…and this is a 
While the parties responsible struggle to shift the blame, the Gulf oil spill has reached the shore, as this tragically long photo essay shows. There is a cost to these risky ventures in offshore drilling, and they are not adequately paid by the companies doing the dirty work.
Those who would profit need to pay the price. There are clearly at least three companies that shouldn't be arguing…they should be coughing up the cash, and recognizing that their businesses will have to be slightly less profitable.
Environment
Comments
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
May 26, 2010 10:18 AM
America. Where profits are privatized and losses are socialized.
Bloody fucking hell.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: myao
|
May 26, 2010 10:20 AM
I saw this photo essay earlier today... I do hope they helped save the bird in that photo, if it was still alive at the time. :( Breaks my heart!
Posted by: chrisward
|
May 26, 2010 10:22 AM
I can't bear to watch it. Will this really make a difference in our attitudes and public policies. I fear that a hurricane could rain the oil down on all the SE state farms, and it still wouldn't bring us to our senses.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
May 26, 2010 10:28 AM
Those who would profit need to pay the price. There are clearly at least three companies that shouldn't be arguing…they should be coughing up the cash, and recognizing that their businesses will have to be slightly less profitable.
But... But... If they have to pay up, this will discourage the mom and pop oil companies from doing off shore drilling.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
May 26, 2010 10:28 AM
I can hardly watch this. It just makes me sick.
The only positive I can see coming from this is renewed public awareness of environmental issues and their importance.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
May 26, 2010 10:30 AM
If this is anything like the Exxon Valdez cleanup, there are just too many animals to save. Everywhere you'd look, there'd be an otter, or seagull, or puffin, or any number of other species.
My hatred for corporations runs deeper every passing year. There is no adjective sufficient to describe the blackness, anger, and loathing that are mixed up into a cocktail of inner hate.
The worst part? I bet the CEO of BP still gets a milti-million-dollar bonus this year.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
May 26, 2010 10:32 AM
The worst part is the disaster itself. But my anger doubles every time I think about the profit being made by those most responsible.
Posted by: hmafra
|
May 26, 2010 10:32 AM
It's even worse than that. All the water column in the area might be contaminated, due to the heavy use of dispersants. See this:
ABC News on the oil spill
Posted by: tacroy
|
May 26, 2010 10:32 AM
The sad thing is that with fucking proper fucking booming, the coastal damage could have been mostly avoided. Unfortunately, nobody ever actually plans for the worst-case scenario unless you force them to, and nobody forced BP to.
Indeed, if you watch that video, you can see exactly what they're doing wrong in pictures 4, 16 and 27 - only one layer of booming (the white stuff isn't booming, it's just rope), it's all mostly parallel to the shore, and there aren't any catch basins - I guess the oil is just supposed to gather up in the curve of the boom, because it'll magically disappear if you can keep it off the shore for long enough.
Posted by: daveau
|
May 26, 2010 10:35 AM
What about their obligation to their stockholders? Surely that is far more important than a few birds and shit.
I can't look at the photo essay. I don't want to start crying at work.
Posted by: chigau (◦_◦)
|
May 26, 2010 10:36 AM
The Corporations will survive.
Exxon is still with us despite the Valdez, Union Carbide still exists even though people are still dying in Bhopal.
We can take comfort in the fact that however many ducks die and swamps are destroyed, the Corps will survive to trickle stuff down to us.
That's comforting, isn't it?
Isn't it?
Posted by: True Bob
|
May 26, 2010 10:38 AM
I'm assured by my right whinger friends that it is actually all Obama's fault.
Posted by: Holytape
|
May 26, 2010 10:39 AM
There was a bill to remove the 75 million dollar limit of liability on the oil company, but of course one senator squashed it.
They talk about how BP is responsible, but the vast majority of the costs will be footed by the locals, and the tax payers will flip for the rest.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
May 26, 2010 10:40 AM
The sad thing is that with fucking proper fucking booming, the coastal damage could have been mostly avoided. Unfortunately, nobody ever actually plans for the worst-case scenario unless you force them to, and nobody forced BP to.
Amazing what can happen when one has a hand in drawing up the regulations one is supposed to follow.
Posted by: Doktor Zoom
|
May 26, 2010 10:42 AM
Well, sure, if you only look at things from the oil-covered animals' perspective, this whole thing seems kind of grim.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
May 26, 2010 10:43 AM
Dear BP,
Thank you for taking care of the wildlife problems on the Louisiana shorelines. There was simply far too much of it. I mean, I like nature and all, but only when I go to the museum.
Also, the side effect of a destroyed fishing economy is a nice bonus. I don't like shrimp anyway. They are pretty tasty, but they look like sea-grasshoppers, and grasshoppers are too much like Louisiana wildlife.
Sincerely,
nigelTheBold and Mrs. TheBold, and TheBold spawn.
PS Please kindly accept this gift of a suggestive note, a rusty knife, and lubricant. The lubricant is made from some of your own spilled oil, and mixed with the tears of a million dieing animals. It is not for the rusty knife. It's to rub over your body before rolling in the shards of glass I've thoughtfully included.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
May 26, 2010 10:45 AM
It is all his fault. He didn't sign that offshore drilling bill soon enough, and god got all angry and shit.
Don't piss off god. He'll send BP after you. Oh, and jarheads in philosophy class.
Posted by: Coleslaw
|
May 26, 2010 10:46 AM
11 people died on that oil rig. We might want to get angry on their behalf, too.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
May 26, 2010 10:46 AM
True Bob, I’d almost agree with your wackaloon friends…but only in so far as Obama has done a miserable job at keeping the foxes out of the henhouse.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: Bodach
|
May 26, 2010 10:47 AM
Perhaps, when the oil starts to move up the East coast, people will become more aware of the incredible damage that these corporations are doing to us.
The high estimation of flow that I've heard is ~80,000 barrels a day, which is 39 gallons per second. Just under a barrel a second.
Please don't let anyone use the words "spill" or "leak" in your presence: this is an eruption.
Posted by: daveau
|
May 26, 2010 10:48 AM
True Bob@12-
My idiot brother in Houston gave me that same argument last weekend. I explained how the Bush administration* put the energy companies in charge of policing themselves, among other things. He came back with "Well, you can't have the government policing them, because the government doesn't have to answer to anyone." Sometimes I can't believe we have the same parents.
*of course it goes farther back than that, but Bush is one of his hot-buttons and a lot more fun to argue.
Posted by: Sfanetti
|
May 26, 2010 10:51 AM
You guys are thinking of this thing all wrong. BP is giving away billions of gallons of oil all thi time with this spill. I plan on heading down the the beach and filling up my hummer with some sweet crude.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
May 26, 2010 10:53 AM
Don't be fooled. It's not that sweet. I know from experience.
That's the last time I'm taking the oil companies at their word.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
May 26, 2010 10:55 AM
I woke up a few days ago hoping that Deepwater Horizon had just been a nightmare of mine, and I echo those who couldn't get through the whole photo-essay. Regulatory capture (when the foxes take over the government chicken coop) is truly a dangerous thing.
Posted by: Asclepias
|
May 26, 2010 10:57 AM
I am trained in biology and have a few weeks off between the spring and summer semesters, so I volunteered to go down there and help with clean up. I never did get a call, but given that I'm now taking care of pets for neighbors it's probably just as well. I am absolutely heartsick about this spill, and if I ever meet Sarah Palin or the CEO of BP I'd happily punch them in the face.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
May 26, 2010 10:57 AM
Imagine, for a moment, if this were the work of North Korea or Al Queda or some other bogey man. Do you think for a moment that the Navy wouldn’t be out there making fucking sure the shit-ass cunt booming was fucking done fucking right?
