Joker Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Here's the article. It looks like everyone was rescued, but I can't believe there's already been another one.:confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizzyBee Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Here's the article. It looks like everyone was rescued, but I can't believe there's already been another one.:confused: That was my thought, too - already?? It makes me wonder about the possibility of sabotage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeaganS Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Yeah, and initially they said there was no oil leaking, now they say there is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane in NC Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 That was my thought, too - already?? It makes me wonder about the possibility of sabotage. As opposed to sabotage, I wonder about the company's safety record. Jane (feeling rather cynical about corporate ethics these days) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXMary2 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 As opposed to sabotage, I wonder about the company's safety record. Jane (feeling rather cynical about corporate ethics these days) Contrary to propaganda the media loves to spread, BP ha been one of the better companies. I think I lean toward sabotage. Eco-terrorists wouldn't surprise me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane in NC Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 (edited) Contrary to propaganda the media loves to spread, BP ha been one of the better companies. I think I lean toward sabotage. Eco-terrorists wouldn't surprise me. Really? My husband is in the utility business. He finds the safety culture of the oil industry to be appalling. That is a generalization. If one is to examine the safety culture at BP, what can I look at beyond OSHA statements to come to the conclusion that you have made? The media reports that I have seen are based on OSHA records. I am very curious how you have come to your conclusions since I think you have some inside knowledge that I am lacking. Thanks. Jane Edited September 2, 2010 by Jane in NC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smrtmama Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Contrary to propaganda the media loves to spread, BP ha been one of the better companies. I think I lean toward sabotage. Eco-terrorists wouldn't surprise me. Yes, because eco-terrorists love dumping massive amounts of crude into a fragile ecosystem. Except, um, NOT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 :svengo: Those signs I used to see at the gas stations near my house "Fresh shrimp from the Gulf", so fresh it came off the boat that day, no longer make me hungry. :glare::glare::glare: *sigh* I am very saddened to hear this news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWOB Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Yes, because eco-terrorists love dumping massive amounts of crude into a fragile ecosystem. Except, um, NOT. :lol: And the current administration doesn't have enough on its plate. I'm sure Washington said "OMG! We don't have enough haters. Let's make more people hate us by blowing up oil rigs and shutting down the oil industry in the Gulf!" I'm going to let the evil media infiltrate my weak mind and go with the corporate greed/lack of safety regulations answer. Me and my feeble mind;). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smrtmama Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I'm going to let the evil media infiltrate my weak mind and go with the corporate greed/lack of safety regulations answer. Me and my feeble mind;). Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Is it more likely that eco-terrorists orchestrated a sabotage of an oil rig or that the oil rig fell victim to the same shoddy safety precautions and sub-par maintenance we've already seen in place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caitilin Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Yes, because eco-terrorists love dumping massive amounts of crude into a fragile ecosystem. Except, um, NOT. :iagree: This is not going to look good, however you cut it. But the notion that environmentalists would deliberately sabotage an already-reeling ecosystem is laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Contrary to propaganda the media loves to spread, BP ha been one of the better companies. I think I lean toward sabotage. Eco-terrorists wouldn't surprise me. Sorry, but that isn't correct. I have close relative who works in the dive business (oil rig repair and inspection). BP is one of the worst companies for cutting corners to cut costs. They have an appalling reputation for safety precautions in the industry. There are more than a few divers who will request to be removed from a rotation if it means going on a BP rig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane in NC Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Sorry, but that isn't correct. I have close relative who works in the dive business (oil rig repair and inspection). BP is one of the worst companies for cutting corners to cut costs. They have an appalling reputation for safety precautions in the industry. There are more than a few divers who will request to be removed from a rotation if it means going on a BP rig. Even the Wall Street Journal has blasted BP's safety record! Is TXMary2 suggesting that they too have swallowed the Kool-aid (or is that light sweet crude?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Contrary to propaganda the media loves to spread, BP ha been one of the better companies. I think I lean toward sabotage. Eco-terrorists wouldn't surprise me. Eco-terrorists was my first thought too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 :iagree: This is not going to look good, however you cut it. But the notion that environmentalists would deliberately sabotage an already-reeling ecosystem is laughable. But they would, just to shut down all off shore drilling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXMary2 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Yes, because eco-terrorists love dumping massive amounts of crude into a fragile ecosystem. Except, um, NOT. Um, yeah, I guess they limit themselves to burning down forrests and blowing up car dealerships. Nothing like burning vehicles to help the environment. Seriously? Eco-terrorists don't seem to mind that they are hypocrites. I am not saying it is likely that it was eco-terrorists, I just said it wouldn't surprise me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 But they would, just to shut down all off shore drilling.How do you know this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXMary2 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 How do you know this? Perhaps you could Google "eco terrorists" and read up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Um, yeah, I guess they limit themselves to burning down forrests and blowing up car dealerships. Nothing like burning vehicles to help the environment. Seriously? Eco-terrorists don't seem to mind that they are hypocrites. I am not saying it is likely that it was eco-terrorists, I just said it wouldn't surprise me. or spray painting baby seals so...the polar bears can see them better? or more likely that their fur rots off and they freeze to death. Sorry I know that's all the way back in the 80's, but I couldn't help myself:D! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Perhaps you could Google "eco terrorists" and read up.Nice try. But I'm not the one making accusations about what "they" would do without actually making the case for my suspicions. Yes, because eco-terrorists love dumping massive amounts of crude into a fragile ecosystem. Except, um, NOT. But the notion that environmentalists would deliberately sabotage an already-reeling ecosystem is laughable. But they would, just to shut down all off shore drilling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 or spray painting baby seals so...the polar bears can see them better? or more likely that their fur rots off and they freeze to death. Sorry I know that's all the way back in the 80's, but I couldn't help myself:D!Even if this were true, the polar bears (when there's enough ice for them to be that far south) are going to make a certain number of kills anyway. I don't begrudge them a meal. Could you link to a credible source about the seals freezing to death? IIRC correctly, the painting stopped because the Canadian government outlawed the practice, not because harm was done to the seals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 (edited) Even if this were true, the polar bears (when there's enough ice for them to be that far south) are going to make a certain number of kills anyway. I don't begrudge them a meal. Could you link to a credible source about the seals freezing to death? IIRC correctly, the painting stopped because the Canadian government outlawed the practice, not because harm was done to the seals. No idea how crediable, as I don't know the standard citiations for sources in the eighties. But here's one...second paragraph...and again it's cited from somewhere else. We can split hairs all day...I was just trying to infuse some humor before another thread was shut down :D. http://www.fortfreedom.org/r04.htm No wait!!! I can't help myself!!! http://www.atariage.com/forums/blog/54/entry-7351-playing-rainbow-warrior-c64/ Edited September 2, 2010 by simka2 just had too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 No idea how crediable, as I don't know the standard citiations for sources in the eighties. But here's one...second paragraph...and again it's cited from somewhere else. We can split hairs all day...I was just trying to infuse some humor before another thread was shut down :D. I get that, but I've heard this said a few times and never seen any credible evidence. Baby harp seals moult at two weeks of age, just after they are weaned and before they take to the seas. http://www.fortfreedom.org/r04.htm Well, since it starts out: " On the face of it, Greenpeace is just another sham-environmentalist organization using the nature-loving pretexts for political ends (and damaging the environment in the process)." I'l assume it's not a news story or a journal article. ;) No wait!!! I can't help myself!!! http://www.atariage.com/forums/blog/54/entry-7351-playing-rainbow-warrior-c64/ :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LauraGB Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 But they would, just to shut down all off shore drilling. :iagree: A terrorist is a terrorist, no matter what letters precede the name. They act without regard for anyone or anything other than their own beliefs and agenda. If blowing up oil rigs gets all off shore drilling shut down, they win. There is a big difference between an environmentalist and an eco-terrorist. Crazies will come out of the woodwork to inadvertently foil a potentially decent and noble cause, and that's a fact. :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 :iagree: A terrorist is a terrorist, no matter what letters precede the name. They act without regard for anyone or anything other than their own beliefs and agenda. If blowing up oil rigs gets all off shore drilling shut down, they win.Rigs? I've heard people say seriously that they thought eco-terrorists were behing the Deep Water Horizon, and others say they knew it was the government. I've also heard it asserted with equal sincerity that OPEC was behind it. Given the sheer volume of evidence against BP and the other companies involved... well, I just don't get the people who still assert otherwise. There is a big difference between an environmentalist and an eco-terrorist. Crazies will come out of the woodwork to inadvertently foil a potentially decent and noble cause, and that's a fact. :glare:Except that there's a big leap between tree-spiking or throwing firebombs and blowing up a manned offshore oil rig in terms of logistics, discipline, and coordination required. The Tre Arrows of the world just aren't good at taking orders and sticking to a plan. Eco-terrorism (I'm choosing not to argue with the usage of this term, but I don't accept it as it's currently applied) of this scale simply hasn't been seen in the US (or elsewhere, so far as I'm aware). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 (edited) Contrary to propaganda the media loves to spread, BP ha been one of the better companies. I think I lean toward sabotage. Eco-terrorists wouldn't surprise me. BP has the worst safety record--BY FAR--of any oil company. Well over 200 citations for safety violations last year (after they promised to be good) when the industry average was just a few violations (as in two or three). How many people died or were injured in the Texas refinery explosion that was due to deliberate negligence? In Alaska they spilled oil out of the pipeline because they didn't do the proper maintenance (running what the industry calls "pigs") in order to keep the pipeline clear. In the gulf spill it looks like there were serious safety violations, and the engineers have lawyered and/or are taking the 5th in safety investigations by Congress. Bloody irresponsible (if not criminal) outfit. Bill Edited September 3, 2010 by Spy Car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harriet Vane Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 BP has the worst safety record--BY FAR--of