Slashdot Mirror


BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped

An anonymous reader writes with word that BP has announced the Gulf oil spill has been stopped. Another reader adds more detail: "The last valve on the new cap has been closed, and the flow of oil and gas into the sea has stopped. That doesn't mean it's over. It is unclear whether the steel casing deep in the well can contain the pressure. The risk is that it could burst, which would eventually cause a rupture on the sea floor that would make things much messier to deal with. However, they're monitoring the pressure buildup carefully and if the pressure holds over the next 48 hours (indicating there is no leak below the sea floor), they'll assess what to do next. If it doesn't hold at the expected readings, then they'll re-attach the pipe used for producing to the surface and start collecting again. Regardless of what happens the relief well still has to be completed to permanently plug the well with cement, which could take a couple more weeks."

601 comments

  1. Picture or it didn't happen! by Kepesk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Picture or it didn't happen!

    1. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by impaledsunset · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now that they stopped it, let's Slashdot it from the inside.

    2. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by bhlowe · · Score: 5, Informative

      Link to multiple video feeds.. Looks good to me!

    3. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by shacky003 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's the direct feed link from BP - http://www.bp.com/liveROVFeed
      It starts all feeds on load, click on the videos themselves to get a decent fullscreen res look at each..

    4. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Won't work. We've got to dust off and nuke it from orbit.

      It's the only way to be sure.

    5. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone have archived video from the live feeds during when they actually closed it? I thought that would be killer vision to have, but no...?

    6. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd imagine they'd have to gradually close the valves over a period of time to reduce the pressure build up from the current created by the continuous stream of oil escaping, in my reckoning at least.

    7. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      is there a link for them without WMV? I'd rather not rely on such

    8. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      Can we get the ISS in on this and Slashdot it from orbit?

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    9. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by cj_nologic · · Score: 1

      is there a link for them without WMV? I'd rather not rely on such

      ubuntu -> firefox -> totem works for me.

    10. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Pictures do not exist. Pictures never existed.

      There is no oil spill. There never was any oil spill.

    11. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are live video feeds from the ROVs. The ROVs move around and go on and off duty on a regular basis (sometimes they're at the surface), so the view is constantly changing, but at the moment Skandi ROV2 is staring at the top of the new cap/BOP system and Boa Deep C - ROV 1 is staring at the point where all the well-related gear goes into the sea floor (called the "mudline"). There's no oil or gas coming out of any of it.

      Last few hours they've been driving all around the wellhead looking for leaks. Nothing so far.

      Note: because the ROVs could move at any time, check the first link if the latter two go off line or move.

    12. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by mysidia · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No one can archive that, it's copyright by BP, i'm sure. The spill, its appearance, and the cleanup/closing/capping are all very unique valuable pieces of art.

      As (I guess we will likely find) will be all pictures of the spill, cleanup, etc.

      Why do you think press are not allowed near it, and that all GIS info and airspace anywhere near the spill has been heavily restricted... to prevent aerial photography, of course.

      There's only one good reason for that... to help protect BP's copyright and movie rights to the spill, all spill imagery, and all the book rights regarding the subject.

      And finding any way around the restrictions would actually be a DMCA anticircumvention violation.

    13. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Silly you. Ever heard of time-shift? ;)

      That’s how it looked before they fucked up.

      Now you have to watch for weeks, to find the glitch where it repeats. Muhahahaaa! *strokes white cat with iron glove*

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    14. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by Jaysyn · · Score: 1
      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    15. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Try finding Aerial photography post June 13th.

    16. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      It starts all feeds on load [...]

      It also "thoughtfully" resizes your browser window to a size that doesn't even fit all of the feeds. Brilliant.

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    17. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider the fact that having every major new agency with a boat and a plane in the immediate area of the well might be in the way of the people with legitimate reasons to be there?

    18. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by Tokerat · · Score: 1

      Imagine a beowulf cluster of those?

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    19. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      That doesn't help him much, because:

      * He most likely don't want to rely on WMV for a reason.
      * Totem seem to just be a player front-end, using Gstreamer or Xine to handle the actual data.
      * Regardless even if he thought WMV was ok as a format your solution may not fit him (Windows, OS X, KDE, some alternative OS, ...)

      I use to hate on Flash but yeah, can't say I liked these video options either, didn't played on my OS X 10.4-hack, and I'm not _THAT_ interested. (WMV10?)

    20. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      That's java-script and awesome web-designers at work for you! :D

      Much love to the first idiot who thought it was a good idea to not actually _LINK_ images but rather execute a java-script when you clicked them which opened a new web-page with a set size, less controls and / or above other content with non-standard controls. Because I shouldn't be the one deciding whatever I want to open an image in a new tab, window, same window or save it, oh no! The designer (programmer? yeah right ...) knows better!

    21. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Your wish was my command, master! Here is for June 17th 2010. Click on the pic for the flickr.com link or just go to the accompanying blog

    22. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      The whole 'press not allowed near it' is bullshit, they don't allow people not involved in the cleanup to get within 10 metres of cleanup operations for saftey, not censorship. If you can't photo something ten metres away you don't deserve to call yourself press.

    23. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love to believe you but it took me about 3 seconds to find some aerial photographs... from National Geographic no less:

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/photogalleries/100429-gulf-oil-rig-spill-worse-pictures

    24. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now that they stopped it, can we start drilling again? Please?

    25. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Hint to mods - it's a joke!

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    26. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Conspiracy nut much?

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    27. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by duhjim · · Score: 1

      Picture or it didn't happen!

      From the mind of Philip K. Dick to us.

    28. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by Custard+Horse · · Score: 1

      All they have to do is record some footage, put it on cycle as in all good heist films and no-one will be any the wiser when it pops its lid. Yay!

    29. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Well, those were taken in April, the NOTAM issuing the TFR was dated June 9th. Obviously they were too little too late preventing all aerial photography :)

    30. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that they've stopped it, they're going to build up the pressure inside, and *then* puncture it to try and add cement. Does this sound a little @ss-backwards to anyone else?

    31. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      I was actually running chrome on my win7 box, but didn't care to download a plugin or run another browser. Also haven't set up virtualbox with ubuntu on it yet to test either.

      so essentially yes, I was lazy, but I don't want to agree to any new disclaimers from MS.

