Oil still spilling Obama says "keep drilling!"

[SEC=UGA]

Didnt BP own the rig and hire them as independent contractors? I would think that they still assume risk by hiring comapnies that did a chitty job . . .

 

Also, isnt there an "Acoustic trigger" that COULD have been installed and stopped the leak immediately, but they decided to NOT do it becasue they didnt want to spend the money?

 

I may be wrong, I thought BP was leasing the rig from another gorup who owned it and was doing the drilling, again, I could be very wrong. I am by no means an expert on how the oil industry works in regard ot offshore drilling. I really wish I knew more because I like having answers to issues like this one, unfortunately, I have none in this area. All I know is BP or Transocean or Haliburton should be getting a BIG Penny LaneING bill for cleanup, remediation, and economic impact.

[Perchoutofwater]

I may be wrong, I thought BP was leasing the rig from another gorup who owned it and was doing the drilling, again, I could be very wrong. I am by no means an expert on how the oil industry works in regard ot offshore drilling. I really wish I knew more because I like having answers to issues like this one, unfortunately, I have none in this area. All I know is BP or Transocean or Haliburton should be getting a BIG Penny LaneING bill for cleanup, remediation, and economic impact.

 

You are probably correct. I think most of the blame falls operator. Still BP has the deepest pockets and in today's society that is enough to make people and government go after them.

[SEC=UGA]

Transocean owns the rig

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/science_techno...tml?cid=8882112

 

Nearly three of every four incidents that triggered federal investigations into safety and other problems on deepwater drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico since 2008 have been on rigs operated by Transocean, according to an analysis of federal data. Transocean defended its safety record but didn't dispute the Journal's analysis.

 

From 2005 through 2007, a Transocean rig was involved in 13 of the 39 deep-water drilling incidents investigated by the MMS in the Gulf of Mexico, or 33%. That's roughly in line with the percentage of deep-water rigs, 30%, Transocean owned and operated in the Gulf then, according to data firm RigLogix.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/wsj...ad-more-acciden

 

WASHINGTON — Oil services contractor Halliburton Inc. says it safely finished a cementing operation 20 hours before a Gulf of Mexico rig went up in flames. In testimony prepared for a congressional hearing Tuesday, Halliburton says it completed work on the well according to accepted industry practice and federal regulators.

 

Halliburton executive Tim Probert says a pressure test was conducted after the work was finished, and the well owner decided to continue. A copy of the testimony was obtained by The Associated Press.

 

The cause of the April 20 explosion is under investigation, but lawsuits filed after the disaster claim it was caused when Halliburton workers improperly capped the well – a process known as cementing. Halliburton denies wrongdoing.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3564769072.html

Edited May 25, 2010 by SEC=UGA

[Ursa Majoris]

You are probably correct. I think most of the blame falls operator. Still BP has the deepest pockets and in today's society that is enough to make people and government go after them.

It's no different to one of your subs screwing up - it's you that will carry the can.

 

To me the biggest deal is the fact that BP spent millions and lobbied ferociously to reduce the safety measures required for these rigs. That effort will end up costing them billions.

[tazinib1]

The Egyptians figured out how to pour cement in the water. Just wondering why we don't funnel down some cement and cap the damn thing off. Wait......

[SEC=UGA]

It appears to me that, though BP held the lease on the rig/well, Transocean was operating the rig at the time and Haliburton was doing work on the rig.

 

Yes BP may be culpable for not sealing this thing off quickly enough, but unless they over-rode some suggestions by the operators/contractors I don't see this as being BP's fault. Legally, yes I know you are at fault for your sub's accidents and I still believe, strongly, that BP should pay for the clean up and stop the leak. But, to give them the entire blame, from what I've read, which isn't much, might be short sighted.

[Azazello1313]

The Egyptians figured out how to pour cement in the water. Just wondering why we don't funnel down some cement and cap the damn thing off. Wait......

