor. Did they adhere to this limit? Or, did they drill deeper; maybe up to 25,000 feet?

Who knows? The MMS rules are so full of holes, we may never know.

It is obvious you have some kind of abnormal predilection to blame Dick Cheney for everything. Blaming him for the decision to invade Iraq is one thing, but you have gone off into the deep end way over your head. I would suggest that you get some professional help about this problem.

British Petroleum did not cease to exist, they just changed their name from British Petroleum to BP. My mistake, as I thought the official name was still British Petroleum.

I think you are wrong about the American press trying to blame the disaster on foreigners. They may be reporting on the ownership of the companies involved, but I don't sense any kind of backlash against foreigners based on the country of origin of the companies involved, and clearly the British press is more obsessed about this than the American press.

On the contrary, you seem to be so used to blaming the USA for everything that when a non-US company (and in this case a British company) is involved in such a disaster it upsets your preconceived notion that all the worlds problems are caused by the US (and in the case of Neil, that all the worlds problems are caused by Dick Cheney).

As for the what actually happened, I guess we will have to wait for an investigation on that, but the witness was pretty clear that BP management on the rig was pressuring them to speed up to make up for previous problems that they encountered, and the witness seemed to think that was a contributory factor in the disaster. We will have to wait and find out what others have to say, but there has been some kind of misconception that the sub-contractors are out there doing whatever they want without BP oversight, and that is not correct.

As far as my knowledge, I don't claim to be a offshore drilling expert, but I worked in the business for over 12 years, and I have knowledge of the relationship between an operator (in this case BP) and the sub-contractors they hire to do much of the work.

Hey, If the shoe fits....throw it.

In case some of you missed the link from earlier in the thread....

[quote]2001

Cheney’s secret dirty energy task force crafts national energy policy. The Bush administration released the National Energy Policy Report on May 16. President Bush appointed Vice President Cheney—who gave up his title as CEO of oil and gas company Halliburton to take on his new role—with developing a new energy policy swiftly after taking office. But Cheney’s relationship with Halliburton did not end. Cheney was kept on the company’s payroll after retirement and retained around 430,000 shares of Halliburton stock.

The task force report was based on recommendations provided to Cheney from coal, oil, and nuclear companies and related trade groups—many of which were major contributors to Bush’s presidential campaign and to the Republican Party. Oil companies—including BP, the National Mining Association, and the American Petroleum Institute—secretly met with the Cheney and his staff as part of a task force to develop the country’s energy policy.

The proposal clearly represented the interests of dirty industry, including opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and encouraging oil and gas production, coal output, and the development of biofuels and nuclear power.

Only 7 of the 105 recommendations in the plan involved renewable energy. Cheney’s task force report proposed funding the development of clean energy technologies by opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling and earmarking $1.2 billion of bid bonuses from leases in ANWR. The administration was clearly not serious about ending our addiction to oil. Less than two months earlier the president proposed cutting millions from renewable energy programs. The New York Times reported at the time that, “The plan does little for efficiency or renewable energy.â€

I dont see any media slant here to blame BP just because they're from overseas. The anger towards BP comes from their systematic disregard for safety and the environment.

Didn't British Petroleum change its name to BP when it took over Amoco after they failed to pay the clean up costs for the cadiz spill?

Well, all I can say is that they must have changed in the 20 years since I worked for them, or more specifically, for the drilling contractor that was contracted by BP, equivalent to Transocean.
They used to be the 'caring' company. Perhaps transforming themselves into a global giant has changed them for the worse.


Accoding to Wiki-

So no, as they took over Amoco in 1999 or thereabouts.

I thought Amoco couldn't/wouldn't pay the awarded amount in 1990, and after nearly another decade of fighting it was swallowed up by "BP".

Basically its what will happen to BP. They will eventually go belly up paying for this mess and another oil giant will take over their burden (and market share). -Then the CFO's, CEO's and the other board members can get their fat bonuses again under a new untouchable corporate name, instead of doing hard time for murder.

Maybe so. I don't know.

