Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I would like to thank you for all your efforts to fix the problems you created. I have noticed that you are the only people doing anything about it. Obama has failed the country again (noticing a trend here) and all the environmental groups do is talk.

Your efforts are appreciated, thank you

The United States










http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/gi ... oil-spill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again, Epic FAIL

You are batting zero.

All Obama does is attack the private sector and talk, he hasnt done ANYTHING but blame.

Thats not leadership



Leadership is BP they are getting results.



Way to whiff you must bat 7th.

Let me try to understand Alphie logic.

1) BP makes sure they don't have to use all safety devices
2) BP well explodes
3) BP downplays accident. Lies about size of leak
4) BP admits they don't have a clue as to how to stop leak, ASKS for federal help.
5) Obama Adminstration, in the hours after said explosion, has plans in place. All branches of government have been working as best as ANYONE could to contain spill.


Yeah, not getting it.

dbackjon wrote:Let me try to understand Alphie logic.

1) BP makes sure they don't have to use all safety devices
2) BP well explodes
3) BP downplays accident. Lies about size of leak
4) BP admits they don't have a clue as to how to stop leak, ASKS for federal help.
5) Obama Adminstration, in the hours after said explosion, has plans in place. All branches of government have been working as best as ANYONE could to contain spill.


Yeah, not getting it.

FYI: BP is STILL lying about the size and scope of the accident...
in fact sticking close to the EXXON Valdez Oil Spill playbook of "NEVER telling what they know" make the Federal Government and the Citizens of the US figure it out for themselves... Lie and Lie some more (forever)

it's an old trick - but the old tricks are the best tricks

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I would like to thank you for all your efforts to fix the problems you created. I have noticed that you are the only people doing anything about it. Obama has failed the country again (noticing a trend here) and all the environmental groups do is talk.

Your efforts are appreciated, thank you

The United States










http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/gi ... oil-spill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

you have got to be the stupidest muther fucker i've never met

I wonder if people who rag on BP think BP wanted this to happen. I wonder if they think that if BP thought there was even a substantial probability that the activty they were engaged in would've resulted in this they would've gone ahead.

This is going to cost them billions and billions of dollars. I guarantee you, if they'd have thought this would happen unless they did "X" they'd have done "X."

It's not like having an oil rig explode then having a huge oil slick appear is something you can hide. I don't think this is something they were figuring they could get away with.

BP downplays accident. Lies about size of leak

What is your basis for saying BP lied about the size of the leak as opposed to just honestly underestmating it? Frankly, to this day nobody really knows the size of the leak. People are just trying to come up with some kind of estimate. Think about the difficulty of trying to estimate the flow.

In this scenario there is absolutely no benefit to lying about the size of the leak. There was and is no incentive for them to do that.

JohnStOnge wrote:I wonder if people who rag on BP think BP wanted this to happen. I wonder if they think that if BP thought there was even a substantial probability that the activty they were engaged in would've resulted in this they would've gone ahead.

This is going to cost them billions and billions of dollars. I guarantee you, if they'd have thought this would happen unless they did "X" they'd have done "X."

It's not like having an oil rig explode then having a huge oil slick appear is something you can hide. I don't think this is something they were figuring they could get away with.

Of course BP didn't WANT this to happen... Doesn't make them any less negligent. They specifically avoided measures that would have prevented or minimized the leak because they felt to regulations were too stringent and their own safety measures were sufficient. They were wrong. They chose to keep costs lower over safety. Fuck 'em.

And, feel free to join in on these threads:

BP fought safety regulations at deepwater oil rigs:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15145" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BP pushing $5,000 "settlement agreements":
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15155" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And, JSO... I gotta wonder... as a Louisianan... (and I'd assume from your last name you're from a family with deep roots in Louisiana) and someone who obviously loves the Gulf Coast (judging by the avatars you've always had)... the oil spill has to sicken you, no? Is BP not responsible? Is it just... "ah well, shit happens... no big deal?" The Gulf may never be the same for the rest of your lifetime...

JohnStOnge wrote:I wonder if people who rag on BP think BP wanted this to happen. I wonder if they think that if BP thought there was even a substantial probability that the activty they were engaged in would've resulted in this they would've gone ahead.

This is going to cost them billions and billions of dollars. I guarantee you, if they'd have thought this would happen unless they did "X" they'd have done "X."

It's not like having an oil rig explode then having a huge oil slick appear is something you can hide. I don't think this is something they were figuring they could get away with.