 

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say maybe it's because it won't work.

[Perchoutofwater]

It's no different to one of your subs screwing up - it's you that will carry the can.

 

To me the biggest deal is the fact that BP spent millions and lobbied ferociously to reduce the safety measures required for these rigs. That effort will end up costing them billions.

 

Absolutely true,and frankly one of the reasons I don't like my job nearly as much as I used too. That doesn't make it right, that just makes it the way it is.

 

I agree with you on the lobbying, and that it will hurt BP. The question is will it have any impact on those that were lobbied? It will be interesting to see if this is used against Obama in 2012 as I believe has received more BP money than any other individual.

[SEC=UGA]

Absolutely true,and frankly one of the reasons I don't like my job nearly as much as I used too. That doesn't make it right, that just makes it the way it is.

 

I agree with you on the lobbying, and that it will hurt BP. The question is will it have any impact on those that were lobbied? It will be interesting to see if this is used against Obama in 2012 as I believe has received more BP money than any other individual.

 

Stop yer hateful yammering about our president!!!!

[rajncajn]

Absolutely true,and frankly one of the reasons I don't like my job nearly as much as I used too. That doesn't make it right, that just makes it the way it is.

 

I agree with you on the lobbying, and that it will hurt BP. The question is will it have any impact on those that were lobbied? It will be interesting to see if this is used against Obama in 2012 as I believe has received more BP money than any other individual.

Is that a rhetorical question? Of course it will be used whether it has merit or not.

 

I think you guys are looking at it from the same perspective the govt & mainstream public opinion does. Trying to pin this all on one major figure. Someone to take the fall for everyone. Truth of the matter is there is is plenty of blame to go around. Everyone wants to point the finger at just BP & they likely should shoulder the majority of the blame, but it is up to everyone involved in the industry at every level to ensure it is done to certain standards & done safely.

Edited May 25, 2010 by rajncajn

[Ursa Majoris]

Absolutely true,and frankly one of the reasons I don't like my job nearly as much as I used too. That doesn't make it right, that just makes it the way it is.

 

I agree with you on the lobbying, and that it will hurt BP. The question is will it have any impact on those that were lobbied? It will be interesting to see if this is used against Obama in 2012 as I believe has received more BP money than any other individual.

And that right there goes to the heart of all that is wrong with the way our political system works (or doesn't).

[peepinmofo]

Didn't BP have only 5 people on that rig? Weren't Transocean and Haliburton basically running the show with the drilling that was occurring? Just want to get my facts straight...

How coincidental is it that Halliburton bought an oil well firefighting company just a week before the explosion?

 

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1052119/pg1

[Beaumont]

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/articl...lins-hands-too/

 

 

BP liked Obama, but oil stained Palin's hands too

 

By Robert Farley

Published on Monday, May 24th, 2010 at 8:29 p.m.

Bookmark this story:

Buzz up!

ShareThis

 

Crude oil churns across the surface of the Gulf of Mexico

 

On Fox News Sunday, Sarah Palin suggested oil money steered to Barack Obama during the presidential election may have slowed the administration's response to the massive BP oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

The comments from the former Republican vice presidential nominee came in response to Fox host Chris Wallace's question about how she thought the Obama administration has handled the oil spill so far.

 

"Well, I think that there is perhaps a hesitancy to -- I don't really know how to put this, Chris, except to say that the oil companies who have so supported President Obama in his campaign and are supportive of him now -- I don't know why the question isn't asked by the mainstream media and by others if there's any connection with the contributions made to President Obama and his administration and the support by the oil companies to the administration," Palin said.

 

"If there's any connection there to President Obama taking so doggone long to get in there, to dive in there, and grasp the complexity and the potential tragedy that we are seeing here in the Gulf of Mexico -- now, if this was President Bush or if this were a Republican in office who hadn't received as much support even as President Obama has from B.P. and other oil companies, you know the mainstream media would be all over his case in terms of asking questions why the administration didn't get in there and make sure that the regulatory agencies were doing what they were doing with the oversight to make sure that things like this don't happen."