We know exactly who the terrorists are who just fucked up one of the most valuable resources on the planet. Economically, this will put 9/11 to shame. It’ll probably wind up costing almost as many innocent lives, too, once you factor in the secondary effects.
So why aren’t the fucking assholes who did this to us being waterboarded in Gitmo right now?
Shit.
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: JBlilie
|
May 26, 2010 11:00 AM
I want that poster up, NOW, with Sarah Palin holding a Drill Here, Drill Now sign with something like this photo-shopped in as the background.
18 months ago: "Drill baby, drill"
Now: "Aw shit"
MMS was an embarrassment under Bush. I hope Obama clean it up.
Posted by: dexadog
|
May 26, 2010 11:00 AM
How much greed and blame is there to go around? Americans whine, whine, whine, but never do ANYTHING to avoid the consequences of being little piggies at the trough. How many 'nice' Americans are only too happy to invest in the very corporations that are screwing the planet? Oh, how sad, when Americans who are just as greedy as Wall St. thugs got screwed! They won't be able to buy that 3rd BMW.... Now they hate the oil corporations - what hypocrisy! Oil cos. have been arrogant bastards messing up the environment forever, but suddenly, everyone's horrified!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
May 26, 2010 11:03 AM
Allow me, Professor, to FIFY:
yer welcome
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 26, 2010 11:03 AM
I'd like to know—from someone like Shermer, not the random pickle-waggers we get here—how this kind of thing gets averted in Libertarian Land, where there are no regulations at all. Is it because of some Rube Goldbergian chain wherein regulations stipulating restaurants must actually cook their burger meat quashed the competitive spirit of some dollar-an-hour dishwasher who would have gone on to invent an oil-spill collecting magic carpet? Or does the Invisible Hand do the cleaning for us, as long as we offer it sufficient sacrifices of uninsured people?
I agree, but the rest of us aren't absolved of the blame of providing the opportunity for profit. We insist on driving, flying, buying new iPods, computers, and TVs every few years, eating the choicest foods from around the world, having kids at greater than replacement rates, etc....We can't all be ascetics (and to no small degree we inherited this destructive lifestyle), but we've got to change.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
May 26, 2010 11:04 AM
I greatly admire the broad brush you have, dexadog. Please, let us know your nationality so that the rest of us can condemn you for imagined bullshit.
Posted by: Horse-Pheathers
|
May 26, 2010 11:07 AM
Just to piss everyone off a little more: BP isn't even doing "fucking proper fucking booming" to contain the spill.
Posted by: Amber
|
May 26, 2010 11:07 AM
Sadly, I can be nothing more than apathetic about the affects on society this disaster will have. I don't see people changing their ways to make the world a better place, or even remotely clean and sustainable.
I don't see change happening until this nation or the human species as a whole hits the wall. Only when it's too late will people wake up. The good life is too easy.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 26, 2010 11:13 AM
As an addendum to my point above, it should be pointed out that some people are trying to make a difference. I believe on of our OMs, Janine, has made a conscious choice to eschew consumerism where possible. Others likely do the same. So, not everyone shares the blame equally.
(I feel bad about my 'broad brush'.)
Posted by: eddylinc
|
May 26, 2010 11:16 AM
The (increasingly moderate) Little Green Footballs posted the ABC video of a dive into the spill:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36424_Video-_The_Oily_Gulf
Posted by: daveau
|
May 26, 2010 11:17 AM
dexadog@28-
I believe that's called a sweeping generalization. I also believe that any 'MericansTM on this website are not the ones that you should be pointing fingers at.
Posted by: lexgreeno
|
May 26, 2010 11:22 AM
We've got to ask ourselves why are we drilling offshore if it's so dangerous. And the answer is we live in a society that demands cheap, limitless energy. Energy which can only be provided by oil. As demand increases to outstrip current production we are only going to see more and more of these risky offshore rigs, with accidents like this becoming more common place.
We are all to blame for this.
Posted by: Tulse
|
May 26, 2010 11:27 AM
It's very simple, Brownian, and I'm shocked that even someone like you can't see it. Consumers spend their time gathering perfect information about the risks of various specific deepsea drilling practices and what specific companies uses those various techniques, then track what refineries and and gas stations use petroleum products from those companies they personally deem to use practices that they find unacceptable. They then use that information to choose which gas station to use to fill their Hummer, and by each individual exercising their free market rights, companies like BP would make less money in the marketplace and thus be forced by the invisible hand to change their ways.
It's so clear, right?
Posted by: Amber
|
May 26, 2010 11:27 AM
@ Brownian.
I suppose I should have been clearer. I don't mean the small active knots of people, myself included, that try to educate or get actively involved in conservation and other environmental sustainability acts. I mean the bulk of the population that just goes it day by day, shakes their collective heads over how awful this or that is on the news but continues to live as if nothing touches them. This isn't everyone, but this is still the majority.
Only if the people in power; corporate, government; actually work to make things better will the bulk of people follow because the lifestyle is handed to them. I'm apathetic because I don't see those people in power doing any such thing, at least not when it'll count the most.
Posted by: llewelly
|
May 26, 2010 11:28 AM
lexgreeno | May 26, 2010 11:22 AM:
Uh, no. Solar, wind, and nuclear are all capable of providing just as much energy. Solar and wind, in fact, are capable of providing more. And solar and wind will not run out any time soon.
Posted by: tsg
|
May 26, 2010 11:37 AM
And if they do, we won't be here to worry about it.
Posted by: lexgreeno
|
May 26, 2010 11:40 AM
@llewelly
Unfortunately they are not. Oil is pretty much the richest source of energy we have. And though I would love to see the use of more renewable resources, the amount we would have to use to even match oil consumption is impossible.
85% of our energy is from fossil fuels. 85%! We can never hope to match that amount anytime soon with just renewables. Increasing renewables helps, but it cannot solve the energy crisis. For one thing all renewable installations require fossil fuels in their creation and operation.
Secondly oil is important outside of just energy production. Without oil we cannot support our intensive agricultural needs. Oil is the mainstay of nearly all our of transportation. There is just no current equivalent to oil.
And nuclear isn't the greatest solution anyway. Apart from all the potential problems (radiation etc.), uranium is itself an unrenewable resource. Eventually it too will run out.
Posted by: True Bob
|
May 26, 2010 11:40 AM
Oil isn't just for fuel anymore. We demand plastics as well. We'll always want oil, even if we never burn another drop.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893
|
May 26, 2010 11:44 AM
I just get so angry when I think about the whole thing. The really bad news is this spill, and the obvious problems it's causing. The worse news is that hurricane season is coming, and this oil spill could actually make it worse. The oil is dark in color, so it'll be good for trapping heat. It will also reduce evaporation rates, which will add more heat to that body of water. It's pretty well established now that the warmer the ocean, the more severe the hurricane.
I've come around to the POV that the energy industry needs to be completely socialized. That doesn't mean that private companies won't still be involved; we need them to responsibly carry out a service, and at a profit. Just not at the level of greed we're seeing. But that oil does not belong to oil companies, it belongs to the landholders -- you and me. If they want to provide a service, in areas where it's possible to get oil out in a responsible manner, fine; then they can profit from it.
