jonesloonybin Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I am watching it now. It just started. BP CEO Tony Hayward is going to be answering some, hopefully, tough questions!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonesloonybin Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 Alright, I REALLY don't like the congressman from Alabama!! He is saying this is NOT the worst environmental disaster that will happen to the US :glare:and that we should remember that more people die from cancer related to cigarette smoking....WHAT!!!! :confused:What does that have to do with anything? You can tell the states that do not want drilling to be interrupted or affected by this disaster. UGH!:banghead: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonesloonybin Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 This is where I am watching it. http://www.wral.com/news/video/7803432/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonesloonybin Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 Tony Hayward is speaking now. I am so surprised that nobody here is watching this or even commenting. :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonesloonybin Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 The hearing is in recess untill noon. (EST) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfoster Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I'm watching the hearing, and so is 8 yr old DS, I'm surprised its been holding his interest so far. I didn't really appreciate the little comments these reps are throwing in re: their own pet projects and esp the rep from TX calling the $20B escrow fund a 'shakedown'. BP seems to be publicly agreeable to the terms of that agreement, they were not REQUIRED to do it (although I'm sure it's helping relations between BP and Gov). Plus the $20B is NOT going to be paid all at once. I have to say, Hayward has to have nerves of steel to be able to sit there without throwing up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonesloonybin Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 Could you believe the lady in the audience with the oil or what is supposed to be oil on her face? I feel for the people sitting near her that got trampled in the process. I also could not believe that it was an hour of opening statements that where mostly all saying the same thing!! I loved the lady that said she would submit her opening statement for the record but would not say it, in the interest of getting things moving along. More people should have followed her example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Turned it on late, thanks for posting/sharing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonesloonybin Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 Hearing back in session! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonesloonybin Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 GO Mr. Waxman, from California!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpsings Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I seriously don't know what to think. I'm not angry, just sad. :( I hate this being so... political. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Alright, I REALLY don't like the congressman from Alabama!! He is saying this is NOT the worst environmental disaster that will happen to the US :glare:and that we should remember that more people die from cancer related to cigarette smoking....WHAT!!!! :confused:What does that have to do with anything? You can tell the states that do not want drilling to be interrupted or affected by this disaster. UGH!:banghead: *This* is why I read transcripts and watch highlights. Galling, to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfoster Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I'm glad to see most of these guys are trying to be tough on the CEO, I think they also need to be tough on the federal MMS people who allowed a lot of these substandard safety rules. I think there's no question BP was negligent and made dangerous decisions solely to make it happen faster and save money. How is it that even though they cut these corners, they were *technically* still following the rules!?! I am disappointed that Hayward showed up to testify but didn't bring the people (or names of people even) that DID make the decisions to cut corners. Ok FINE, you DIDN'T issue the orders, WHO DID?? "I dunno, wasn't me" isn't very helpful. :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonesloonybin Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 :iagree: They gave him the questions beforehand so he would be prepared! I LOVED it when Tony Hayward was asked if he was this uncooperative and stonewalling the other investigations as well. lol All Mr Hayward is saying is sorry, I was not apart of that decision...ok then WHO was. Oh and when he said it was the drilling team on the rig...nice, blame it on the DEAD drilling team. Not like they can defend themselves! (that was sarcasm!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Atl Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 The gulf is not the only part of this planet oil companies have trashed and then said... Oops. :glare: It's all about the $$$$. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonesloonybin Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 Ugh! My local news station never went back to the hearing. What did I miss so far??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfoster Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Yikes! Not sure what's been deleted...probably best :D So far it seems as if the questioning has been adjusted a bit so that Hayward isn't able to evade the questions completely. From his responses, it sounds like he is saying no one that was implementing procedures had to check in with anyone from higher up to gain approval for those procedures. One of the reps mentioned that leaving important decisions to lower level employees is fine for a DEPARTMENT STORE, but NOT for companies that are doing what could be equivalent to deep space exploration and drilling. I'd have to agree with that... All of these emails and memos saying 'this shouldn't be done' or 'this is really risky' etc that had been sent around. He says that HE had no knowledge of them, and it sounds like on review, the lower but still 'high-up' employees that were fingered by other BP employees also did not have any knowledge of the memos. Is there SERIOUSLY no redundancy or safeguards to ensure that, say, Manager A wants to get to his vacation started earlier so he says 'yeah yeah yeah just toss in the minimum required tests and equipment and we will take the fines if