By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - How do you feel about the way the oil spill is being handled?

famousringo said:
As far as I can tell, the trouble is that due to the nature of the incredibly deep well, plus the sheer size of the spill, there's very little that can be done to contain it, either at the source or on the waves. Your only chance to really deal with the problem is before it happens, and obviously the safety protocols weren't sufficient (or they weren't followed, and therefore the oversight wasn't sufficient).

There needs to be a freeze on deep-ocean drilling until the source of the problem can be identified and safety can be assured. Fortunately, a project off the coast of Newfoundland was just halted so that safety and oversight requirements can be increased in light of the Gulf spill. Until last week, Chevron was still greenlit to drill a well a full kilometer deeper than the Gulf of Mexico well.

My main concern is that even tighter regulations might not assure safety. What if the occasional natural gas blowout is the price of harvesting oil from the deep oceans? Are we going to be willing to just walk away from all that energy?

Accidents do happen (to the credit of Rand Paul, no less), so some of this can be accepted as the cost of doing business, but only when it was something the company really couldn't have controlled. From what i've heard, a single faulty battery, as well as a host of other, more structural problems, was what stood between normalcy and disaster here. BP needs to be taken to the mat for this. Being forced to entirely fund a wetlands reclamation project would be a start.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Mr Khan said:
famousringo said:
As far as I can tell, the trouble is that due to the nature of the incredibly deep well, plus the sheer size of the spill, there's very little that can be done to contain it, either at the source or on the waves. Your only chance to really deal with the problem is before it happens, and obviously the safety protocols weren't sufficient (or they weren't followed, and therefore the oversight wasn't sufficient).

There needs to be a freeze on deep-ocean drilling until the source of the problem can be identified and safety can be assured. Fortunately, a project off the coast of Newfoundland was just halted so that safety and oversight requirements can be increased in light of the Gulf spill. Until last week, Chevron was still greenlit to drill a well a full kilometer deeper than the Gulf of Mexico well.

My main concern is that even tighter regulations might not assure safety. What if the occasional natural gas blowout is the price of harvesting oil from the deep oceans? Are we going to be willing to just walk away from all that energy?

Accidents do happen (to the credit of Rand Paul, no less), so some of this can be accepted as the cost of doing business, but only when it was something the company really couldn't have controlled. From what i've heard, a single faulty battery, as well as a host of other, more structural problems, was what stood between normalcy and disaster here. BP needs to be taken to the mat for this. Being forced to entirely fund a wetlands reclamation project would be a start.

Yeah, the causes seem very much like what causes Nuclear Meltdowns.  In otherwords a giant failure of like 5 or 6 backups largely caused by people getting complacent and simple things not getting fixed that eventually leads to huge problems.



Meh. The government could care less. This is all part of their plan to ruin the country. I mean, if they wanted to stop it they would have done it by now. It can't be that hard to do.... -_-




Nintendo still doomed?
Feel free to add me on 3DS or Switch! (PM me if you do ^-^)
Nintendo ID: Mako91                  3DS code: 4167-4543-6089

I see the real problem being that BP doesn't have a major impedus to actually clean up the problem.

Their limit of liability to this disaster is pennies for what the true cost of the disaster is. I believe the cap is somewhere around $75 million (that's with an M) when the true cost may be a trillion (with a T) USD.

What should of been done, prior to this disaster, is remove the liability cap to ensure that these major oil companies know what they are getting into. With no cap outside of the danger of the well, BP would of taken stronger voluntary measures to ensure that this never happened, or if it did happen, cleanup with be expedient with minimal liability to pay out to dead loved ones, or businessmen effected by the oil.

Its really a catch 22 due to current government standards. If you regulate too much, we'll never ever get off of Saudi oil (which has less standards, AFAIK), but if you have too low liabilities, the company won't take up proper safety measures.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Don't get me started, but i see two wrongs here.
first BP for totally lacking any regulation and secondly the US government for blaming BP but doing NOTHING.

They should look a little further then their wallet is long and should have accepted the help that was offered (even if it costs a penny)



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Around the Network

not that it would matter with the way how the US goverment handles its spendings anyway



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

mrstickball said:

I see the real problem being that BP doesn't have a major impedus to actually clean up the problem.

Their limit of liability to this disaster is pennies for what the true cost of the disaster is. I believe the cap is somewhere around $75 million (that's with an M) when the true cost may be a trillion (with a T) USD.

What should of been done, prior to this disaster, is remove the liability cap to ensure that these major oil companies know what they are getting into. With no cap outside of the danger of the well, BP would of taken stronger voluntary measures to ensure that this never happened, or if it did happen, cleanup with be expedient with minimal liability to pay out to dead loved ones, or businessmen effected by the oil.