 

The implications from Palin's comments are clear, but her comments are framed as a question or a hypothetical rather than as a fact that we could put to the Truth-O-Meter. Nonetheless, we think we can bring some facts to these comments to provide some context.

 

The fact is, the oil and gas industry throws around a lot of money in Washington. The industry spent $174 million lobbying Congress in 2009, ranking it behind only the pharmaceutical/health products industry and business associations. By contrast, the Center for Responsive Politics notes that the entire environmental movement spent $22 million on lobbying in 2009.

 

In 2009, BP alone spent $16 million to influence legislation; and another $3.5 million in the first quarter of 2010. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, its agenda included lobbying actively on the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, which allows increased oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico; as well as on the Oil Spill Prevention Act of 2009 and the Clean Water Restoration Act.

 

More of BP's money has been heading to the campaigns of Republicans than Democrats. And as an industry, about three quarters of the oil and gas money has gone to Republicans since 1990, the Center on Responsive Politics noted. That disparity held true in the 2008 presidential campaign, as McCain and his running-mate Palin accepted $2.4 million in contributions from the oil industry, more than double the nearly $900,000 that went to Obama.

 

But curiously, when you look at BP in particular, Obama took the lion's share.

 

During the 2008 election cycle, Obama was the largest recipient of BP's largess; collecting $71,051 from BP employees (remember, Obama did not take any PAC money). By comparison, McCain, got $36,649 from BP. So Obama held a sizable edge in contributions from BP, even though in general BP sent more money to Republican candidates than Democrats that election cycle.

 

In all, the Obama campaign took in about $750 million. So while $71,051 from BP employees is nothing to scoff at, it was a relative drop in the bucket to his campaign coffers.

 

And to be fair, we also took a look at Palin's contributions from 2006 when she ran, successfully, for governor of Alaska. According to data from National Institute on Money in State Politics, Palin received $4,500 from BP employees that year; and about $15,500 from the gas and oil industry as a whole. That was significantly less than her Democratic opponent, Tony Knowles, who raked in about $25,500 from the oil and gas industry.

 

"She (Palin) didn't raise a lot of money from oil and gas," said Edwin Bender, executive director of the institute.

 

And that's not particularly surprising, he said. Every candidate in Alaska gets some oil money, and Knowles likely got more because he was simply better-known at the time, Bender said.

 

But back to Palin's suggestion about Obama. The claim seems especially curious in light of the tone taken by the Obama campaign back in 2008, as White House secretary Robert Gibbs reminded viewers on CBS' Face the Nation on May 23, 2010.

 

"Well, Sarah Palin was involved in that election, but I don't think apparently was paying a whole lot of attention," Gibbs said. "I'm almost sure that the oil companies don't consider the Obama administration a huge ally. We proposed a windfall profits tax when they jacked their oil prices up to charge more for gasoline."

 

In August of 2008, PolitiFact weighed in on an ad from the Obama campaign -- called "Pocket," as in "McCain is in the pocket of big oil" -- which criticized McCain for taking more than $2 million in oil company contributions and noting that Obama was calling for a windfall tax on oil company profits. A frequent campaign jab from Obama's stump speeches was that, "McCain will give more tax breaks to big oil." It was a claim we ruled Barely True -- McCain was calling for cutting the corporate tax rate for all companies, not just oil companies. But the point is that the Obama campaign took pains to try to tie McCain to big oil; and portray Obama as someone who would fight against big oil influence in Washington. In fact, the Democratic National Committee launched a whole campaign along that theme, including T-shirts with the jab, "ExxonMcCain'08."

 

While some of that can be dismissed as campaign rhetoric, it's also true that oil companies were (and are) concerned about Obama's cap-and-trade climate change proposal, as well as his then-proposal for a windfall profits tax. (Incidentally, that's Promise No. 446 in our Obama campaign promise database, and we've got it rated on the Obameter as Stalled).