we have a leak or some people die, i'll still get my bonus for finishing it early'...:confused::confused::confused: There are SO MANY lives on the line here! GAAAAAAAAAA can he STOP REPEATING the same lines over and over again?!?!?! They should just record the 2-3 messages, put them in a doll with a string, and every time someone asks him a question just pull the string and listen to the same pre-recorded message. At least that way I could accept the reason for the canned responses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extendedforecast Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 (edited) GAAAAAAAAAA can he STOP REPEATING the same lines over and over again?!?!?! They should just record the 2-3 messages, put them in a doll with a string, and every time someone asks him a question just pull the string and listen to the same pre-recorded message. At least that way I could accept the reason for the canned responses. I was making lunch when they reconvened, and when I got back to the tv, I asked DH what I'd missed. He said, "Nothing, this guy doesn't know anything apparently." This guy seems cool as a cucumber in the midst of all this questioning. Edited June 17, 2010 by extendedforecast Correct quotation marks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuntieM Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I was making lunch when they reconvened, and when I got back to the tv, I asked DH what I'd missed. He said, "Nothing, this guy doesn't know anything apparently." This guy seems cool as a cucumber in the midst of all this questioning. And that's why they pay him the big bucks... He is able to sit there and coolly recite the four or five magical phrases prepared and provided by BP's corporate legal counsel. Sickening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 And that's why they pay him the big bucks... He is able to sit there and coolly recite the four or five magical phrases prepared and provided by BP's corporate legal counsel. Sickening. :iagree::iagree: And yesterday I heard that tar balls were washing up on Destin beaches. I cried. We were there last year, it was one of the most beautiful beaches. Frankly I'd rather watch coverage of people out in the gulf doing clean up and preventative work. I don't want to HEAR what BP is going to do about it, I want to SEE them do more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Rep. Joe Barton of Texas you are fail and I hope Texas votes you out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ToGMom Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I haven't watched the hearing as we don't have cable... But did anyone see the interview with Bill O'Reilly (my husband found it online) and Mr. Morris(?) I think... Basically they were saying that the US has been offered clean-up assistance/aid from various places (one that I specifically remember was Holland) and Obama has turned it down...this disaster COULD have been contained MUCH faster if Obama didn't have his head up his backside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen500 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Basically they were saying that the US has been offered clean-up assistance/aid from various places (one that I specifically remember was Holland) and Obama has turned it down...this disaster COULD have been contained MUCH faster if Obama didn't have his head up his backside. uh-oh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Why would Holland pay for clean up for a mess that a US company made? What exactly were the terms of such an agreement? Head up backside indeed. :glare: "Brownie you're doing a heck of a job!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ToGMom Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I don't have all the specifics...but the way I understood it was that Holland offered equipment, manpower, etc. to speed the clean up and Obama said, "NO". I'm sure there was probably some cost involved but, again, I don't know the specifics of the agreement, if there was one. Instead, Obama wants to blame BP and ban off-shore drilling...:glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 (edited) I don't have all the specifics...but the way I understood it was that Holland offered equipment, manpower, etc. to speed the clean up and Obama said, "NO". I'm sure there was probably some cost involved but, again, I don't know the specifics of the agreement, if there was one. Instead, Obama wants to blame BP and ban off-shore drilling...:glare: It was BP's *fault* BP should be blamed. I cannot find a good source for your claim that we refused foreign aid, can you link one? Edited June 17, 2010 by Sis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ToGMom Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I understand what you're saying, but where I come from, it's called an "accident"... BP has been working towards a resolution and has admitted responsibility. BP isn't pointing the finger at anyone else... Why does Obama feel the need to "grill" BP?? It wasn't like they did this on purpose... I'm looking for the video my husband was watching this AM, but haven't found it yet. I'll link to it when I do... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 (edited) Bill O'Rielly is not a good source, he does opinion not news. Dutch skimmers are in on the clean up, which seems to be the opposite of "NO" Who wouldn't grill BP? There is evidence that they cut corners, why wouldn't the President grill them? Do you think BP should do whatever they want? I don't understand. Why would we allow a company through their own negligance, create a huge environmental disaster and deal a crippling blow to the gulf fishing industry, tourism and wildlife and NOT get their hinies chewed? If it had been me I would have been harder on them than he was. I understand what you're saying, but where I come from, it's called an "accident"... It was due to negligence. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100614/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill Edited June 17, 2010 by Sis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna T. Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 (edited) Why does Obama feel the need to "grill" BP?? It wasn't like they did this on purpose... Well, for one thing... he came to some of the most beautiful beaches in the world and was met by mobs of local citizens (commercial fishermen, charter boat captains, condo. rental owners, bait & tackle shop owners, we love the dolphins folks, and local mayors and other reps.) who are getting the shaft from BP's "claims process" and who are begging him to use his influence so that their voices will be heard. Oh, yeah, he also noted that our beach smells like a gas station. Maybe the fumes got to him. They may not have caused the accident on purpose. But, they are responsible for it and they should be made to hear these local people. If Obama can help to make that happen, then he should. Edited June 17, 2010 by Donna T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonesloonybin Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 It IS BP's Fault. Even Tony Hayward admitted that much. They chose to use riskier procedures (against advisement) and were more concerned with saving money and time! They have had so many safety violations that I think they should be banned from ever drilling ANYWHERE in the U.S. or U.S. waters! I agree that he was just a stonewalling puppet that just repeated the same thing over and over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ToGMom Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Bill O'Rielly is not a good source, he does opinion not news. We will have to agree to disagree...he INTERVIEWS political analysts, etc. He works for FOX NEWS...which, imo, is more reliable than Yahoo! news... Here is the link I promised: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4242806/obamas-hope-and-disillusion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 (edited) We will have to agree to disagree...he INTERVIEWS political analysts, etc. He works for FOX NEWS...which, imo, is more reliable than Yahoo! news... Here is the link I promised: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4242806/obamas-hope-and-disillusion He is a "pundit" and "political analysts" are not anymore invested in the facts than he is. He is there to present a certain view, not give facts. I am not clicking on the link. I don't watch pundits. He does OPINION not news. And my link isn't from "Yahoo news" that is from the "Associated Press" Read the byline. Edited June 17, 2010 by Sis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa in FL Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I cannot find a good source for your claim that we refused foreign aid, can you link one? I'm not sure what you consider a good source but here are a couple of links that you can look at and decide for yourself: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19655 http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-real-reason-america-refused-international-help-on-the-oil-spill-2010-6 http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2010/jun/16/george-lemieux/white-house-refused-international-oil-spill-aid-fl/ http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/06/143127.htm As you can see one of the links is from the state department. Yes, we have refused outside help. The question is why? I think it's curious that after Katrina the Jones act was suspended to get foreign aid to the gulf but they won't do that now. I really believe it is "we the people's" job to make sure the government is doing the right thing, I'm not convinced they are with this oil spill. Melissa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ToGMom Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I'm not sure what you consider a good source but here are a couple of links that you can look at and decide for yourself: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19655 http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-real-reason-america-refused-international-help-on-the-oil-spill-2010-6 http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2010/jun/16/george-lemieux/white-house-refused-international-oil-spill-aid-fl/ http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/06/143127.htm As you can see one of the links is from the state department. Yes, we have refused outside help. The question is why? I think it's curious that after Katrina the Jones act was suspended to get foreign aid to the gulf but they won't do that now. I really believe it is "we the people's" job to make sure the government is doing the right thing, I'm not convinced they are with this oil spill. Melissa :iagree: thank you, Melissa... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 :iagree: thank you, Melissa... Yes thank you for pointing out that apparently the sources for the assertion that we are refusing help and that we cannot figure out why President Obama did not just say yes to the help are all in clear language in the memorandum from the State Dept A number of offers of assistance have been accepted. These include: Mexico’s offer of two skimmers and 13,780 feet of boom which were accepted in early May; Norway’s offer of eight skimming systems which was accepted in early May; Netherland’s offer of three sets of Koseq Rigid Sweeping Arms that was accepted on May 23; and Canada’s offer of 9,843 feet of containment boom which was accepted on June 4. In addition, the U.S. Government has accepted and is grateful for assistance in the form of notification regarding the spill sent by the International Maritime Organization to its member states and coordination of EU offers of assistance by the European Commission’s Monitoring and Information Centre. BP also directly sources equipment (such as skimmers, busters, boom) and technical experts worldwide, including from Algeria, Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Latvia, Norway, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan and the United Kingdom. The Department of State has assisted when necessary to enable this sourcing. Department of State assists in this effort to source equipment, supplies and services from foreign governments and international bodies in three ways: 1) receiving offers of assistance, forwarding these offers to the UAC through the NIC, and communicating with those governments and bodies about their offers; 2) reaching out through our posts abroad to locate potential sources of critical supplies and equipment; and 3) supporting BP’s international sourcing through our diplomatic and consular functions, such as reaching out to relevant ministries and expediting visa processing. Some offers of international assistance that have been received are not needed at this time. With few exceptions, these international offers of assistance are made on a reimbursable basis, which means that the assistance is provided only if paid for by the recipient. All offers of assistance are considered promptly and carefully, are expedited if needed, and are appreciated greatly by the American people as we address this threat to our Gulf coast. Geesh I hate to state the obvious but I would read my sources well. They might just show that you are ...wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 (edited) http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012118082_oilforeign15.html "We'll let BP decide on what expertise they do need," State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told reporters on May 19. "We are keeping an eye on what supplies we do need. And as we see that our supplies are running low, it may be at that point in time to accept offers from particular governments." In the past week, the United States submitted its second request to the European Union for any specialized equipment to contain the oil now seeping onto the Gulf of Mexico's marshes and beaches, and it accepted Canada's offer of 9,842 feet of boom. The government is soliciting additional boom and skimmers from nearly two dozen countries and international organizations worldwide.It sounds like we are receiving aid The state department link says A number of offers of assistance have been accepted. These include: Mexico’s offer of two skimmers and 13,780 feet of boom which were accepted in early May; Norway’s offer of eight skimming systems which was accepted in early May; Netherland’s offer of three sets of Koseq Rigid Sweeping Arms that was accepted on May 23; and Canada’s offer of 9,843 feet of containment boom which was accepted on June 4. In addition, the U.S. Government has accepted and is grateful for assistance in the form of notification regarding the spill sent by the International Maritime Organization to its member states and coordination of EU offers of assistance by the European Commission’s Monitoring and Information Centre. Your politifact link listed the claim as "Barely true" Let's tie this all together. The State Department has received official assistance offers from 18 countries and another four groups. Some of those offers are vague, others are specific. Most all of them are offers to sell equipment or use the equipment. The State Department has accepted the offers of four countries -- Mexico, Norway, Netherlands and Canada -- and says it is reviewing and considering other offers. That's in contrast to LeMieux's statement, which is that the White House has "refused" international aid. But it's also clear the United States has either struggled to act on offers of foreign aid, or that processing the requests has been delayed. Japan, Sweden and Norway are all prepared to send resources or manpower to the Gulf should the U.S. sign off. Other countries also are willing to help, but have been kept on the sidelines. Taking that into account, we'll rate LeMieux's statement Barely True. Edited June 17, 2010 by Sis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ToGMom Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Geesh I hate to state the obvious but I would read my sources well. They might just show that you are ...wrong. If you had read ALL of the articles, you would have noticed that Obama has refused MORE than he has accepted... Holland has equipment that could clean this mess up within a few months rather than 9 months to a year... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Atl Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 If you had read ALL of the articles, you would have noticed that Obama has refused MORE than he has accepted... Holland has equipment that could clean this mess up within a few months rather than 9 months to a year... But do they know how to stop it? Cleaning is great, if the hole has been plugged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 (edited) If you had read ALL of the articles, you would have noticed that Obama has refused MORE than he has accepted... Holland has equipment that could clean this mess up within a few months rather than 9 months to a year... Holland offered a dispersion chemical that isn't permitted by our EPA. We cannot accept things that are not legal and untried at that depth. There is a lot of controversy about dispersion chemicals http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/22/gulf.oil.spill/index.html http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7781016/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-fresh-questions-raised-about-chemicals.html and we are using Dutch Skimmers. Like the articles stated all of this has to be spelled out very clearly. Edited June 17, 2010 by Sis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 The Dutch reported that they are helping on May 28 http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/dutch-help-us-oil-spill-clean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ToGMom Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Holland offered a dispersion chemical that isn't permitted by our EPA. We cannot accept things that are not legal and untried at that depth. Isn't that what BP has been doing?? Maybe not the "legal" part but definitely they have been trying the "untried"...just sayin'... I think the EPA needs to weigh the consequences of allowing the leak to continue vs. trying a dispersion chemical that isn't yet "approved". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Holland has equipment that could clean this mess up within a few months rather than 9 months to a year...I've noticed that seemingly each of the solutions that hasn't been tried (other than in some cases small trials), be it hair or straw or Dutch dispersant, would always have been the most effective, and made clean-up a snap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Isn't that what BP has been doing?? Maybe not the "legal" part but definitely they have been trying the "untried"...just sayin'... I think the EPA needs to weigh the consequences of allowing the leak to continue vs. trying a dispersion chemical that isn't yet "approved". From the articles I linked it looks like a lot of things are being tested. I would really rather they be careful. I don't think a toxic yet oil free Gulf of Mexico is a great alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Atl Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I've noticed that seemingly each of the solutions that hasn't been tried (other than in some cases small trials), be it hair or straw or Dutch dispersant, would always have been the most effective, and made clean-up a snap. Yes, lets through loads of chemicals into the ocean (that we know nothing about). Even some of the approved ones are more toxic than the oil! It's a joke... They're are currently at least two huge spills, in other areas of the globe, in-which the oil companies are doing nothing about (Niger & Ecuador). No one here seems the least bit worried about why those companies have not looked towards outside nations for help in cleaning-up the mess. If anything, they have dragged their feet and continued to destroy the environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.