But this is our land, and we should be okay with kicking out irresponsible tennants.
The regulatory environment responsible for this started in the Reagan years. Maybe Clinton and Obama haven't done enough to turn this around, but we can identify where it started.
Americans need to get used to this: We sit on 5% of the world's oil reserves and use 25% of the world's oil. That's probably a problem.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
May 26, 2010 11:46 AM
@lexgreeno, #42: Breed, baby, breed!
(the breeder reactor motto)
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
May 26, 2010 11:50 AM
lexgreeno, Germany is on track to get 100% of its energy from renewables in the next few decades. Not only is the technology well proven, it’s actually more reliable and cheaper.
What it doesn’t do, of course, is protect the performance bonuses of the goddamned motherfucking piece-of-shit cunt ass oil executives and the reelection funds of all the congresscritters they’ve bought.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: johnlil#0a224
|
May 26, 2010 11:55 AM
The idiots who are trying to blame Obama for this should be reminded of that secret meeting Dick Cheney (formerly of Halliburton) had with oil company reps. They established the legal safety standards for offshore oil drilling, which, BTW, are weaker than those in any other country that drills offshore.
Still, it's sort of Obama's fault, because, you know, he's black.
Posted by: Tulse
|
May 26, 2010 11:57 AM
There are plenty of processes that can produce synthetic hydrocarbons for plastics and other non-fuel uses. What these processes require are feedstocks (which can be renewable), and energy (which is ultimately the sticking point). Pretty much anything is possible with sufficient energy, which is why the real problem with petroleum is an energy problem.
Posted by: llewelly
|
May 26, 2010 11:58 AM
nigelTheBold | May 26, 2010 10:53 AM:
It's like chocolate. It's not sweet in it's own right, but it works wonderfully with lots of sugar and fat. Add lots of milk and corn syrup and you have the start of a great new ice cream sensation.
Posted by: tsg
|
May 26, 2010 11:58 AM
I thought it was because he didn't kill enough brown people for keeping our oil under their sand.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 26, 2010 12:01 PM
I see Tulse. I guess the problem is that I work for a government organisation that collects and analyses public health data province-wide, and so it's easy for me to forget that we're totally redundant because average everyday people have access to all the same data and the ability to analyse it sufficiently. Myopic, I know.
The point I should remember is that every time I walk into a store I see 48 brands of toothpaste, all of which are completely indistinguishable from each other outside small differences in taste and feel, and that freedom of consumer choice makes every environmental catastrophe or douchebag behaviour by a corporation totally fucking worth it.
Right now I'm mapping releases of carcinogens to the environment by industries (I know, I know, more redundant government busy work since these companies would clearly provide that information to the public if only we didn't create so many regulations to force them to do it), and so the timing of this all is a little on the nose for me.
@Amber:
I know what you meant, and you're right. But I'm trying very hard not to get lost in total apathetic despair, and one of the ways I'm trying to do that is to remember that there are dedicated people out there who are busting their asses to
leave a bettermore sustainableavert ecological disaster leading to widespread collapse of human society resulting in metric fuckloads of human suffering and destruction.It's hard.
Posted by: llewelly
|
May 26, 2010 12:05 PM
lexgreeno | May 26, 2010 11:40 AM:
87 petawatts of solar power (averaged over the whole of the year, over the whole of the globe, and accounting for cloud cover) reaches the earth's surface. US per capita power usage is about 10400 W. If we could capture 1 part in 900 of this solar power, a population of almost 9 billion could be supplied with the 10400 W per person consumption rate of the US population. And that's just the solar power.
Posted by: Foggg
|
May 26, 2010 12:07 PM
That senator would be the creationist, AGW denier, oil company tool & all around reactionary nutcase from Oklahoma, James Inhofe.
When east Texas secedes they can take OK with them.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
May 26, 2010 12:07 PM
There's no way the government will make BP pay for what their
spillgeyser will actually cost. It's physically impossible to because it cost more than the company is worth. But at least companies should be made aware that if they want the profit, they take the risk too. No responsibility, no profit. If CEO's knew that in the event of such a disaster their companies could collapse entirely, they'd actually fucking make safety a top priority. If they were held accountable for the damage they cause when a disaster occurs, their thinking would change from "safety or profit, choose one" into "safety and profit, chose both or you'll get neither."And there is a way to do this even though the government isn't going to do it. There's a way to do it as consumers. The next time you need to fill up, drive past the green painted gas station with the little "bp" sunburst logo and go somewhere else. (And better yet, use less gas overall, but when you do have to buy gas, buy it from someone else besides BP.)
And make sure they know why this is happening. Make them lose money because of the disaster. It's the only language they will fucking listen to.
Posted by: lexgreeno
|
May 26, 2010 12:08 PM
@Ray Moscow
True, I did not think of breeder reactors. Even though they really just lower the wastage of uranium, they don't create it out of thin air. So it is still technically unrenewable. And nuclear is only 6% of worldwide energy production. We're gonna need a lot more of them very quickly to deal with our even current energy needs. And they will produce a huge amount of nasty waste. Never-mind that if we were to all switch to nuclear right now the price of uranium would rise inordinately. Plus oil is need for the mining of uranium, as well as the construction of the plants themselves.
@Ben Goren
Germany has made great strides in the use of renewables and that is definitely to be commended. But it is still only 16.1% at the moment. That's a long way off 100% and Germany is still number 7 in the world for oil consumption. And the main problem is, without a complete overhaul of our infrastructures, especially transport and agriculture, oil will still need to be used in massive amounts. And that's if energy demand were to stay as it is, which it most certainly won't.
Posted by: cal.frye
|
May 26, 2010 12:09 PM
TrueBob@43,
An advisor I had had once with many years' experience "in the oil patch" used to say that oil was far too valuable a resource to waste burning in cars...
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR
|
May 26, 2010 12:11 PM
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2010/05/louisiana-2010.html
Posted by: Horse-Pheathers
|
May 26, 2010 12:17 PM
True Bob, #43 writes:
I'd just like to point out that if we have sufficient energy, we can break CO2 and water and use the results to synthesize hyrdocarbons to our little hearts' content.
In the shorter term, there's some lovely work in progress involving farming algae to indirectly turns sunlight into useful hydrocarbons for us to play with.
Not to mention the experimental plant that cooks off biowaste into diesel (located right next to a turkey processing plant for convenient biomass to run through their cookers).
We're on our way to completely breaking our dependence on ancient rotted plant matter soon enough, if only we have the will and the wherewithal to continue research. Let's get cracking!
Posted by: Louis
|
May 26, 2010 12:26 PM
One group is left out of the title. Us.
Yup, us. Me, you, her, him, them. The lot. Us. Whatever we do at the moment, it's not enough, we need to do more. Why aren't people revolting?* Why aren't I revolting?** We, the consumers, good little corporate whores that we are (don't deny it, unless of course you're posting from a hom made wood computer that you've grown from ethically farmed silicon tofu trees or something), barely bat an eyelid. We hypocritical, entitled, self satisfied fucks merrily consume away, with nary a tinker's cuss for anything else. And don't pretend we don't. I hate us, because we have the power to fix the situation.
Don't get me wrong, the corporations suck mighty donkey sausage too. But we are the corporations. We work in them. Buy stuff from them (lovely, lovely stuff). We let them continue. Our outrage lasts precisely as long as the next iPad upgrade takes to arrive.