 

So by way of review: Obama got more during the campaign from BP employees than McCain did; but McCain got significantly more from the oil and gas industry as a whole. BP has spent a lot of money lobbying since Obama became president, but that money has gone to Democrats and Republicans alike -- and most often to those on energy-related committees.

 

"They (oil industry contributors) play both sides of the aisle," said Bender. "The money goes to whoever is in power. They want to be at the table talking."

[Ursa Majoris]

"If there's any connection there to President Obama taking so doggone long to get in there, to dive in there, and grasp the complexity and the potential tragedy that we are seeing here in the Gulf of Mexico -- now, if this was President Bush or if this were a Republican in office who hadn't received as much support even as President Obama has from B.P. and other oil companies, you know the mainstream media would be all over his case in terms of asking questions why the administration didn't get in there and make sure that the regulatory agencies were doing what they were doing with the oversight to make sure that things like this don't happen."

The implications from Palin's comments are clear

Indeed. The implications are that she wouldn't be able to formulate a coherent sentence if her life depended on it.

[SEC=UGA]

 

Indeed. The implications are that she wouldn't be able to formulate a coherent sentence if her life depended on it.

 

Has that ever really mattered with a woman who half of the country wants to have sexual relations with? Seriously, the woman is a dolt. This is the exact same phenomenon that occurs with the hollywood chicks... If we didn't want to bone Angelina Jolee we wouldn't pay any attention to that crazy bitch talking about third world poverty.

[rajncajn]

 

Indeed. The implications are that she wouldn't be able to formulate a coherent sentence if her life depended on it.

I don't know who is the bigger idiot, Palin or the clueless dumbass who chose her as a running mate.

 

 

*sigh* this thread is going to end up locked or gunned...

Edited May 25, 2010 by rajncajn

[SEC=UGA]

I don't know who is the bigger idiot, Palin or the clueless dumbass who chose her as a running mate.

 

 

*sigh* this thread is going to end up locked or gunned...

 

Good point, you think the old man woulda known better than to let his little head do thinking for him since something as big as the presidency of the US was riding on it. I still can't believe that this woman was representing the republican party, in a national debate, while completely freaking clueless. How she ever got through the vetting process is beyond me and the people in Alaska should be even more ashamed that they elected this woman as their governor.

[bpwallace49]

Good point, you think the old man woulda known better than to let his little head do thinking for him since something as big as the presidency of the US was riding on it. I still can't believe that this woman was representing the republican party, in a national debate, while completely freaking clueless. How she ever got through the vetting process is beyond me and the people in Alaska should be even more ashamed that they elected this woman as their governor.

 

I really dont think McCain had a lot to say in choosing his running mate. the RNC needed some charisma to have a chance so they picked a purty face. Mccain sold any credibility he had to the far right to try and get elected, including having the RNC pick his running mate.

[rattsass]

I don't know who is the bigger idiot, Palin or the clueless dumbass who chose her as a running mate.

I contend that "clueless dumbass" had virtually no say in his choice of a running mate, and I further contend that Palin was used like an H-bomb to purposefully sink McCain in favor of the "chosen one." Who with all of his public adoration would be much more free to further impliment the New World Order. Palin was the Trojan horse that allowed the truly deadly Trojan Horse to infiltrate the White House.

 

But that's just me...

[Ursa Majoris]

I contend that "clueless dumbass" had virtually no say in his choice of a running mate, and I further contend that Palin was used like an H-bomb to purposefully sink McCain in favor of the "chosen one." Who with all of his public adoration would be much more free to further impliment the New World Order. Palin was the Trojan horse that allowed the truly deadly Trojan Horse to infiltrate the White House.

 

But that's just me...

So the RNC was deliberately torpedoing McCain in order to give Obama a clear path to the presidency, is that it?