    32. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Hm.. so they circumvented BP's protection mechanism.... i'm sure it won't be long until their seaplane captain gets some sort of DMCA letter <g>

      One of the ways BP controlled the media coverage of the oil spill was booking up virtually every available seaplane hour in the Gulf coast area. Luckily, our seaplane captain Dickie was fed up with how BP was trying to control the airways. A lucky situation arose which gave this rogue pilot complete flight clearance

    33. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      It's not 10 meters, they're requiring press keep a farther distance. They're not letting anyone within 70 feet of a boom, beach, or area where cleanup is occuring.

    34. Re:Picture or it didn't happen! by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Bringing down flickr would have been easy for the government if he were otherwise hosting the blog beyond USA jurisdiction. Though the photos are more than a month old his personal blog AND flickr pages are still up. Don't worry.

      With that long for an oil giant + the government to act, and the plugged state holding steady 48+ hours, this is a non-issue now. Booking all the flights means only that airspace travel wasn't *completely* banned: this site clarifies the 3000 feet high flight restrictions and doesn't pose other limitations besides the land-based 20-meter separation from workers, boats and impacted regions. The photographer got special flight permission that day as required by the FAA. They can't take it back just because he's been slashdotted :)

  2. Whew by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thank god they got it closed before it became an ecological disaster.

    Oh wait...

    --
    Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
    altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    1. Re:Whew by kvezach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It does seem that they were very focused on being able to extract the oil rather than just stopping the leak. Now, I'm not an engineer, but could their desire for continued extraction of oil have delayed their plans, made the stack more complex?

      In any case, we'll see whether it works. Hopefully it'll at least buy them enough time to drill relief wells.

    2. Re:Whew by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now, I'm not an engineer, but could their desire for continued extraction of oil have delayed their plans, made the stack more complex?

      Not based on my understanding since they are continuing with the relief well, the purpose of which is to plug the well with cement.

      Now that they have the cap in place, if it works I don't see why they don't just turn the well into a producing well. Might as well get something out of the disaster...

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    3. Re:Whew by snowraver1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      If they could have just stopped the leak, they would have one the first day. In fact, they tried that, but the BOP was broken... That is what this whole issue is about.

      The collection of oil was to prevent that oil from going into the water, and also gave them something positive to report on.

      In addition, the collection effort required some stops that made the capping of the well possible at all. As part of the capping process the cut the riser of the well (and eventually removed the riser cap) which is where this cap is installed.

      I'm sure that no one wanted to stop this well leak more than BP.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    4. Re:Whew by Aeros · · Score: 2, Informative

      I had read a few articles and spoke with a few people that there actually was a reason they didnt just plug it up. There were some issues concerning the seabed and if they just 'plugged' it there could be some disruption to the seabed and possibly cause more problems. Who knows if this is true or not but I thought it was kind of interesting. I mean when you think about it, why would they really want this crap going all over the place when it just keeps costing them more money to clean up. Im hoping there is some truth to this and that was the reason they took their sweet ass time...but again who knows. Im glad they got this in place and there is finally some relief.

    5. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      BP is a corporation. Corporations don't have empathy or remorse. They could give a rat's ass about the leak. They only wanted to stop the bad publicity and liability, and secondarily, to start producing oil. If they could somehow have all three on the cheap without stopping the leak, they would have.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    6. Re:Whew by countertrolling · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sure that no one wanted to stop the news leaks more than BP.

      You're welcome...

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    7. Re:Whew by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Try not to think of it as an ecological disaster. Think of it as unproactive redistribution of wealth by giving some of the worlds unwealthiest wildlife a large sum of one of the worlds most sought after resources. They should be able to increase their underwater infrastructure a great deal if they use it all wisely.

    8. Re:Whew by maxume · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The primary reason it took a long time is that they had no contingency plan for BOP failure. They had to invent the plan, invent the needed equipment and then build the equipment.

      (They had a notion that they would build a relief well if it blew, but that isn't a short term containment plan, it is a hole in the ground plugging plan).

      So if you want to be outraged, be outraged that they were drilling outside of their technical depth (they clearly did not have a reasonable contingency plan in place, nor a sufficient amount of equipment), there is no need to foment anger about their motivations since the blowout.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Whew by Sir_Sri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The 'extraction' is more that it's easier to funnel some of the leak somewhere, and it has to go somewhere, than it is to actually stop the leak (which IMO isn't a bad plan really). AFAIK basically they've always needed relief wells or nuclear weapons or a working blowout preventer to get stuff to stop. Imagine an outside tap on your house that won't close, sticking something on there which will actually plug the leak, while under pressure is pretty hard. Screwing on a hose is messy, but once it's on at least you're funnelling the (in this case) water wherever you want it, it'll be leaky, but a lot better than nothing. Fitting on a new tap while there is flow is pretty tough, not impossible though, and if you stick a cap on it, and the cap bursts you're probably further behind than if you'd just left the partially connected hose.

      The whole thing has been to some degree theatre. Dumping dispersant on light oil is dramatically worse than just letting it get to the surface and evaporate, but they had to be seen to be doing something. Building a cap to hold it in was always, at best a temporary solution, and everything they do risks making the problem worse. Funnelling as best they could until relief wells could be made was probably the only viable choice, at this point whether they can cap the leak for a week or two isn't going to make meaningful impact on the overall size of the spill, a useful learning exercise for the next time something like this happens, but not all that useful now.

      The question will be what to do if the relief wells fail in some way, because then the number of options is pretty low.

      I doubt the amount of oil they could get hardly justifies worrying about. Even if they're getting 20K barrels of actual oil a day that they can sell at say 80 bucks a barrel, that's only about 1.6 million bucks a day, for a business that's doing ~690 million USD in revenue a day, and spending probably 20 or 30 billion dollars on this, a few hundred million here or there is unlikely to even make notice on a balance sheet, and risk extremely bad press for very little gain.

    10. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They wanted to extract the oil instead of plugging it so the oil wouldn't start leaking elsewhere.

      There is a certain amount of pressure down there pushing the oil up. If you just plug it up and have no ability to relieve that pressure, something else will break.

      The explosion in April created weak spots all around the area, hence BP's desire to extract the oil and relieve the pressure.

      Of course they also wanted to recoup some of their losses on this thing, but don't pretend that that's the only reason.

    11. Re:Whew by SleazyRidr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Basically, we know that the cementing job is faulty to some degree, if we completely stop the flow then that'll put all the pressure on the casing below the point where we stop it. It is quite likely that it will then just rupture further down, and then we'll back in the same position as before, except it'll be even harder to stop.