Disagree? Well fuck you too! Think you're not to blame because your food has less food miles than your neighbour's or you only masturbate with a recycled glass instrument of choice? Sorry, it's all a matter of degree. You're still part of the problem. I'm part of the problem. We all are. In fact I'm worse than most, because I continue even though I know.
Now that's settled, let's get some nice ethically farmed soya guns and go overthrow the government. Okay? Now, has anyone got any good ideas how we're going to run the show once we've got rid of all the corrupt, indolent scumbags.
What's that you say? We're corrupt, indolent scumbags too? Shit. We're boned.
Louis
*They are. I've met them. Sorry, sorry couldn't resist.
**I am. Trust me.
Posted by: amphiox
|
May 26, 2010 12:27 PM
Well, excluding geothermal and nuclear, it's all solar power. Part of that 87 petawatts is what drives the wind and water cycles, so wind and hydro are just solar power one step removed.
For that matter, oil is also solar power one step removed. It's all fossilized solar energy.
Oil really isn't a source of energy at all. It's just a very convenient vehicle for transmitting the energy. It's a noncorrosive liquid with a high energy to mass/volume ratio, making it convenient to extract, transport, and store. If we ever manage to convert to a majority solar powered energy system, we may well find that the most convenient way of using that solar energy is to convert it into some sort of oil-like liquid and use it with the same of similar infrastructure that already exists.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
May 26, 2010 12:27 PM
@lexgreeno #58: Breeder reactors in principle utilise a much greater fraction of uranium -- and also thorium -- than a conventional reactor, but you're right that these are limited, non-renewable resources.
The energy to build reactors and power plants doesn't have to come from fossil fuels, but of course at present most of it does.
There are myriad problems with nuclear energy that most folks here would be familiar with, but IMO they are manageable.
I'm all for renewables as well (except the rather daft approach of converting food plants to fuel) , but they are only part of the solution. It's difficult to convert solar or biomass, for example, into the quantities of fuels or electricity that modern societies need.
Conservation -- especially in the US and China -- needs to become priority, too. I think about half the motor fuel used in the US is just wasted.
Posted by: colluvial
|
May 26, 2010 12:27 PM
Couldn't the EPA declare the Gulf a Superfund site and then send BP the bill for cleaning it up?
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
May 26, 2010 12:28 PM
lexgreeno, you missed the parts about “cheaper” and “more reliable.” Oh, and “decades,” too.
Germany isn’t fucking around with this. They’re serious, and they’re on schedule.
If we want to be able to compete with them economically, we’ll need energy as cheap and plentiful as they’ll have. And that means an invisible hand job lubed with renewables.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: transmogrifier
|
May 26, 2010 12:33 PM
There may be more mess in store for the greater gulf region. Some scientists have detected a huge undersea plume of the leaked crude. If any of this gets into the loop current, the scale of the disaster will be much larger.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec
|
May 26, 2010 12:33 PM
Well I must say I am in no way what so ever surprised this. Shit happens always it is Murphy's law! The a corollary is that it is not predictable. You can never tell when it will happen but that it will happen is a sure thing. We like to believe things which is very clear regardless of facts. little projects = little "accidents", big projects = big accidents. Some day you might get a blowout in your right left front tire maybe not to day. No one would believe that salesman who tells you you will never get a flat tire. So why do we continue to believe the Corporate promoters when they tell us that it is safe and nothing will go wrong we have prepared for any eventuality?
It is perfectly safe we have been doing this for years. Look we do bigger projects we get bigger disasters. "cheap coal" from Mountain top removal we get watershed destruction and toxic runoff all the way down stream. Cheap lumber with clearcuting we get watershed destruction ecosystem collapse and climate shifting. Big hydro-electric projects have similar effects cheap energy if you do not count the fish stock reduction estuary and delta destruction. I can not look at the pictures now I will wait to see the pictures of the Atlantic coast.
I hope to live long enough to see the results of big Nuclear Power projects to get us out of our reliance on carbon fuels. What kind of disaster will happen I do not know but that something truly terrible will happen, that will make the Russian event look pale in comparison would be a safe bet. the only question is when.
uncle frogy
Posted by: amphiox
|
May 26, 2010 12:33 PM
It should be noted that one reason oil is seen as such a comparatively advantageous "source" for energy, and why renewables struggle to compete ecnomically, is that the economic system in which this competition takes place does not penalize oil for many of its ancillary disadvantages, such as this catastrophe. The costs are eaten by something else, and hidden, which gives fossil fuels a huge unfair advantage.
Posted by: cjd
|
May 26, 2010 12:34 PM
A nice show to watch to remind us of these types of events is "Black Wave: The Legacy of Exxon Valdez." I caught this a couple of weeks back on Planet Green channel. It will show everyone how BP will drag this through the courts for years like Exxon still is doing. It will show how this will leave environmental damage that will last for decades like the Exxon event has. It will show how this will impact people lives in that area like the Exxon situation. Sorry Louisiana...you are in for a long haul beyond your imagination. I recommend anyone watch this show if you have not already.
Posted by: transmogrifier
|
May 26, 2010 12:39 PM
The way to capture the externalities - pollution, global warming - of fossil fuel use is to impose a carbon tax or implement a good cap and trade system.Posted by: Ell Vee
|
May 26, 2010 12:46 PM
#59 - Louis is right. But what can we do? I don't know. Maybe someone else does. But I doubt it.
Posted by: robinsrule
|
May 26, 2010 12:48 PM
lexgreeno:
According to the Dept of Energy in the US 31% of energy use is specifically from petroleum, and 71% of that petroleum usage is in the transportation sector. So no, we don't need "a complete overhaul of our infrastructures," we need to stop burning petroleum products to move vehicles.
Posted by: SQB (fuck death)
|
May 26, 2010 1:01 PM
Posted by: creating trons
|
May 26, 2010 1:03 PM
Those pics have just added to the sadness I already feel. I was born and raised in south louisiana, and can't count the times I have been to venice and grand isle. Hunting, fishing, camping. It will never be the same. This will be very very bad for a very very long time.
BP, Transocean, and whoever provided and/or installed the blow out preventer (BOP)(if that is the reason the well didn't seal at the time of the accident) should be held accountable, both in civil and legal arenas. I just don't know how this happens.
This breaks my heart.
Posted by: llewelly
|
May 26, 2010 1:04 PM
amphiox | May 26, 2010 12:27 PM:
The 87 petawatts figure I gave does not include wind. The amount of solar power which reaches the top of the Earth's atmosphere is about twice that, or 174 petawatts. The difference is what drives wind.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 26, 2010 1:11 PM
Don't be shy, SQB. That song needs to be heard to be fully appreciated (and followed with a chaser of "Chicken Farm" for best results.)
Posted by: Technopaladin
|
May 26, 2010 1:27 PM
Dont forget the half a million gallons of dispersant.(which is toxic)
Never felt like there was no problem big enough that we couldnt solve it...but that bit of naivete is crashing down for me.
Posted by: daveau
|
May 26, 2010 1:29 PM
Probably 10 years ago the spousal unit & I visited New Orleans and some friends on the MS coast. We stumbled on one of the greatest state parks ever; we think it was the Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge. It's right on the Gulf and is full of all kinds of wetlands creatures. There is no protection between you and the wildlife. In fact, we declined to go to the observation deck because there was a 10-12 foot gator (and plenty of smaller ones) sunning itself half way across the path. We could have gotten past those jaws, but I was concerned that if s/he moved while we were out there the path would be blocked entirely. There was no one around to ask about how complacent gators are. But there were plenty of other places to wander in the refuge, and we didn't feel too cheated. Very, very cool.