John I've always appreciated your logic...
But this post is a wild swing and a miss

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Of course BP didn't WANT this to happen... Doesn't make them any less negligent. They specifically avoided measures that would have prevented or minimized the leak because they felt to regulations were too stringent and their own safety measures were sufficient. They were wrong. They chose to keep costs lower over safety. Fuck 'em.

Doesnt make them anymore negligent either, their safety management worked every other time except this time.

Accidents happen.

BTW they did what the government couldnt do and fixed their own mistake.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Of course BP didn't WANT this to happen... Doesn't make them any less negligent. They specifically avoided measures that would have prevented or minimized the leak because they felt to regulations were too stringent and their own safety measures were sufficient. They were wrong. They chose to keep costs lower over safety. **** 'em.

Doesnt make them anymore negligent either, their safety management worked every other time except this time.

Accidents happen.

BTW they did what the government couldnt do and fixed their own mistake.

BP hasn't fixed anything, yet, RALPHINGJIZZ.

They're known in the industry as a company that doesn't like preventive maintenance. Run it til it breaks then fix it.

That is how almost every company in the USA runs, they are too heavily taxed, over regulated and forced into entitlements for employees.

The scenario you described is exactly how most broadcasters run their operations. It is how most industrial factories run their operations. You only have so much money to go around and when the government is taking more than their fair share you get the situation we are in now.

John I've always appreciated your logic...
But this post is a wild swing and a miss

So you think that if they were sitting there and thought that there was a realistic chance that this could happen if they didn't adopt certain addtional measures but they didn't apply those additional measures anyway?

Of course BP didn't WANT this to happen... Doesn't make them any less negligent. They specifically avoided measures that would have prevented or minimized the leak because they felt to regulations were too stringent and their own safety measures were sufficient. They were wrong. They chose to keep costs lower over safety.

It's quite possible that they did not choose "to keep costs lower over safety." It's quite possible that they honestly felt that their practices were "safe" and that the additional regulations were not necessary.

There is no such thing as zero risk. There is always a balance between risk and cost. There is always a point at which moving farther in the area of risk reduction does not reasonably justify the cost. Of course if the very small risk is realized it makes you look bad. But it doesn't mean that your decision wasn't the correct decision given the information at hand.

JohnStOnge wrote:
So you think that if they were sitting there and thought that there was a realistic chance that this could happen if they didn't adopt certain addtional measures but they didn't apply those additional measures anyway?

I believe they figured they would try to save money and increase profits instead of do something about the warnings they had received.. And this isn't anything new for BP.

2007 article on the 2005 blast at Texas City

BP Plc's top management repeatedly disregarded safety warnings at a Texas refinery for three years before a 2005 explosion killed 15, U.S. investigators concluded.

``Decisions to cut budgets were made at the highest levels of BP Group despite serious safety deficiencies at Texas City,'' the agency said in its final report on the accident's causes. Cost-cutting ``left the Texas City refinery vulnerable to a catastrophe,'' the board said.

``BP is committed to preventing such a tragedy from occurring again.'' spokesman Ronnie Chappell said by e-mail.

BP, second to Royal Dutch Shell PLC in Europe, has seen its U.S. reputation suffer further since the explosion because of missteps including Alaska oil pipeline spills and maintenance delays on its Thunder Horse platform in the Gulf of Mexico.

One 2002 internal BP report tied safety problems to the budget cuts, saying ``the current integrity and reliability issues at Texas City are clearly linked to the reduction in maintenance spending over the last decade,'' the CSB said.

BP's top executives challenged plant managers to cut fixed costs by 25 percent in 2004, Holmstrom said. A study of pressure- release valves was 13 years overdue, he said at the press conference.

Investigators found broken alarms, improperly calibrated pressure gauges and dirt-encrusted dials that operators couldn't read clearly. Before the explosion, supervisors ordered workers to restart the equipment without completing a safety check, CSB investigators found.

`Check-the-Box'

``A check-the-box mentality was prevalent at Texas City, where personnel completed paperwork and checked off on safety policy and procedural requirements even when those requirements had not been met,'' the CSB said. [/quote
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... fer=energy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FUCK BP.

And, JSO... I gotta wonder... as a Louisianan... (and I'd assume from your last name you're from a family with deep roots in Louisiana) and someone who obviously loves the Gulf Coast (judging by the avatars you've always had)... the oil spill has to sicken you, no? Is BP not responsible? Is it just... "ah well, **** happens... no big deal?" The Gulf may never be the same for the rest of your lifetime...