    12. Re:Whew by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Nooo...

      They would make far less money on the extracted oil than they are having to pay already. They would have saved much more money than they are making if they could have plugged it in the first place. How much money so far? Somewhere around $4b.

      That means they have spent about as much cleaning this up as they profit in an entire year. There is no way this not particularly large well would have made that much money for them.

      Numbers? Let's assume they were *getting* 100,000 barrels per day (which is probably way too high). If my math is correct, that's roughly $6 million at $60 per barrel, right? But their operating costs were about $1m per day, which means $5 million per day.

      At $5m per day, it would take them 20 days to get to $1b. To get to their current $4b mark, that would be 80 days.

      But we already know they were getting no more than 20k barrels per day ... they were capturing 5k at first, and then somewhere between 15k and 30k as I recall. So it would probably take over a year, at that speed, to even break even to what they have paid for so far... and I doubt they have paid as much as they will pay, since this would not include most of the claims and they already put up $20b to that escrow thingy.

    13. Re:Whew by SleazyRidr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The scary thing is that basically everyone out there is assuming that the BOP will never fail and they don't need any contingency plans. I've done one or two studies with these people (not BP) and whenever anyone raises the question, "What if the BOP fails?" the answer is always, "it won't."

    14. Re:Whew by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      BP is a corporation. Corporations don't have empathy or remorse. They could give a rat's ass about the leak. They only wanted to stop the bad publicity and liability, and secondarily, to start producing oil. If they could somehow have all three on the cheap without stopping the leak, they would have.

      Corporations aren't the uncaring robot beasts you seem to be convinced they are. Corporations are still run by people. And there's no way that the people running BP would have allowed themselves to continue pumping unthinkable amounts of oil into the ocean without putting up a real effort to stop it, bad press and huge fines or none.

    15. Re:Whew by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      they are unwealthy wildlife because they have proven themselves unable to use it wisely.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    16. Re:Whew by CannonballHead · · Score: 0

      Individual people in the business may have empathy or remorse though. Correct, the corporation is not human... but many people in the corporation are human and may, in fact, have empathy or remorse. Most probably do. To say that BP is a corporation and thus everyone working on the spill didn't really care is unfair.

      I am not trying to defend BP. I am trying to defend BP workers who are not at fault for what other workers, managers, or executives did that caused this leak. For all I know, the CEO or any number of other executives had little or nothing to do with this. In my experience in a large corporation, most of the execs know very little about details of any given project, heh. I guess that is something we'll find out.

    17. Re:Whew by Korin43 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Corporations aren't the uncaring robot beasts you seem to be convinced they are. Corporations are organizations run by uncaring robot beasts.

      Fixed that for you. You don't become the head of a huge corporation by having human emotions.

    18. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you believe in Jesus ?

      It seems you sure do believe some other fairy tales.

    19. Re:Whew by Omega+Hacker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Corporations aren't the uncaring robot beasts you seem to be convinced they are. Corporations are still run by profits.

      Fixed.

      --
      GStreamer - The only way to stream!
    20. Re:Whew by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

      thanks for correcting that.

    21. Re:Whew by Tsiangkun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      BP is run by a profit driven capitalist terrorist group. Money makes the decisions at BP. To think people run the corporations is just plain silly.

    22. Re:Whew by Rakishi · · Score: 5, Informative

      The well was a write off from the moment the thing started leaking. Everyone knew that. I mean seriously, they can barely cap the thing, how in god's name do you expect them to repair all the damage that was done to it?

      It's orders of magnitude cheaper and easier to just drill another well, they're not some magical things that suddenly shows up in the middle of the ocean, we can make more of them.

    23. Re:Whew by Marillion · · Score: 1

      The industry still don't have a plan in case of BOP failure. On of the reasons the administration is fighting so hard to stop new work, it because they've asked industry experts what do you do the next time something like this happens and nobody knows what to do. The plan had been to never let a blowout happen.

      --
      This is a boring sig
    24. Re:Whew by x_IamSpartacus_x · · Score: 5, Informative
      You know, I was going to lament the waste that it seems it will be to pump the relief well and seal off this oil well because of the vastness of the reserve and how much oil and natural gas they could get from it since they can collect it now with the cap on it.

      Before I did that though, I did a little digging to find out how many other projects BP has in the Gulf of Mexico just to see if maybe they have a high percentage rate of success and this is just one of hundreds or something,
      It turns out BP has only 9 (admittedly huge) projects in the Gulf of Mexico. Source
      (count the number of projects in the ride hand column)

      I had to find that in the way back machine because BP took down the page listing their Gulf of Mexico projects. They even still link
      to it (again, look at the column on the right "Gulf of Mexico Facilities) but they broke the link. It's funny, when I peruse that page (via the way back machine) BP brags about their "new and untested" tech that they use to go to "unprecedented depths". It looks like their a little ashamed of it now.

      Anyway, after seeing that they only have 9 facilities in the Gulf maybe this well is better sealed off. I went looking for a reason to trust BP with reopening this well and getting the oil and gas they went there for but a 1 in 9 failure rate is not impressive. Seal that sucker off.

    25. Re:Whew by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow are you naive. They would have done whatever would make them the most money. The reason is not because they are so horrible, but because blame is so spread around no one feels guilty for the problem.

    26. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean 200 and 800 days respectively. $1b is $1,000m

    27. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now they can higher some people with PhDs to prove that it never really happened, that the term "disaster" is too strong a word, for a mishap like this, and look over there! A commie and a terrorist!

    28. Re:Whew by maxume · · Score: 1

      Well, they have recently gained valuable operational experience in dealing with a BOP failure.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    29. Re:Whew by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Now that they have the cap in place, if it works I don't see why they don't just turn the well into a producing well.

      Because it was never intended to be a production well? IIRC this was always supposed to be a test well.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    30. Re:Whew by minorproblem · · Score: 1

      Exactly money is a big motivator when your talking about billions lost. The problem comes when you try and put a price on things like lives and the environment. How much are those dying birds worth to you etc.

    31. Re:Whew by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You don't become the head of a huge corporation by having human emotions.

      Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are on the phone and would like to speak with you.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    32. Re:Whew by cjb658 · · Score: 0

      of the vastness of the reserve and how much oil and natural gas they could get from it since they can collect it now with the cap on it.