Just west of the spill, and probably one of those "Last Chance to See" deals.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
May 26, 2010 1:35 PM
Can the stuff still burn?
Why, yes, I am indeed aware that setting fire to all that oil might incinerate a good deal the US.
Feature, not bug.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
May 26, 2010 1:44 PM
It's not just BP and Exxon etc. The problem starts with corporations. Corporations are a man-made legal devices that used to be and could still, in theory, be regulated, commanded, punished and dissolved. Corps are now the primary funders of "our" elected officials campaigns so they respond to corporations rather than citizens.
The other serious problem is that corporations are legal "persons". To continue the anthropomorphism, they are sociopathic persons. They exist solely for their own benefit, without any responsibility or care about society and they are extraordinarily efficient externalizers of their own costs of doing business. The only thing that can make them change their behaviour is something that hurts them - there is no conscience to appeal to.
Lastly, the Corporate form corrupts people and dilutes personal ethical responsibility. Under the fiction that Board members have a legal responsibility to maximize shareholder profits they will do evil things they would not otherwise take personal responsibility for.
Democracy and the Environment don't stand a chance until the idea of the corporation is reformed.
The Corporation
Posted by: jen
|
May 26, 2010 1:56 PM
Doing that would first require that the administration stop pretending that BP is all over this issue, and that the EPA (or Coast Guard, or someone) push BP out of the way and perform an actual recovery and cleanup...Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893
|
May 26, 2010 2:04 PM
A week or so ago, I watched a Penn and Teller episode (I think it was from a few years ago) where they talked about nuclear energy, and specifically Yucca Mountain (and also the Prius). I have to say, the way they explained it sure made a lot of sense.
What did they get wrong in that episode? Even though I'm a Prius owner, I have to admit they have a point; you can get the same fuel consumption from a VW Diesel, but without the battery disposal issue.
What's wrong with Yucca Mountain is basically what I'm asking. It sure seems like the government chose it for all the right reasons.
As people have pointed out, the Chinese coal industry kills more people annually than the nuclear energy industry has over its entire history (it's really not even close). I think I'd prefer Yucca Mountain to the tons of mercury we're dropping into the oceans from burning coal.
Burning coal will be another one of the things we do that future inventors will not believe we did.
Posted by: cafink
|
May 26, 2010 2:24 PM
I'm surprised that after 80 comments, only two have been attacks on libertarianism. Blaming the oil spill and the actions of the corporations involved on libertarianism is ridiculous, because individual responsibility is the core of libertarianism, and the corporations involved aren't acting responsibly at all.
Inasmuch as the waters of the Gulf are a public good, I don't think any sane, reasonable libertarian would say that the government shouldn't hold BP & friends responsible for the cost of cleanup and other expenses.
Posted by: tsg
|
May 26, 2010 2:40 PM
[MythBusters]Well, there's your problem.[/MythBusters]
Posted by: llewelly
|
May 26, 2010 2:42 PM
https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893 | May 26, 2010 2:04 PM:
Well ... It's not as terrible a site as its detractors would have you believe, but it's also not nearly as geologically stable as the people who originally selected it thought it was. Of course it's a better disposal site than our lungs, which are a prime repository for coal power waste, and it's a better site than most of the places where American high level radio-active waste is presently being stored.
Posted by: amphiox
|
May 26, 2010 2:45 PM
I've known a few who might qualify, but then again, if you press them closely, they usually end up sounding more like secular humanists with libertarian leanings, and no more.
The poison, as always, is in the dose.
Posted by: amphiox
|
May 26, 2010 2:49 PM
If we had cheaper, more reliable launch methods, the safest place for nuclear waste is space. Probably solar impacting orbits would be the most ideal.
Though I suspect by the time we obtain that cheap, reliable launch method, we'll have found another even better solution along the way.
Posted by: Kagehi
|
May 26, 2010 2:51 PM
Actually, one of the points some people, including my father, made about Yucca was, "Why pick some place that **might** potentially, how ever unlikely, pose a problem at some point, instead of placing it somewhere you already can't live, because of all the damn radioactive rocks ever place? He was speaking of some place well away from any populations, where the stuff lies around on the surface of the ground **everywhere**, and there isn't enough rain fall each year to wash any of it into anything, never mind someone's water supply. You know.. Unlike Yucca, which is far closer to populations, and wells, even if it is a dry salt mind at the moment.
Mind, while I can't find anything on it on the net (sometimes if you don't know what terms to look for, you can't find jack via Goggle), my brother mentioned that one solution the Chinese are looking at are small "neighborhood" reactors. The spent rods from a normal reactor are still like 400 degrees, and will remain close to that for like 50 years. That's 50 years or "relatively" low heat, but enough to make steam, and Hydrogen in the process, reaction time, until they are rendered totally useless for any sort of generation at all. We.. take the ones that can't be used in a large scale reactor, stick them in a big pit, on site, then wait 50 years, for them to get cool enough to **maybe** move them to some place like Yucca.
Seems to me, there are certain advantages to not having to make the really hot stuff at all, in the first place, instead of just getting something "hot enough", then using it for 50 years, to power a city, instead of 2-3 fracking states. But, heh, that's just me, I guess... But, at the least, if its still semi-usable, its damn stupid to not use it. Sort of like "bio-diesel" from waste cooking oil, which no one bothered with for decades...
Posted by: cafink
|
May 26, 2010 2:56 PM
@tsg
Exactly. The aforementioned comments contained attacks on insane/unreasonable arguments (which can be said to have been based on libertarianism only in the same same way that nazism is sometimes said to be based on evolution, which is to say, not at all) and not on actual libertarian arguments, which, again, require holding BP & co. responsible by definition.
Posted by: llewelly
|
May 26, 2010 2:57 PM
Technopaladin | May 26, 2010 1:27 PM:
This problem was solvable. We already knew, from the Ixtoc I spill in 1979, and others, that spills of this size were possible. BP, or the government, could have had the booms, ships, etc. on hand, ready and waiting for such a spill. We could have cut our dependency on oil to the point were this sort of drilling wasn't perceived as necessary. Reasonable safety inspections would have identified the root causes before the accident occurred. And on and on. Like the overwhelming majority of industrial accidents, this one was eminently preventable, on many levels, at many junctions. And if actions necessary to prevent a similar accident are not taken, we will have another.
Posted by: tsg
|
May 26, 2010 3:00 PM
Oh, so you mean they aren't True LibertariansTM?
Posted by: glenister_m
|
May 26, 2010 3:01 PM
I was impressed with one of our local radio dj's, who pointed out, when the news of the BP spill broke, that it was a good thing for BP and that they would end up making a lot of money because of it. eg. Could justify raising cost of oil because of a loss of supply, insurance, writing clean-up costs off their taxes, etc.
Of course if the old environmental posters are still accurate - that if the U.S. cars were simply a little more efficient, then the U.S. wouldn't need to import oil - then the state of the Middle East would be quite different. Wouldn't change this spill, but world politics?
Posted by: cafink
|
May 26, 2010 3:02 PM
I have no idea what capital-L Libertarians think of the issue, but small-l libertarianism is about individual responsibility, right? Am I missing something?