Of course I wish this hadn't happened. But I do think that the net effect of offshore drilling off of Louisiana is positive for Louisiana. Also, I think that this is the realization of a risk that was known.

I don't know if the Gulf will ever be the "same" as it otherwise would've been without this incident. But it is not the end of the world. When it's all said and done, the productivity of the Gulf ecosystem in general and Louisiana estuaries in particular will still be very high.

It's a lot bigger deal to us than it is to the environment. To "the environment" it's just something to be metabolized.

Here's the thing, Sky: Any time you are dealing with a large organization, there will always be numerous "warnings." So if something goes wrong you can pretty much assume that you're going to be able to find instances in which people warned the organization about it. What you usually don't see is how often people were warned that something would happen and it never happened. And I think that's the overwhelming majority of the time.

The fact that somebody was "warned" about something and then that something happened doesn't mean there was any irresponsibility. If large organizations changed their direction every time they were warned about something they'd be paralyzed. Nothing would ever happen.

BP's first attempt to fix their mess = FAIL

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/08/gulf.o ... tml?hpt=T2


Wonder how long before they suggest an underwater nuke to glass over the hole?

93henfan wrote: Wonder how long before they suggest an underwater nuke to glass over the hole?

30 minutes after they figure out how to make a profit off of it.

After all that what business in the USA is all about..............not making any money.

dbackjon wrote:Let me try to understand Alphie logic.

1) BP makes sure they don't have to use all safety devices
2) BP well explodes
3) BP downplays accident. Lies about size of leak
4) BP admits they don't have a clue as to how to stop leak, ASKS for federal help.
5) Obama Adminstration, in the hours after said explosion, has plans in place. All branches of government have been working as best as ANYONE could to contain spill.


Yeah, not getting it.

It's official! Dback now forgives Bush for anything having to do with Katrina.

In the U.S. we prefer to let companies self-regulate. And when regulators get uppity, they are replaced with industry friendlies. All in the name of free markets allowing corporations to be profitable.

Leaking Oil Well Lacked Safeguard Device

Associated Press

A worker looks over an oil boom as it collects oil from the leaking Deepwater Horizon pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico. The disaster has been sending 1,000 barrels of oil a day gushing into the sea.
.The oil well spewing crude into the Gulf of Mexico didn't have a remote-control shut-off switch used in two other major oil-producing nations as last-resort protection against underwater spills.

The lack of the device, called an acoustic switch, could amplify concerns over the environmental impact of offshore drilling after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig last week.

.The accident has led to one of the largest ever oil spills in U.S. water and the loss of 11 lives. On Wednesday federal investigators said the disaster is now releasing 5,000 barrels of oil a day into the Gulf, up from original estimates of 1,000 barrels a day.

U.S. regulators don't mandate use of the remote-control device on offshore rigs, and the Deepwater Horizon, hired by oil giant BP PLC, didn't have one. With the remote control, a crew can attempt to trigger an underwater valve that shuts down the well even if the oil rig itself is damaged or evacuated.

The efficacy of the devices is unclear. Major offshore oil-well blowouts are rare, and it remained unclear Wednesday evening whether acoustic switches have ever been put to the test in a real-world accident. When wells do surge out of control, the primary shut-off systems almost always work. Remote control systems such as the acoustic switch, which have been tested in simulations, are intended as a last resort.

Nevertheless, regulators in two major oil-producing countries, Norway and Brazil, in effect require them. Norway has had acoustic triggers on almost every offshore rig since 1993.

The U.S. considered requiring a remote-controlled shut-off mechanism several years ago, but drilling companies questioned its cost and effectiveness, according to the agency overseeing offshore drilling. The agency, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, says it decided the remote device wasn't needed because rigs had other back-up plans to cut off a well.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 36798.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:After all that what business in the USA is all about..............not making any money.

RALPHUPJIZZ.


Didn't your mother, assuming you knew who she was, teach you that if you make a mess you have to clean it up? BP thoought they would make more profits without the expense of some safety equipment. Turns out they guessed wrong, unless they can stick the taxpayers with the cost of cleanup.

Question for those that just want to demonize big oil:

Why are you not upset at the company that makes the other 3 safety devices that were implemented by BP that failed?

You see they had plenty of safety precautions in place (its called responsibility) those other devices failed, so why not get mad over that instead of going right after the company?

I know why, so I dont need an answer. Just wanted to point out the stupidity of your argument.