      And they'll still charge us $3 a gallon for it.

    33. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I never said everyone at BP was a sociopath. The problem with corporations is diffusion of responsibility. No single employee or officer has to be sociopathic in order for the emergent behavior of the corporation to be sociopathic.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    34. Re:Whew by Abstrackt · · Score: 5, Informative

      And they'll still charge us $3 a gallon for it.

      Haha I wish.

      Signed,
      The rest of the world

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    35. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 1

      Externalities are the bane of a free market system.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    36. Re:Whew by blair1q · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that no one wanted to stop this well leak more than BP.

      I'm more sure that you are wrong.

      Everyone but BP wanted it stopped dead the second it happened, and didn't care if BP ceased to exist or its executives were crushed in an imploded bathyscaphe trying to screw a stelvin closure on it.

      BP was okay with not letting anyone else try to stop it, so BP would get to claim credit for stopping it, and keep ownership of the well and its eventual output, and continue to be traded on the stock exchange. And if that meant it would spew longer, so be it.

      Other people wanted to save the planet. BP wanted to save a few billion dollars, give or take, and let the "give or take" part rule their timetable.

    37. Re:Whew by blair1q · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You don't become the head of a huge corporation by having human emotions.

      Not about people, at least.

      Money and expensive toys, on the other hand, make these fuckers cry.

    38. Re:Whew by cjb658 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, we are all trained to think corporations are evil. But have you ever chosen money or convenience over what's best for the environment?

      Do you drive a car to work?
      Do you buy reusable shopping bags?
      Do you throw recyclable materials in the trash?
      Do you use air conditioning?

      I could go on, but the point is, almost everyone is motivated by cost and convenience.

    39. Re:Whew by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The problem was the BOP was the failsafe. But from the little that has been reported, it may have damaged but not inspected or tested properly. Also BP in its efforts to speed up the operational timeline, took a few short cuts. Normally the shortcuts wouldn't have been a big deal if the BOP was working properly.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    40. Re:Whew by blair1q · · Score: 0

      THAT.

    41. Re:Whew by phyrexianshaw.ca · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and rightly so.

      in fifty+ years of drilling and extraction do you know how many of them have ever failed?

      one. inclusive of this event.

      designing a fail-back plan for a BOP failure is like designing a plan for what to do if North America suddenly sank into the ocean. though important to think about, no amount of prep is ever going to make it a smooth operation.

    42. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50,000 bbl/day * $73/bbl = 3.6 million per day. Yeah, I'm sure they didn't care AT ALL about the leak.

    43. Re:Whew by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Anyway, after seeing that they only have 9 facilities in the Gulf maybe this well is better sealed off. I went looking for a reason to trust BP with reopening this well and getting the oil and gas they went there for but a 1 in 9 failure rate is not impressive. Seal that sucker off.

      You know how the first time you had sex, you lasted all of 15 seconds? How much luck do you think you'd have had in the future if all the women knew you were "premature" 100% of the time?

    44. Re:Whew by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I'll grant you that, I guess. It tends to come across, in news and posts, that all executives at BP had complete knowledge of this beforehand and really TRIED to create the disaster.

    45. Re:Whew by Thing+1 · · Score: 2

      Ha! Hahahahaha!

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    46. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thank you for that false equivalency. Destroying a huge region of ecosystem and screwing up hundreds of thousands of lives is not the same thing as not buying reusable shopping bags, and you know it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    47. Re:Whew by blair1q · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The industry still don't have a plan in case of BOP failure.

      I don't know why everyone's saying they didn't have a plan.

      Of course they had a plan.

      But the rational expenditure on it stopped at the expected value of the probability of a failure times $75 million in total liability. Basically, about $500k at current failure rates. Beyond that, they planned to point at the law saying liability was capped at $75 million, and shrug their shoulders about the $10 billion mess they made.

      it wasn't until their daddy (President Obama) got home and informed them the rules made by their mommy (President Cheney) were not the rules of the house, and they would be 100% responsible for cleaning up the mess, that they kicked the dirt and got out the mop.

    48. Re:Whew by blair1q · · Score: 2, Funny

      They'd be wealthy if they just worked harder.

    49. Re:Whew by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      This was an exploratory well. It was never meant to produce.

    50. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You know, it sounds kind of dumb for you to talk about corporations not having empathy or remorse, and then start talking about what they want. You can't say they don't have feelings and then talk about their feelings.

      Corporations are legal structures, they don't have feelings or desires or anything. They don't want to stop bad publicity. They can't want things.

      The people running the corporations do want things. They have hopes, dreams, they love, they hate, they are indifferent, just like you and me. They want money, they do have empathy, and some have remorse. Some do give a rat's ass about the leak, and some are sad about the environment. And some don't care about the liability and need to produce oil because they already have their money, the liability damage will make little difference to them.

      Treating a corporation as a single person and talking about its wants is a vast oversimplification, don't do that.

      --
      Qxe4
    51. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it always has been dumping good oil at the stupid fish.

    52. Re:Whew by Rectal+Prolapse · · Score: 2, Informative
    53. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To parent and it's children posts. Basic Physics Fails.

      Do me a favour, go to a tap and turn it on all the way to full pressure. Now try to stop the flow with your thumb or hand... now tell me, what happens?

    54. Re:Whew by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      Large corporations are profit generating machines. That's it. They don't try to do good (for its own sake). They don't try to do evil (for its own sake). Everything they do is based on the (perceived) impact on the bottom line, usually over time periods of less than 5 years. Any ascribing of emotion to them, be it positive or negative is based on illusion. For this reason, it is necessary to have a democratic government act as the ultimate policeman, in order to make sure the large corporations act in the public interest.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    55. Re:Whew by Bemopolis · · Score: 5, Funny

      And giving them more oil just encourages them to lay about. Just look at those lazy bastards, floating sideways on the surface.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    56. Re:Whew by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And there's no way that the people running BP would have allowed themselves to continue pumping unthinkable amounts of oil into the ocean without putting up a real effort to stop it, bad press and huge fines or none.

      Kind of reminds me of what I told myself about Pfizer when I was working for them: no way would they do unethical things like test their drugs in 3rd world countries without properly informing the test subjects. No way would they have done this just to save a buck or two, or get around stricter regulations in the US. After all, you'd have to be a monster to be okay with that, and additionally to be absolutely horrible at managing PR to risk the parallels to the Tuskegee experiments. And, I told myself, you go into medicine to help people, not hurt them.