Posted by: tsg
|
May 26, 2010 3:07 PM
Quite a lot, actually. Spend ten minutes going through some of the threads here to see what libertarians (capital-L or otherwise) think.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
May 26, 2010 3:12 PM
Nigel @ 6
I quite agree with you but we are in the minority. If you haven't already read The Corporation by Canadian Law Professor Joel Bakan, I think you would enjoy it. I have a link to it above @78
The right has been extraordinarily successful at moulding the "common wisdom" that what's good for corporations is good for America. Any questioning of this party line will draw comments along the lines of "what are you? a communist?" Even from factory workers who are being poisoned by chemicals at their company plant (this happened to me)
It hasn't always been this way. US states used to be able to revoke corporations charters and dissolve them out of existence. There was a time that Board level executives at blue chip corporations were afraid of Ralph Nader (as consumer advocate not politician).
We are hardly citizens any more, merely consumers. Obedient, eat what you're fed, mortgaged to the hilt, paying our future wages to corporations - consumers. Notice that from the corporation's perspective we're not even customers any more, were just gaping maws that consume, pay and excrete.
Posted by: Kagehi
|
May 26, 2010 3:12 PM
That is the whole point of corporations for libertarians. **No one** is ever responsible, especially not the corporation. And, if someone is, its the guy that doesn't have enough scape goats, bribes, black mail material, or someplace to hide, until it all blows over. Well, that, or the moron that actually believes in the whole "responsibility" thing, who falls on his sword, to avoid embarrassment to the rest of the organization. Much tidier that way. You can just point at the body and go, "See, he admits it his fault, but you need to keep the rest of us around to fix the problem!"
Posted by: cafink
|
May 26, 2010 3:14 PM
Okay, then, to answer your question: No, anyone who doesn't believe BP should be held responsible for their actions in the Gulf is not a True Libertarian(TM), by the definition of the word "libertarian."
Posted by: tsg
|
May 26, 2010 3:19 PM
FTFY
Posted by: tsg
|
May 26, 2010 3:21 PM
Blast. HTML Fail
Posted by: amphiox
|
May 26, 2010 3:23 PM
As it often is, this is not a question of "couldn't". This was a case of "wouldn't".
This disaster could have been foreseen and prevented, or at a minimum mitigated. If the will had been there. It wasn't.
Posted by: cafink
|
May 26, 2010 3:25 PM
Hey, you're right, my argument DOES fall apart if you arbitrarily redefine the words I'm using to mean something different! Kindly choose any word you like to mean "the principle of individual freedom & responsibility" and substitute it for "libertarianism" in all my previous comments.
Posted by: Foggg
|
May 26, 2010 3:30 PM
No true
Scotsmanlibertarian, Senator James Inhofe:National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy 97%
The Club for Growth 94%
Republican Liberty Caucus - Economic Liberties 95%
League of Private Property Voters 100%
The Cato Institute - Economic Issues 100%
National Taxpayers Union 93%
National Tax Limitation Committee A+
Americans for Tax Reform 95%
FreedomWorks 100%
American Conservative Union 100%
American Conservative Union - Lifetime 98%
The John Birch Society 89%
Nope. In no way a small-l libertarian.
Phony 'libertarians' and their tiresome Marxist-statist-'public' crap. The problem with the Gulf is that it has not been privatized. so that its noble personally responsible owner could take care of it, instead of the evil government.Even No true
Scotsmanlibertarian, Senator James Inhofe agrees:League of Conservation Voters 0%
The Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 0%
Republicans for Environmental Protection 10%
Environment America 0%
American Lands Alliance 0%
American Wilderness Coalition 0%
Posted by: tsg
|
May 26, 2010 3:36 PM
"Libertarian" is already arbitrarily defined by the person using it. If you took that ten minutes I advised you to take earlier you would have noticed something: every single argument about libertarianism starts with someone just like you saying "but that's not what libertarianism really is!"
Kindly stop assuming every statement using a label you identify with is about you personally. I guarantee you there are people who call themselves "libertarians" that espouse the exact crap that's being criticized in the two posts you mentioned. You are no more an authority on what libertarianism is than they are.
Posted by: cafink
|
May 26, 2010 3:37 PM
This exchange has become surreal; being told by others what I really believe is beginning to remind me of this.
Anyway, if you don't like the word "libertarian," that's fine; arguing semantics is silly. Use any word you like, but I believe that BP should be help responsible for the mess they've created in the Gulf.
Posted by: tsg
|
May 26, 2010 3:41 PM
No one is telling you what you believe.
It's your argument.
Posted by: cafink
|
May 26, 2010 3:49 PM
Actually, Foggg seemed to be telling me exactly that. Maybe I just misunderstood him.
Posted by: tacroy
|
May 26, 2010 3:51 PM
Here's something I don't understand:
One of the reasons why new nuclear power plants aren't being made is because it's very very difficult to get an insurance underwriter that's willing to take that big of a risk - after all, if a nuclear power plant goes Chernobyl, that's billions in damages.
When are we going to start hearing "Sorry, we can't build a new oil rig - the insurance companies don't want to take that big of a risk"? After all, although the fallout from a spill like this is much cheaper to clean up, nuclear power plants are far, far less likely to fail in a dangerous state.
Posted by: cafink
|
May 26, 2010 3:54 PM
I wonder if we won't start hearing that soon, tacroy.
Posted by: tsg
|
May 26, 2010 3:54 PM
@104
Foggg seemed to be talking about Senator James Inhofe, unless I misunderstood him.
Posted by: SQB (fuck death)
|
May 26, 2010 3:54 PM
Oilslick, as captured by NASA's Terra satellite.
Depressing.
Posted by: DLC
|
May 26, 2010 3:55 PM
The real horror will take the rest of my lifetime to clean up, if ever. There's plenty of blame to go around here. If it takes up 10% of BPs money every year for the next 50 years then that's what it takes. I'm all for it, even if it means a special BP Cleanup Tax enacted against them specifically.
(it won't happen -- you and I will end up paying extra tax dollars for it ) What bothers me is this could have been avoided. Having happened, it could have been ameliorated before this. Greed has bought us this horror. This disaster. This wretched ruin of an entire region. Horror isn't a sufficient word.
Posted by: bart.mitchell
|
May 26, 2010 4:02 PM
And thank you Americans. Thank you for being energy hungry whores. Thank you for considering driving a Humvee a mark of success. Thank you for basing the corn industry off of subsidized petroleum.
We're idiots. We're getting what we deserve, unfortunately the planet also has to pick up the bill on our foolishness.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
May 26, 2010 4:05 PM
I have no idea what capital-L Libertarians think of the issue, but small-l libertarianism is about individual responsibility, right? Am I missing something? - cafink
Yes, there's a couple of elephants in the room you've somehow overlooked:
1) In fact, of course, the corporations won't pay anything like the cost of the disaster - as Exxon didn't, as Union Carbide didn't, as Monsanto didn't in the matter of PCBs... These cases show that in relation to wealthy private interest groups, the state appears not too big and strong, but too weak to take justified action againast those groups. "Libertarians" are habitually unable to see any danger in concentrations of wealth and power in private hands.
2) In practice, "libertarianism" is almost always about defending the propertied and privileged against advocates of equality.
Posted by: Endor
|
May 26, 2010 4:10 PM
"In practice, "libertarianism" is almost always about defending the propertied and privileged against advocates of equality."