any oil company. Well over 200 citations for safety violations last year (after they promised to be good) when the industry average was just a few violations (as in two or three). How many people died or were injured in the Texas refinery explosion that was due to deliberate negligence? In Alaska they spilled oil out of the pipeline because they didn't do the proper maintenance (running what the industry calls "pigs") in order to keep the pipeline clear. In the gulf spill it looks like there were serious safety violations, and the engineers have layered io and/or are taking the 5th in safety investigations by Congress. Bloody irresponsible (if not criminal) outfit. Bill I know virtually nothing about BP or oil politics, but just wanted to say it's good to see you here again, Bill. I appreciate your perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 I know virtually nothing about BP or oil politics, but just wanted to say it's good to see you here again, Bill. I appreciate your perspective. Thank you :001_smile: Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keptwoman Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 (edited) Well call me sucked in by the media machine, but I'll go for safety violations over eco-terrorism. Edited September 3, 2010 by keptwoman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXMary2 Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 BP has the worst safety record--BY FAR--of any oil company. Well over 200 citations for safety violations last year (after they promised to be good) when the industry average was just a few violations (as in two or three). How many people died or were injured in the Texas refinery explosion that was due to deliberate negligence? In Alaska they spilled oil out of the pipeline because they didn't do the proper maintenance (running what the industry calls "pigs") in order to keep the pipeline clear. In the gulf spill it looks like there were serious safety violations, and the engineers have lawyered and/or are taking the 5th in safety investigations by Congress. Bloody irresponsible (if not criminal) outfit. Bill Sorry, SHELL is worse than BP- which makes BP not the worst. Good try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXMary2 Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Oh, and this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keptwoman Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Sorry, SHELL is worse than BP- which makes BP not the worst. Good try. If you ask me, they are all different shades of appalling, who wants to argue over how appalling you have to be to be appalling, not me that's for sure. They all need to clean up their act for the sake of our planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Oh, and this. Quote from that article: In terms of spilling oil in the past decade, prior to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, BP was already the industry leader, but many other companies were close behind. (Source: http://www.mms.gov/incidents/spills1996-2011.htm ). BP had more instances of spilling 50 barrels or more of substances in the Gulf of Mexico, with 22, while Shell and Chevron were close behind with 21 and 17 instances, respectively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXMary2 Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Quote from that article: This was in there too: when ranking safety and inspection violations for the offshore oil industry over the last decade, Apache Corporation came out on top with 18 violations. BP tied for second with Forest Oil Corporation and Union Oil Company of California, all with 11 violations. Other well-known oil companies were not far behind, with Chevron and Exxon trailing with 10 violations and 7 violations, respectively. And BP did not even rank in the top five for amount fined for their safety and inspection violations in the past decade. (Source: http://www.mms.gov/civilpenalties/ ) Chevron was fined more than $1-million, with Apache Corporation and Pogo Producing Company coming in second and third, respectively. BP ranked seventh, being fined $558,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane in NC Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 This was in there too: when ranking safety and inspection violations for the offshore oil industry over the last decade, Apache Corporation came out on top with 18 violations. BP tied for second with Forest Oil Corporation and Union Oil Company of California, all with 11 violations. We seem to have gone off the original topic which was yesterday's oil platform explosion. The company that owns the platform is not BP but Mariner Energy. When I initially raised the issue of safety, questioning the automatic assumption raised by some posters that sabotage was involved, I was raising a question about the safety record of Mariner. Worth noting: Apache and Mariner were slated to merge before yesterday's incident. From TXMary2's quote, Apache has the worst safety record in the Gulf. Just saying. Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 This was in there too: My point was that BP hardly has the sterling record that would cause one to suspect sabotage by environmentalists. You have shown zero evidence that would make it a logical conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrid Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Sorry, SHELL is worse than BP- which makes BP not the worst. Good try. Wow, Mary, that was snarky. This is a ridiculous p***ing match. Who cares which company is worse? Lives have been lost, the planet harmed, and it seems that NO oil company is lily-white. We need to end our dependency on fossil fuels. Period. astrid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethInNH Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 :iagree: Wow, Mary, that was snarky. This is a ridiculous p***ing match. Who cares which company is worse? Lives have been lost, the planet harmed, and it seems that NO oil company is lily-white. We need to end our dependency on fossil fuels. Period. astrid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Wow, Mary, that was snarky. This is a ridiculous p***ing match. Who cares which company is worse? Lives have been lost, the planet harmed, and it seems that NO oil company is lily-white. We need to end our dependency on fossil fuels. Period. astrid :iagree: Our national security depends upon changing the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Wow, Mary, that was snarky. This is a ridiculous p***ing match. Who cares which company is worse? Lives have been lost, the planet harmed, and it seems that NO oil company is lily-white. We need to end our dependency on fossil fuels. Period. astrid Well said. 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.