      I guess I could still tell myself those things, it's not as if anything conclusive has come out about it. Still, I think it's pretty clear that pfizer is not our friend, corporations are in general not our friends, and those individuals who work for large corporations are able to justify, ignore, or rationalize almost anything their company does. After all, I did it, and I was just a lab grunt who had no real stake in the company.

      You should not be optimistic about good people being in places of power, since power tends to corrupt. That isn't just true for politicians or religious leaders, it's definitely true for corporations.

    57. Re:Whew by icebraining · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do you drive a car to work? No.
      Do you buy reusable shopping bags? All bags are reusable if well treated. Yes, I bring my own bags and reuse them all I can.*
      Do you throw recyclable materials in the trash? No.
      Do you use air conditioning? No.

      More questions?

      *By the way, now 'round here we have to pay a couple of cents even for common plastic bags, to reduce waste. I think it's a great measure.

    58. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 1

      It is not a vast oversimplification because our consciousness is geared to sum up entities as if they were individuals. We can use the analogy (and legal fact) of corporations as persons and then ask, what kind of persons are they? They are sociopaths. They have no empathy or remorse, and desire nothing less than total domination of all existence. I base this analogy on observed characteristics of corporations.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    59. Re:Whew by superdave80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't the main reason it is so expensive in most of the world is due to taxes, and not the oil companies themselves?

    60. Re:Whew by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Anyone in the corporation in charge who might have "empathy or remorse", also has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders.

      That means they cannot make decisions based on personal feelings if they are contrary to the interests of the company.

      They can and would be sued if they allowed their personal empathy to get in the way of making the financially correct business decision.

      How would you feel if your real-estate broker caused you to sell your house for less $$$ because he felt empathy for a buyer?

    61. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 1

      I'd be willing to wager that the majority of individuals responsible for BP's decisions do, in fact, feel very remorseful right now. But many of them, being actual sociopaths or at least narcissists, do not. Positions of power tend to accumulate an excess of sociopaths for some reason.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    62. Re:Whew by ZosX · · Score: 4, Informative

      More than that. Blow out preventers have something like a 40% failure rate according to recent statistics released.

      http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100713/ts_csm/313442

      (I honestly don't know if it has the 40% figure, but dig for it, it was all over the news if you need a citation that badly)

      Common practice is to have a backup BOP to eliminate the single point of failure. The BOP is not nearly as reliable as oil companies would like to make it out to be.

    63. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It certainly has produced though hasn't it? Why not use it?

    64. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Corporations are not sociopaths. They are not people. 'Corporate Personhood' is a legal concept that doesn't make sense if applied to psychology, or indeed outside the area of corporate law.

      Corporations (of the type we are discussing) are nothing more or less than a group of people. Trying to understand them as less than this will lead to skewed perceptions, much like yours.

      --
      Qxe4
    65. Re:Whew by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I say the US needs a rule that suitable non-production relief wells (or a similarly reliable measure) need to be governmentally required to be 99% pre-drilled and verified for every new well to be brought into operation, so that they are ready to be deployed within a week if a BOP should fail.

      And failing to do something like that is utter negligence.

    66. Re:Whew by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

      designing a fail-back plan for a BOP failure is like designing a plan for what to do if North America suddenly sank into the ocean

      How about we start with forcing BP to comply with their own safety procedures and maybe US federal regulations too, which are intended to prevent failures in the first place.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    67. Re:Whew by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Large corporations are profit generating machines. That's it. They don't try to do good (for its own sake). They don't try to do evil (for its own sake). Everything they do is based on the (perceived) impact on the bottom line

      Okay, if that's always the case, how do you explain things like this? Is that the exception that proves the rule? Or is it really just a very sneaky and roundabout way of (eventually) generating more profit by generating good will? And if it is the latter, does it make any difference? After all, one could argue (and some do) that even individual acts of altruism are nothing more than disguised self-interest... but in all cases, either some good is done, or not, and any secret underlying intentions are irrelevant to the result.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    68. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fitting on a new tap while there is flow is pretty tough, not impossible though, and if you stick a cap on it, and the cap bursts you're probably further behind than if you'd just left the partially connected hose."

      It's not a bad analogy you've constructed, but it's missing one thing. The concern back when they tried the "top kill" and even now as they've shut the valves is that the casing will fail somewhere deeper down. This is roughly analogous to the tap analogy you describe, but where there is a realistic possibility that if you cap it, the pipe will burst somewhere inside the house because of the build-up of pressure (assume there is something wrong with the pipe). That's why they are watching the pressure very closely. If it stays relatively low, they'll know they have a leak below the surface somewhere, and they'll reopen the vents to relieve the pressure. That would be unfortunate, but better than leaving the leak to find its way to the sea floor and be less containable when it gets there.

    69. Re:Whew by mysidia · · Score: 1

      It's something like saying computer hard drives never fail. That might be true, but the day you mistreat or fail to handle one properly, you may find out otherwise.

      And how many times have BOPs been needed in real world use and not failed?

      Statistics about the number of times they failed are meaningless, unless you also have stats about when they didn't fail.

      And details about what kind of things might cause or allow them to fail.

    70. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bp knew of the problems:

      http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/05/30/1548218/BP-Knew-of-Deepwater-Horizon-Problems-11-Months-Ago
      http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/12/news/companies/bp_house_hearing/
      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/us/30rig.html?pagewanted=all

      bp knew the huge risks and yet still greedily chased the profits, so it's not a big leap to expect that after the spill they would still chase profits if given the chance. Corp's are run by people who can commit ridiculous crimes such as bringing the world economy to the brink of collapse, or _destroying_ the environment (and the local/regional economy with it) and *if* they get caught they almost never do any jail time, and any fines they're slapped with are laughably small. The bastards know they own congress and therefore act accordingly. Here in 2010, I find it staggering that one could make assertions such as you have made (and this being /. , i should not be amazed that this tripe is modded insightful, but i am amazed). Enjoy your koolaid!

    71. Re:Whew by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Corporation's don't have empathy or remorse, but individuals do. But for whatever bizarre reason, it's our collective actions within the corporation that produces this end-product behavior. It's pure, calculated, and with complete disregard for the individual. But, from the stand-point of another corporation on the receiving end, such behavior is completely and totally acceptable.