What might happen as well is that the drilling of high pressure deep water oilwells may be banned. If not, the safety measures imposed might make the development of these reserves uneconomic anyway. For the time being...

Fixed!

I admitted that I was not aware British Petroleum had changed its name to BP. It was not based on any "refusal" by me to use the proper legal name, because it was not too long ago that British Petroleum was the proper legal name, and I honestly thought I using the correct name. But now I stand corrected on that.

One can speculate as to why they changed their name, but it probably had nothing to do with any previous oil spills, rather it was probably related to their entry into the US retail market with purchase of Amoco and Arco and the many retail outlets they inherited in the US.

Shell is still called Royal Dutch Shell (last time I looked) so I don't know what the big deal is.

And yes, there would be just as much outrage if the operator was ExxonMobil (a US company) as it is with BP. If you think the outrage is exaggerated becasue BP is a British company, that is your opinion. In most people's opinion, the outrage is justified regardless the home country of any of those found to be responsible.

Regardless of why/how Amoco got swallowed by BP, it sure sets a nice precedent for oil corps NOT having to pay its fair share for damages

Apart from the horrible problem I have to admit I am going to wait several months for everything to settle, and then buy some shares in BP, and a year or 2 later make a small fortune.

I wish I had a few million............ I wonder was this really an accident.? No seriosly I do wonder, by I am a natural at that, and a sceptic as well, but really, I do hpe that this massive disaster, death and chaos was not all about money...... was it.? Only time will tell. Still BP shares might look really good in 6-12 months time (dont say something silly because of this statement, this is money pure and simple, if you think your money is clean tell me if you make as much profit.?) .


Andy

Everyone knows it was Obama's secret plan to kick environmentalism into high gear! why else would it have happened on Earth Day?

If I were you, I would buy now. In several months the stock will have largely recovered or at least stabilized to whatever degree that it will end up at.

I think you are right. Why else wouldn't Obama have fixed those terrible MMS regulations and secret Cheney policies that have existed for the last 17 months that he has been US President (most of that time with a filibuster-proof Congress controlled by his own Democratic Party)?

[url=http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bp-oil-spill-cleanup-costs-060410?src=rss]Nearly 50 Supertankers Are Waiting for BP (on the Cheap)
[/url]

Probably because it takes longer than 17 months to fix 96 months of willful disregard and destruction of legal infrastructure and economy by the previous administration.

Nope, the government regulations "could" be fixed almost immediately (assuming it was actually broken or anyone on the planet knew how to fix them, which is a big "if"). I don't recall anyone from the Obama administration or from Congress even saying that they had even started to fix the regulatory problems or that any regulatory problems even existed (I am sure that will change now).

The fact of the matter is that if an operator like BP pushes the envelope to get the project done and doesn't have properly functioning blow-out preventers in place, then all the government regulation in the world cannot prevent such disasters (unless they outright ban such deep water drilling).

Your comments about the Bush administration smells like the Financial meltdown of 2008 which a lot of people tried to blame on Bush, but upon closer examination was the result of legislation promoted and signed by Clinton (led by his Treasury Secretary Rubin) to deregulate the Financial Industry and also to encourage Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to give mortgages to poor people who could not afford to pay them back.

What you say just ain't true. It is the Big Lie.

And I'll turn the same thing around on you. Bush had 8 years to fix the regulatory changes that Clinton approved - he had 8 years to prevent the housing bubble but he chose not to. There was too much money in it, and the economy grew like gangbusters under his administration which made him look great.

How much time should be granted and which regulations should the current administration be starting on? He had thousands of places to begin, unfortunately he chose health care before deep water drilling. Besides, changing the regulations really wouldn't have prevented this (as you already note). An equivalent regulatory example would be driving under the influence (functioning BoP's), which thousands of Americans (BP/TansOcean/Halliburton) ignore daily, and I would venture to say kills more people/ hour than the oil industry does.