Bingo. Which is why they are, virtually exclusively, not poor white men.
Just another elephant in the room, this total coincidence! lol
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
May 26, 2010 4:14 PM
While I am as outraged as anyone else about seeing oil covered pelicans and egrets. It is my understanding that in a deep sea blowout a significant part of the oi is trapped in emulsified undersea plumes.
I posted these question over at Deep Sea News but haven't gotten much response. Perhaps someone here can answer a few questions...
I have been engaged in a number of discussions over at http://www.theoildrum.com/ regarding the oil spill in the Gulf.
I have posted a link to this paper: http://www.iosc.org/papers/02334.pdf
The real question outside of the physics of deep sea oil dispersion and fractionation is what kind of effect such plumes, assuming they exist, might have on the micro fauna and zooplankton in the water column and furthermore how might such a plume effect the corals of the relatively shallow warm waters of the lower Florida Keys.
Any knowledgeable comments or links to information would be much appreciated.
Last but not least does anyone have any insider information on whether or the government has censored the scientist from Texas AMA and the Pelican research vessel that had claimed to have detected large underwater plumes of oil… TKS!
BTW I live on the East Coast of South Florida near one of the largest remaining healthy staghorn coral reefs within almost swimming distance of the Gulf stream. I've heard it might be possible for the undersea plumes of oil to get into the Gulf Stream and come up the east coast.
Posted by: cafink
|
May 26, 2010 4:14 PM
I am a poor white man.
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
May 26, 2010 4:16 PM
Oh and a suggestion, since we are all users of oil how bout we all try to use less.
Posted by: tsg
|
May 26, 2010 4:34 PM
That doesn't disprove the statement. Endor said "virtually exclusively".
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
May 26, 2010 5:05 PM
Oh, the tragedy! Poor widdle birdie got some oil on his butt. Poor widdle dragonfly got some oil on his wing. Some poor human got specks of oil on his footsie!
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
May 26, 2010 5:13 PM
Reading Al B. Quirky's regular posts over the last month has made me far more sympathetic to environmentalism. All the anti-environmentalist comments he makes are so blitheringly idiotic that, reading them, I get a sudden urge to don sandals and go and join a climate-change protest.
(And I say this as someone who isn't a committed environmentalist, and who doesn't know very much about ecology or environmental science. Yet even I can tell that he's talking nonsense.)
Posted by: MadScientist
|
May 26, 2010 5:14 PM
Of course the same is true of the mining industry; they leave a huge mess for future generations to clean up. It's a global problem though.
With onshore oil reserves running dry we can expect to see far more marine operations. At any rate, global oil production is only expected to last a few more decades. Of course no one cares about the future so there is virtually no work being done to address what would be a crisis in the future.
Posted by: Louis
|
May 26, 2010 5:14 PM
Obvious troll be obvious.
Louis
P.S. Al B. Quirky, does it help that they are good christian birds and not nasty muslim birds?
Posted by: raven
|
May 26, 2010 5:32 PM
Not to mention the poor widdle fishermen who are going to be unemployed for a few years or decades. And the poor widdle people who like to eat shrimp and fish. And the poor widdle people who work in the tourist industry on the gulf coast and the poor widdle people who own all the big hotels and other tourist businesses down there.
We have discovered some boringly obvious facts about the troll. He has a low IQ and an inability to relate to anything living.
Posted by: Joe Fogey
|
May 26, 2010 5:43 PM
Yes, make the polluters pay.
It would, of course, be nice if that principle applied everywhere.
You could start by revisiting Union Carbide's liability for the Bhopal tragedy.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 26, 2010 7:02 PM
sadly, all this will do is raise general outrage in Americans for a few months, then they will have completely forgotten about it and be happy to approve more offshore drilling.
btw, don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but there was also the issue with BP not actually having to file (they were given a pass) any permits to build that platform, with any gov't agency.
so, it hardly surprises me that they didn't have any contingencies in place for dealing with this level of disaster (or any at all, really), since they never at any time had to provide evidence they did have the plans or ability to do so.
seriously, it's not like there aren't federal regulations in place, it's that these companies are allowed to ride roughshod over them.
so, don't bother writing to your representatives to tell them we need stricter regulations. We don't.
what we need is less people deciding to look the other way while they hold their fucking hands out.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 26, 2010 7:05 PM
Oh, the tragedy! Poor widdle birdie got some oil on his butt. Poor widdle dragonfly got some oil on his wing. Some poor human got specks of oil on his footsie!
man, is there really any way you could disguise your stinky cheese-bait a bit more eloquently?
again, to the people who said we don't have enough trolls for another round of Survivor...
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
May 26, 2010 8:01 PM
:(
:(
:(
Posted by: Hittman
|
May 26, 2010 9:08 PM
I received a notice from my congress weasel saying she's trying to change the law to move the damage limit from $75 million to $10 Billion. I wasn't aware there was a limit, and as a hard core capitalist, don't think there should be any liability limit. We're not limiting their profits, why should we limit their losses?
If it puts them out of business, boo hoo. That will provide a very good incentive for other oil companies to do the job right and not to take safety shortcuts to save a few bucks.
Posted by: Kagehi
|
May 26, 2010 10:04 PM
You missed the real good joke Hittman. It was already suggested, via a bill, that any and all limits be removed. One Rethuglican stood up and protested it, thereby preventing an immediate vote on the issue.
Posted by: Horse-Pheathers
|
May 26, 2010 10:21 PM
#126 -- I don't think it will put BP out of business, though it may kill the Limited Liability Corporation that they created specifically to handle risky ventures like drilling to protect the parent company from just this sort of disaster. You can bet that for the past month, there's been a scramble to shift assets away from the LLC to make it less of a loss should they have to sacrifice it. , and I wouldn't be surprised if that has taken as much or more of the executives' time than damage mitigation efforts have.
Posted by: Liberal
|
May 26, 2010 10:50 PM
The government is just as responsible as the three corporations. Any class action lawsuits targeted at these corporations should also include the government, for how MMS fucked up, seeing as how it happened under their incompetent watch.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 26, 2010 10:58 PM
I don't think it will put BP out of business, though it may kill the Limited Liability Corporation that they created specifically to handle risky ventures like drilling
interesting, and makes perfect sense.
do you perchance have a link documenting this?
I'd love to have that one for my records.
Posted by: CherryBombSim
|
May 26, 2010 11:33 PM
The title for this blog post sounds like "Let's just blame everybody who is associated with this." Yes, there will turn out to be series of errors that led to disaster, but I think we will eventually find out what the critical mistake was.
Provided we can get all the documents and logs. The government should have subpoenaed the lot right away. I know the originals are at the bottom of the ocean, but I know everything was transmitted to BP before the decision to plug the well was made. The cement log has apparently already gone missing, and I cannot imagine that they did not run one.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 26, 2010 11:35 PM
The title for this blog post sounds like "Let's just blame everybody who is associated with this.
yeah.
and?
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
May 26, 2010 11:41 PM
Green technology is just as bad!
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist
|
May 27, 2010 12:37 AM
Rachel Maddow shares NBC News reports on from 1979 on the Ixtoc I oil spill
in the Gulf of Mexico and the near mirror impotence and ineptitude in addressing the spill.
The more spills change, the more they stay the same.
Posted by: onethird-man
|
May 27, 2010 1:14 AM
It's all a bit late now. Like sixty or seventy years late. Not even peak-oil late.