      The interaction between the individual and collective is judged in the following way.

      Corporation to corporation = acceptable behavior

      Corporation to Individual (and vice versa) = unacceptable behavior

      The dirty little secret however is this. We as a modern society cannot maintain our current way of life, progress, and technological advancement without the Corporation. Such social collective apparatuses are necessary to manage the many abstract layers of social interaction. If the social topology was flat/level, it would be rendered too chaotic to ensure stability. Thus, the interaction between the Corporation and the Individual is truly a "love-hate relationship" we continue to endure.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    72. Re:Whew by TopSpin · · Score: 1

      one. inclusive of this event.

      The Ixtoc blowout, also in the Gulf, leaked for almost a year.

      West coast blowout in 1969.

      It is likely there have been others. They would have occurred far enough away from western media to have gone unreported.

      In any case, thanks for playing!

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    73. Re:Whew by mcrbids · · Score: 0, Troll

      Do you drive a car to work?

      Mostly, no. I ride my bike.

      Do you buy reusable shopping bags?

      Not just buy - use!

      Do you throw recyclable materials in the trash?

      Only by mistake or when there's no ready option available. We recycle cans, plastic, glass, etc.

      Do you use air conditioning?

      (Dang!) Does it help that I live in an area that gets the vast majority of its power by hydroelectric generation? (shrug) I guess you could say that I'm a California Hippie, 'cept that I also fly private planes!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    74. Re:Whew by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      And they'll still charge us $3 a gallon for it.

      If you don't like the price, don't pay it. Nobody forces you to buy gas.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    75. Re:Whew by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      You know, I was going to lament the waste that it seems it will be to pump the relief well and seal off this oil well because of the vastness of the reserve and how much oil and natural gas they could get from it

      .. and then you realized that, at the time of the explosion, the rig was trying to fill the well with cement in preparation for abandoning it?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    76. Re:Whew by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 2, Informative

      There was plenty wrong with the BOP and at least the managers above the workers knew about it.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1676466&cid=32474200

    77. Re:Whew by victorhooi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      heya,

      Actually, he's made a damn good point.

      I know it's really popular and faux-trendy in the west to chant DOWN WITH CORPORATIONS! DOWN WITH GLOBALISATIONS!, but have you actually stopped and considered how idiotic you actually sound. *sigh*.

      Just stop being sheeple for a second and think.

      Corporations are just a legal construct - they're run by *people*. They people like money, and they're usually profit-driven. As the parent notes, this doesn't make them evil, it just makes them more concentrated form of what we're like

      There are few people these days, in our Western nations that aren't driven by cost/convenience. Yet people are all talk, and no action.

      I mean, jeez, look at the whole Buy Australian/Buy American thing.

      It was trendy to be all anti-imports, but when it came time for people to put their money where their mouth is...they still buy cheap Chinese imports...lol. (I'm assuming here these people believed in mercantilism over globalisation, or something). They're hypcocrites, plain and simple, as many of these anti-globalisation/environmental trendies are.

      You get all these faux-greenies, or anti-globalisation wannabes chanting stupid DOWN WITH BP! slogans. They're a frigging company, run for profit. They're not evil, or good, they're just a legal construct, that does things to make money. You can judge each action they do, on a moral scale, but you can't make blanket statements like COMPANIES ARE EVIL. You might as well say, environmentalists ARE EVIL because of all the terrible things Greenpeace or PETA have done. And believe me, there's a lot.

      If you really want to put your money where your mouth is - go, setup a reserve somewhere, grow your own food, make your own textiles/clothing, and abscond modern conveniences like electricity and petroleum. The fact you're on Slashdot makes me think you won't last long. We'll see how long it is before you come back begging to be let back into society.

      Cheers,
      Victor

    78. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it is a difference in magnitude.

    79. Re:Whew by victorhooi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      heya,

      Lol, you're using a strawman fallacy here and completely ignoring the main point - which is that humans, ever since the industrial revolution, have been masssively impacting their environment.

      And we consistently choose our own comfort over the environment. It's just most sane people don't actually think it's a bad thing to value our own convenience, within reason.

      Look, if you're prepared to go back to a subsistence agricultural kind of lifestyle, by all means.

      I bet you use electricity. Actually, you do, you're on Slashdot, for crying out loud. Gee, I wonder where that electricity came from? Even so called "renewable" energy involves manufacturing, and shaping our environment. If you're really as green as you claim, I'd challenge you to give up the modern convenience of electricity. I give it what, a year before you come crawling back to mainstream society.

      Like it or not, we humans damage our environment. We can try to mitigate that, and we should, but we're hypocrites and liars if we try and claim that we'd gladly put the environment over our own needs.

      Cheers,
      Victor

    80. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      A little home truth - Rig rented from an American company, crewed by Americans, managed by Americans , run to American oil industry practices.

      Its not BP you have to worry about at the moment its all the other companies doing things exactly the same way at the moment.

    81. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. The main reason it *seems* so expensive in most of the world is due to the fact that US oil prices are subsidized nationally to the tune of trillions of dollars of war expanses all around the world.

    82. Re:Whew by Alexandra+Erenhart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I keep seeing this kind of argument, and I just feel is wrong. We don't have many choices when it comes to what we use to transport ourselves, what we use to keep ourselves cool/warm, or to separate trash when no recycling facilities are in the area. Not everybody lives at a walking distance or bicycle distance from work, not everybody lives in a mediterranean weather where summer is not so hot and winter is not so cold, not everybody has the area where they live to put organic trash aside and make it compost or so. Stop with the moral punishment.

    83. Re:Whew by victorhooi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      heya,

      Lol, I suggest you actually try and lookup some of the words you're throwing around.

      Look, as I and other people have noted, corporations/companies are simply a legal construct. They can't, by definition (and as you've admitted) feel - and you can't have it both ways. They can't both be that, and greedy/selfish. Greed and selfishness are words we use to describe people.

      A company can't be a sociopath. That's a completely idiotic statement. And a company doesn't have empathy or remorse because it's just words on a page - in this case, a business register, along with all the paperwork associated with a functioning company, and all the assets it owns, and liabilities it owes.

      To use the much-vaunted car analogy:

      It's like saying a car is a sociopath, because when it hits something, it doesn't feel anything. Well of course it doesn't, idiot. It's the person driving the car who controls it - they will be the ones to feel remorse, or grief, or sadness at hitting the person. The car itself is just a amalgamation of metal and plastic.