I will grant you that Bush could have tried to regulate the derivatives market that were unregulated under Clinton. But to blame it on Bush by himself (or to blame him chiefly) is totally unfair. Not any politicians on either side of the aisle foresaw the problems that occurred in 2008 (and only a handful of non-politicians). I completely disagree with you on motives, because even Clinton and Rubin (and former Fed Charmian Greenspan) thought deregulation was good for the economy, not because of the sinister motives you have stated. Obviously in hindsight, I would question their judgment, but not their motives.

Actually Bush did try and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (quasi-Federal agencies who bought mortgages on the secondary market that were loaned to people who could not pay them back). But the Dems killed in Congress:

Here is the NY Times article from 2003 describing the initial Bush proposal to prevent a mortgage crisis:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/busin ... &position=

By most accounts, Chris Dodd (who is retiring this year and is Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee) killed Bush's attempt to control Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There are plenty of other links on this if you want to search.

The claim that Obama chose health care reform before control of deep water drilling is ridiculous. If there was problem with MMS oversight, he could have fixed that without Congress. The idea that the Obama administration cannot walk and chew gum at the same time is a flimsy excuse for the reality of the situation (which is that probably very few (or no) Dems thought there was a problem with the current regs).

In addition to the Obama administration (who employees hundreds of thousands of employees), any one of 538 members of the House or Senate could have introduced legislation, and if they were Dem's it should have been easy to get it passed.

Please, stop making it so easy to use your own arguments against yourself.

What a powerful and overwhelming response!!! I am devastated by your factual presentation and rigorous logic!!!

You can google about how Obama opened up offshore shore via executive order in March of this year, and then ordered a moritorium on deep water drilling just recently after the disaster. It doesn't need a bill from Congress, just an executive order.

It also does not require a bill from Congress to fix any problems in the MMS (which is part of the Executive Branch of government) that may exist. The MMS is part of the Department of the Interior, and Obama appointed former US Senator Ken Salazar to head up that agency, and he has many thousands of employees working for him.

Comparing Obama's executive powers in the area of offshore drilling in federal waters to the health care issue is ridiculous. Either you flunked your social studies classes, or maybe you are still in elementary school?

So m0002a, are you going to change your energy use habits? Will you take some personal responsibility for the BP oil spew?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127511500

No, I will not take responsibility for the spill, because if it were me running that platform, I would not have cut corners to make up for lost time as it seems (at this point) like was the case for the BP managers on the scene. Drilling for oil can be safe if proper procedures are followed.

I changed my habits a long time ago. Despite living in a suburb of a major city, I drive only about 7500 miles per year (even though there is no mass transit for me to use). I typically only drive my car 3-4 days per week.

My CPU is an AMD 240e with 45 W TDP, and I have a one hard drive (WD Green Drive). On the advice of a bio-chemist I know, I don't engage in useless, energy wasting, and self-aggrandizing activities like "Folding". I have questioned the net benefit of Folding on this forum.

Bloomberg: BP Needs to Tell Whining Americans to Take a Hike

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... hdg31PUmp8

If it were me, I would not be drilling for oil in that deep of water, period.

But, the fact remains that BP and all the other oil production companies are exploring and drilling for oil because we -- all the consumers of gasoline and other oil products, are using it without regard for future generations; or for the well being of this Earth.

We depend on the Earth -- why the hell are we soiling it so badly? Are we trying to use up all the petroleum as fast as we can? What do we do when we do use it all up? What do we do if the entire Gulf coast becomes completely FUBAR?

BTW, there was an explosion at a oil rig in Texas just a few days ago.

The facts of life are that drilling for oil is going to continue. There are other potentially hazardous activities that will also continue, such as operating nuclear power plants. France obtains about 80% of its electricity from nuclear power plants, and they are building new plants frequently.

Therefore, what we need to focus on is reasonable regulation of all potentially hazardous activities (not just in the energy business) and make sure these regulations are adequately enforced. But even with regulations, some break the law and they must be punished.

Oil drilling can be made safe if proper regulations are followed, and even when a well blows up, a functioning blow out preventer should prevent any significant problems.

More mis-information. No, it was not Bloomberg:

"(Matthew Lynn is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)"

In the US we have free speech, and many news sources publish opinions from different perspectives, but that does not mean they agree with them.