Its really a catch 22 due to current government standards. If you regulate too much, we'll never ever get off of Saudi oil (which has less standards, AFAIK), but if you have too low liabilities, the company won't take up proper safety measures.

This is the first time I've heard about that cap, and I've gotta say that I find it utterly disgusting. That won't even cover the value of the lost oil, nevermind all the collateral damage.

More privatized profits and socialized costs for major multinationals. I don't necessarily think that BP should go out of business for this fiasco, but the idea that BP might spend more money on executive jets this fiscal year then on damages for this spill really makes me wanna reach for my torch and pitchfork.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

famousringo said:
mrstickball said:

I see the real problem being that BP doesn't have a major impedus to actually clean up the problem.

Their limit of liability to this disaster is pennies for what the true cost of the disaster is. I believe the cap is somewhere around $75 million (that's with an M) when the true cost may be a trillion (with a T) USD.

What should of been done, prior to this disaster, is remove the liability cap to ensure that these major oil companies know what they are getting into. With no cap outside of the danger of the well, BP would of taken stronger voluntary measures to ensure that this never happened, or if it did happen, cleanup with be expedient with minimal liability to pay out to dead loved ones, or businessmen effected by the oil.

Its really a catch 22 due to current government standards. If you regulate too much, we'll never ever get off of Saudi oil (which has less standards, AFAIK), but if you have too low liabilities, the company won't take up proper safety measures.

This is the first time I've heard about that cap, and I've gotta say that I find it utterly disgusting. That won't even cover the value of the lost oil, nevermind all the collateral damage.

More privatized profits and socialized costs for major multinationals. I don't necessarily think that BP should go out of business for this fiasco, but the idea that BP might spend more money on executive jets this fiscal year then on damages for this spill really makes me wanna reach for my torch and pitchfork.

Correct.

Ultimately, the problem is an economical one. A company like BP will wrecklessly pursue very questionable practices knowing that their limit of liabilities is very low. A $75 million USD from an oil rig that can pump out thousands of $100-a-barrel oil per day? Retarded. Just plain retarded.

Thats why I'm glad to take the libertarian path on the issue. They were the ones that had the best solution: remove caps. Whatever BP gets sued for, they get sued for, and every other company that does something this reckless.

BP will not be held accountable for this like they should. Could you imagine what BP would be doing right now if they knew that EVERY job in their entire billions-of-dollar company depended on it?



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

mrstickball said:
famousringo said:
mrstickball said:

I see the real problem being that BP doesn't have a major impedus to actually clean up the problem.

Their limit of liability to this disaster is pennies for what the true cost of the disaster is. I believe the cap is somewhere around $75 million (that's with an M) when the true cost may be a trillion (with a T) USD.

What should of been done, prior to this disaster, is remove the liability cap to ensure that these major oil companies know what they are getting into. With no cap outside of the danger of the well, BP would of taken stronger voluntary measures to ensure that this never happened, or if it did happen, cleanup with be expedient with minimal liability to pay out to dead loved ones, or businessmen effected by the oil.

Its really a catch 22 due to current government standards. If you regulate too much, we'll never ever get off of Saudi oil (which has less standards, AFAIK), but if you have too low liabilities, the company won't take up proper safety measures.

This is the first time I've heard about that cap, and I've gotta say that I find it utterly disgusting. That won't even cover the value of the lost oil, nevermind all the collateral damage.

More privatized profits and socialized costs for major multinationals. I don't necessarily think that BP should go out of business for this fiasco, but the idea that BP might spend more money on executive jets this fiscal year then on damages for this spill really makes me wanna reach for my torch and pitchfork.

Correct.

Ultimately, the problem is an economical one. A company like BP will wrecklessly pursue very questionable practices knowing that their limit of liabilities is very low. A $75 million USD from an oil rig that can pump out thousands of $100-a-barrel oil per day? Retarded. Just plain retarded.

Thats why I'm glad to take the libertarian path on the issue. They were the ones that had the best solution: remove caps. Whatever BP gets sued for, they get sued for, and every other company that does something this reckless.

BP will not be held accountable for this like they should. Could you imagine what BP would be doing right now if they knew that EVERY job in their entire billions-of-dollar company depended on it?

I agree with this.



I'm at a loss for words.

I'm revolted.



Kimi wa ne tashika ni ano toki watashi no soba ni ita

Itsudatte itsudatte itsudatte

Sugu yoko de waratteita

Nakushitemo torimodosu kimi wo

I will never leave you