      See how idiotic it sounds, to say a car is evil?

      Cheers,
      Victor

    84. Re:Whew by victorhooi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      heya,

      You're an idiot. They're losing hundreds of millions every day over the leak - and that's just the cleanup/containment. There's also the negative publicity, which is immeasurable.

      I'm in frigging Australia - sure, I want the leak stopped, but I doubt I have as much a vested interested in it as BP or it's shareholders.

      Heck, where are you? Do you live near the leak? Did it directly affect you? And if so, how much? Unless you can quantify how this leak had a big direct, negative impact on you, well, I suggest you be quiet (I mean that nicely). Otherwise you just come across as another ranting fool, who's raving at BP because it's the trendy thing to do, without actually understanding the issues involved.

      They screwed up, and they're going to pay for it, I'm sure, all of it. However, to allege it's some weird quasi-government conspiracy, or that they wanted the leak to happen just seems silly and uninformed.

      Cheers,
      Victor

    85. Re:Whew by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I've heard that if they cap it too tightly the pressure will widen the hole so one answer was to let the oil out in a controlled and collectable manner. I'm sure an article with more detail will come out soon.

    86. Re:Whew by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps if they hadn't pressed on when they *knew* that the BOP was damaged the tuna fish from the gulf might not come out of the ocean already packed in oil.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    87. Re:Whew by maxume · · Score: 1

      I've seen random commentary (that I would give some amount of credence) indicating that drilling a relief well each time isn't really super reliable, because the relief well faces many of the same technical challenges as the primary well.

      I'm certainly not the one to be judging if that is the case or not, but it seems like a good idea to keep an open mind about it (rather than deciding that it is unacceptable not to have a mostly complete relief well standing by). Especially considering how many of the issues in this incident seem to stem more from poor human decisions rather than technical failures.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    88. Re:Whew by phyrexianshaw.ca · · Score: 1

      If you really want to put your money where your mouth is - go, setup a reserve somewhere, grow your own food, make your own textiles/clothing, and abscond modern conveniences like electricity and petroleum.

      Well, in the not-too-distant future, people really need to understand that unless you're prepared to do exactly that, that you're not going to make it very long.

      (aside, we don't make much of our own clothing, though we don't wear a whole lot either. most of the textiles we make are hand spun wool, so it's mostly just bedding and winter gear.)

      I guess I must be the exception to that rule: I intentionally do this in Canada as often as I can. it's only my desire to help others that keeps getting me back into the cities and away from the farm. people ask me for help, I try to do what I can from the farm, then end up saying to hell with it, and try to become a member of society again.

      but every few years I get sick and tired of putting up with all the political bullshit people put them selves through every freaking day, and quit my job and go back. it's the only way to live, doing it all yourself.

      we import nothing, we give to other self sufficient farms when their land doesn't do well, and we get it back when ours doesn't do so well. we all survive, and best of all, we're perfectly happy.

      what a beautiful world it is without money.

    89. Re:Whew by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You have a real stupid ass view of how things work.

      Even if you go off the grid, corporation effect your life. Wan't to ahve controls in place is a good thing.Wanting to limit their growth is a good thing.
      They aren't needed. They only exist to maximize profits and minimize risk. Something they abuse, often. Do you know how close the founding fathers where to outright banning corporations in the constitution? Very close because corporations had been flexing there muscle and buying favors from the king. IN fact some got so large, they British government had to support them or risk financial collapse. Sound familiar?

      Yes, saying corporations are evil is stupid. However some corporation are worse for people the others.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    90. Re:Whew by Chih · · Score: 1

      And this is playing both sides of the personhood coin. A corporation is an individual in matters that benefit the corporation, and yet we can't judge this "person" based upon their actions if it damages them. It should be all or none,

      --
      For best results, avoid doing stupid things.
    91. Re:Whew by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Thats the Point of corporations.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    92. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong on both accounts. EPA, DOT, the US Coast Guard, and a host of other governmental agencies all require very detailed contingency plans be developed before construction even begins on any petroleum wells, pipes, or processing plants in the US. Not only are companies required to have contingency plans, the responding agencies themselves all have their own contingency plans.
      Here is EPA's region 6 regional response team contingency plan website.
      http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6sf/respprev/rrt/rrt_contingency_plans.htm

      I've seen the Integrated Contingency Plan BP had for this well, but it's been awhile now and I didn't bookmark it. Lots of good planning info in there though.

      Secondly, it's not so much that blow out presenters won't fail, as they are designed to continue to work after failing. Electronic actuators fail? Use the hydraulics, if that fails use a ROV to manually active the shears. Wired communication/control system fails? Use the acoustical backup, or an ROV. Shear hits a weld/join in the pipe it can't cut through? Design the BOP with multiple rams and space them far enough that no weld can at any time block all the rams all at once. On top of that there are industry standard practices to ensure everything below the BOP/Christmas tree stays within engineered limits.

      NASA safety engineers have been pushing this idea for the last 40 years that catastrophic failure can only happen when multiple events all line up all at the same time in just the right order. If any one causal factor is out of sync or doesn't trigger, you just get a small incident or a near miss. Near misses are happening all the time, everywhere around you, you just don't find out about them because media outlets can't be bothered to report on anything other than sensational headlines.

      Why people insist on believing BP is the evil caricature twirling his mustache over a metaphorical tied up lady on some train tracks is astonishing to me. BP has to push for increased productivity with decreased costs, they have to strive to run as efficiently and safely (accidents cost the bottom line) as possible. They have to do this because we insist on going to the gas station with gas that is 2 cents cheaper per gallon across the street.

    93. Re:Whew by bit9 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wow, how many ways can you be wrong in a single post???

      First, you're wrong about this being the first ever BOP failure. As another poster has already noted, the IXTOC disaster in 1979 was also (at least partially) the result of a BOP failure. Furthermore, BOP failures are evidently not such a rare event. Apparently, they fail frequently enough during routine tests that at least a couple studies have been done on BOP failure. From this article:

      Indeed, more than a year before Pleasant's frantic efforts to stop an inferno, a large study of BOP reliability in the Gulf of Mexico had warned industry experts and federal safety officials that balky control systems were by far the most common cause of BOP failure – and apparently getting worse. Altogether, 63 percent of blowout preventer test failures cited in that 2009 study, a joint effort by the industry and the regulatory US Minerals Management Service (MMS), involved control systems. By contrast, a similar study a decade earlier had found control systems were responsible for 51 percent of BOP failures.