[rattsass]

So the RNC was deliberately torpedoing McCain in order to give Obama a clear path to the presidency, is that it?

The RNC and the DNC both hold allegiance only to the New World Order. And either will do whatever it takes to see it through. Yes, I do think that is a very strong possibility. Because, come on...Sara Palin? Really? It seemed unbelievable at the time if you will remember, and it seems no more a credible strategy today.

[rajncajn]

I contend that "clueless dumbass" had virtually no say in his choice of a running mate, and I further contend that Palin was used like an H-bomb to purposefully sink McCain in favor of the "chosen one." Who with all of his public adoration would be much more free to further impliment the New World Order. Palin was the Trojan horse that allowed the truly deadly Trojan Horse to infiltrate the White House.

 

But that's just me...

Please take the End Times posterboard from around your neck.

 

Agreed that he probably didn't have a lot of say in it, but ultimately it was his decision. I think the reason for it was to try to garner womens & minority votes. In essence, to combat the ideal of voting in the first black president. Something most rational people would realize is an idiotic reason for selecting a running mate. I think he might have actually won a tight race with a viable running mate who would have calmed fears of him keeling over during his presidency.

[rattsass]

Please take the End Times posterboard from around your neck.

Its funny, everybody seems to agree that the majority of high level politicians are corrupt. We have seen example after example of this. Daily it seems. It is an accepted fact of life, and we all bitch about it and console ourselves with our meaningless party allegiance - which we think makes us the smarter of the followers being screwed by thier masters. But when you bring up the possibility of the most powerful people in the world conspiring against all of us (for their noble goal of saving the species and the planet, nobody is even willing to accept the possibility.

 

William Cooper was killed for a reason. He may have not had all of the answers, but if you read Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars, it reads like a play by play of the degredation of our country.

 

But I feel ya. Nobody wants to believe that all they have ever known is a lie. A movie. Nobody wants to believe the very worst. It is a huge burdon when you realize that you can't really trust anybody, especially your own governement. Nobody wants to believe that the biggest conspiracy of all is true and has been perpetrated on them.

 

And I'm not saying that New World Order will ever succeed, as a matter of fact, it is hard to imagine that it ever will. So there is no End Of Days posterboard round my neck. I just think people that dismiss the idea summarily are living a far greater folly than those of us that are at least open to the possibility that all we see is simply theater.

[rajncajn]

Its funny, everybody seems to agree that the majority of high level politicians are corrupt. We have seen example after example of this. Daily it seems. It is an accepted fact of life, and we all bitch about it and console ourselves with our meaningless party allegiance - which we think makes us the smarter of the followers being screwed by thier masters. But when you bring up the possibility of the most powerful people in the world conspiring against all of us (for their noble goal of saving the species and the planet, nobody is even willing to accept the possibility.

 

William Cooper was killed for a reason. He may have not had all of the answers, but if you read Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars, it reads like a play by play of the degredation of our country.

 

But I feel ya. Nobody wants to believe that all they have ever known is a lie. A movie. Nobody wants to believe the very worst. It is a huge burdon when you realize that you can't really trust anybody, especially your own governement. Nobody wants to believe that the biggest conspiracy of all is true and has been perpetrated on them.

 

And I'm not saying that New World Order will ever succeed, as a matter of fact, it is hard to imagine that it ever will. So there is no End Of Days posterboard round my neck. I just think people that dismiss the idea summarily are living a far greater folly than those of us that are at least open to the possibility that all we see is simply theater.

I think you give them WAY too much credit.

[rattsass]

Its ok if you think I am a nutjob for believing this. You have been conditioned to think that way. It isn't your fault.

 

But the clues are all around you. All you have to do is open your eyes and see them. Hell, they have even dropped thier veil of secrecy to a degree. They are conditioning us with terms like Global Governenace, and even New World Order has been uttered by some of those actively involved in implementing the process.

 

The biggest events in all of history have all been conspiracy's.