Free market had its way. Problem is, free market folks don't like a market that has reached its apex. So when there is no more utility to motor transport, they start killing other forms of transport to make more demand. Trolley cars in San Antonio used to exist... until they and mass transit in many other cities were bought up by oil or auto concerns and strangled in their sleep.
So we're stuck. Free market hates the down side - that eventually they will be losers too, and kills the free market when it looks like its about to turn.
Yes, proud Texas finally is considering a Dallas-Austin rail-based mass transit corridor, but of course it is opposed by Southwest Airlines who make their money off of expensive rapid air transport specifically in the Houston-Dallas-Austin triangle. I'll take the five hours for higher safety and less money, thanks.
In the meantime, to "relieve congestion" our taxpayer-funded roads are being sold to corporations for "management" as toll-roads, the country-club of private transport.
I never, ever want to hear about the bloody "free market forces" ever again. They don't work, because they are not allowed to work, because they are even harsher than natural selection on the down side. Show me the stockholder who is willing to go all-in on risk without insuring any kind of return at all, and then tell him that's how the free market works. It really does. No bailouts, no guarantees - your entire fortune, gone in days. Flying by the seat of your pants.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 27, 2010 1:29 AM
Green technology is just as bad!
wtf?
Posted by: Fortknox
|
May 27, 2010 4:17 AM
Tell me if you agree(updated with an example)-
Is Rachel Maddow superstitious?
Posted by: davem
|
May 27, 2010 9:26 AM
Was it the government that you voted for the one who allowed them to drill, or some foreign government? Are you limiting the taxes that they pay to you when they make those profits? Why not? Doesn't that make you a partner in crime? Nope. The next time that you run out of oil, you'll ask them to drill, and they'll say 'No. The last company that tried that was put out of business'. When it got cold last winter, did you put some more clothes on, or did you turn the heat up? When it gets hot, do you open a window, or turn the aircon up? When you go to buy bread, do you walk or cycle, or go by car? Does that car do at least 50mpg, or less?BP had an accident - they didn't do it on purpose. But your oil (over) usage is deliberate. Looks like mostly your fault, not BP's.
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
May 27, 2010 10:30 AM
Davem @ 138,
Bull! Shit!
First, a disclaimer, I'm no fan of the oil companies.
Second, I drive an old, 4 cylinder compact, with a 5 speed manual transmission, less than 5K miles a year... yet I still think that is too much! I also use plastics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals etc..etc.. So I acknowledge my own complicity in this mess.
However, BP has twice been convicted of felonies and found guilty of criminal negligence in the recent past.
Furthermore even among oil companies their track record with regards putting safety of workers and the environment over profits is appalling.
Accident my ass, just keep watching the inquiries and you will see that this is just another case of criminal negligence, par for the course with BP and its subsidiaries.
Quotes from the oil patch:
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
May 27, 2010 11:40 AM
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
May 27, 2010 11:53 AM
So what? Liquidate BP, and as much of Transocean and Halliburton as necessary. I don't see where the problem is, apart from sheer tradition and lack of political will. :-|
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
May 27, 2010 11:53 AM
I am a poor white man. - cafink
Well, that's two ways you're privileged - and it's typical of glibertarians that they are unable to see racism and sexism - unless they think they can claim they (as, in most cases, white men), are victims.
As for poor - what's your annual income? What sdo you own? I'd bet a good deal a large majority of the global population would gladly swap theirs for yours.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
May 27, 2010 12:04 PM
Al, go fuck yourself.
Posted by: Doug Little
|
May 27, 2010 3:36 PM
I'm gonna remain depressed about this whole situation. No one is going to make BP own up to their responsibilities. I know one thing though, What little oil I get from BP for my manual Ford Focus (currently averaging 37 miles to the gallon) will be going by the wayside. It recommends that I use BP products on the filler lid, be damned if I will from now on.
Fuck BP they have lost me as a consumer for life. I'd rather run out of gas than fill up at a BP station.
I think the only way to fix these types of issues with massive companies is to regulate the fuck out of them. Want to sell oil to the United states this is the criteria that you need to meet, arseholes, or better yet do away with private companies being allowed to drill. I'm for government run resource extraction, at least that way we can hold someone accountable when something goes wrong.
Posted by: Non Edible Nacho
|
May 27, 2010 5:31 PM
Expropiate the bastards with zero compensation. All their companies, all their money. Even though it's not enough to pay for all the damage, probably.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 27, 2010 6:27 PM
Fuck BP they have lost me as a consumer for life. I'd rather run out of gas than fill up at a BP station.
I recall people cutting up their Exxon credit cards, and pledging to never buy Exxon gas ever again after the Valdez disaster...
*sigh*
all they have to do is sell their products under a different name, and 99.9% of people will be happy to consciously or unconsciously ignore the simple switch.
that's what happened with Exxon, that's what will happen with BP.
in fact, most BP products in the states are already sold under a different name, IIRC.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying not to boycott BP, I'm saying... it just won't make a difference.
doom and gloom.
:(
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 27, 2010 6:33 PM
again, please DO boycott BP. Maybe this time people will be smarter about it, and not "conveniently" forget when BP changes their marketing strategies to compensate.
It has to be done.
I'm just entirely pessimistic as to the outcome.
don't let my pessimism interfere with any protest though.
unfortunately, I only ride bikes and buses for transport any more, so I can't protest by deciding who to buy gas from.
In the end, the only thing that will help to fix this is simply moving away from energy sources that can so totally and irrevocably fuck up our environments like this.
it will happen, eventually. Hopefully there will be something left by then that isn't covered with oil.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
May 27, 2010 6:40 PM
Well, being one who always believes in looking on the bright side:
Just think--BP has now made it possible to go on a cruise on a hydrocarbon sea without going all the way to Saturn's moon, Titan!
Personally, I think that this is proof that Dick Cheney is not a vampire after all, but rather an alien sent here to anti-terraform Earth and make it suitable for his species of hydrocarbon breathing reptiles.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 27, 2010 6:42 PM
Earth and make it suitable for his species of hydrocarbon breathing reptiles.
Death to all hydrocarbon breathing reptiles!
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
May 27, 2010 6:47 PM
Al B. Quirky,
Eat a festering plate full of camel shit and die.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 27, 2010 7:21 PM
Any knowledgeable comments or links to information would be much appreciated.
for deep hydrocarbon effects on coral reefs, you might want to talk to this Roy Caldwell:
http://ib.berkeley.edu/research/interests/research_profile.php?person=38
I recall he had significant funding to look at this long term, and that was back in the early 90's (he was on my thesis committee).
I suspect he would have much to say on this issue.
Posted by: windy
|
May 29, 2010 7:37 AM
And rather than try to change those safety standards or at least enforce them better, Obama appointed Ken Salazar who intervened to grant Deepwater Horizon a "categorical exclusion" from environmental review so that the drilling project could go forward. And yet there seems to be more indignation over the fact that some dare blame Obama, than about oil companies being granted special exemptions from legal requirements.
Posted by: Uwem
|
June 3, 2010 9:35 AM
I feel its very convenience for the US press to crucify BP, the environmental tragedy is real but why haven't we heard about Transocean? As I can recall, it’s only in USA that we hear that Prius was a moving disaster!
As the most advance country in the world, USA shouldn’t wait for BP to cap the leak, there should be some other company with the technology or know how to cap the leak by now!