      And from this article:

      Hard data about the reliability of blowout preventers is hard to come by. But back in 2002, West Engineering conducted a test of seven BOPs "at the most demanding conditions to be expected." Five were successful in sealing the pipes, but two failed.

      So although BOP failures may indeed be rare events, and full-blown catastrophes resulting from BOP failures may be even rarer, they still do fail frequently enough to merit some serious consideration, especially given the possible consequences when one does fail.

      The probability of a massive catastrophe caused by a BOP failure is dozens of orders of magnitude greater than the probability of North America sinking into the ocean. It's much more akin to the probability that your house will burn down, and although having one's house burn down is an extremely rare event, it happens frequently enough, and the consequences are severe enough, that it absolutely justifies taking preventative measures and having contingency plans. That's why most of us have smoke alarms and at least one fire extinguisher in our homes.

      Anecdotally speaking, I'm 37 years old, and my house has never burned down (or even caught fire), but in that same time there have been TWO major catastrophic oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico caused by BOP failures.

      Having a real contingency plan (complete with actual equipment, materials and personnel in place) when you're drilling 5000 ft. under the ocean is not like trying to plan for North America sinking into the ocean. It's a necessary and prudent safety measure.

      When you're talking about contingency plans for an accident that has the potential to cause large-scale ecological AND economic disaster, it's not a question of whether or not it will be a "smooth operation". Your implication is that if we don't have a contingency plan that is guaranteed to go off without a hitch, then we shouldn't bother having one at all. That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day.

    94. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the well near Australia?

    95. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The corporation as an individual is a legal abstraction. You can't apply it to real life the way you are trying to do. It doesn't make sense.

      Even if corporations were done away with, the same structures between people would still exist as they are today, probably bound together by contract law. There would be little different.

      --
      Qxe4
    96. Re:Whew by waives · · Score: 1

      Lovely.

      What do you propose we do about the hard fact that the world doesn't have enough arable land to support even half our current population living a lifestyle like yours.

      It's certainly tempting to go try to go back to nature and self-sufficiency, but the only thing that's keeping us from mass death is the economies of scale brought by mass production.

    97. Re:Whew by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

      Destroying a huge region of ecosystem and screwing up hundreds of thousands of lives is not the same thing

      You do realize that your electronic toys are products that were manufactured in third world countries where the working conditions are terrible. People die making your toys dick head.

      Own a iPhone asshole? Seriously? You do know that workers are killing themselves at the factory in China don't you? Do you care? Didn't think so. Your as bad as EVERY MOTHER FUCKING COOPERATION you bitch and moan about.

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    98. Re:Whew by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Haha I wish.

      Signed,
      The rest of the world

      Dear the rest of the world;

      BP & others are selling refined gasoline at significantly less than $3/gallon.
      Speak to your government about the enormous taxes they pile on top of that price.

      Signed,
      The USA

      P.S. Since I'm in the USA, here's the NY spot price for gasoline

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    99. Re:Whew by Spoke · · Score: 1

      Fitting on a new tap while there is flow is pretty tough, not impossible though, and if you stick a cap on it, and the cap bursts you're probably further behind than if you'd just left the partially connected hose.

      Good post, but it's not the cap bursting that they're worried about.

      They're worried about the copper pipe feeding the cap bursting a leak which is buried underground and if left unchecked will eventually penetrate the surface leading to a completely uncontrolled leak of enormous proportions that will be nearly impossible to stop.

    100. Re:Whew by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wrong. Well, partially. The main reason it is/was so cheap for the USA, was that the US were such a big client, that they could tell the sheiks: Either you sell below what it’s worth, or we will not buy from you anymore.
      But then China came, and said: Jolly good! Then we’ll buy it! :D (you know, they always smile ;)
      And the USA thought: Well fuck you! We’ll have our own oil source! With black jack! And hookers!
      That’s why all the drilling and calls for “independence” started. (Well, if you did see that segment from the Daily Show: Not really “started”. Since every president since the 60s already did promise that independence.)

      I know that at least one trollerator will now go: “Hey, you got nothing to back that up, and you’re just insulting my beloved USA! USA! USA!” But really, I’m not. So it’s not very nice to assume I’m a dick.
      And really, I know this, because of an interview (also Daily Show) with someone who studied the whole stuff. It’s more his words than mine. I bet you’ve even seen the interview. :)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    101. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the structure has already been overstressed in ways it was never meant to be. They can't trust it to hold up to full production, even if it was originally meant for it (which it wasn't). They know where the deposit it, it's much safer to seal off this well and drill a new one nearby. This is just a stop-gap measure to keep it under control until the relief well is done and they can cap it for it good.

    102. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not a vast oversimplification because our consciousness is geared to sum up entities as if they were individuals

      Summing up entities as if there were individuals is a vast oversimplification. It's a sacrifice of accuracy for the sake of convenience. You've essentially said "It's not an oversimplification because our consciousness is geared up to perform oversimplifications".

    103. Re:Whew by dangitman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Isn't the main reason it is so expensive in most of the world is due to taxes, and not the oil companies themselves?

      Firstly, oil is not expensive anywhere in the world, it's incredibly cheap.

      Secondly, even in the most expensive places in the world, you're not paying the true cost of oil. The cost of disasters like this, oil-related wars, etc, are not figured into the price of oil or gasoline. It's highly subsidized by society. We all pay the cost for you filling up your tank, whether we actually drive a car or not.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    104. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      To that end, even though I largely disagree with him on political matters, I have a lot of respect for someone like Ed Begley, Jr whom actually tries to live what he advocates, while I see Al Gore or Robert Kennedy as full blown hypocrites, flying around on private jets, living in giant mansions, etc all while preaching the exact opposite.

    105. Re:Whew by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      One? But one that counts for a 1000 years of EPIC FAIL fuck up.

      It’s like saying: But we threw just ONE little Zar bomb on your most populated area!
      Or: We destroyed just ooone little planet, and you’re all whiney! Boo-hooo! ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    106. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "go, setup a reserve somewhere, grow your own food, make your own textiles/clothing, and abscond modern conveniences like electricity and petroleum"

      ohhhh, _now_ i see! if we don't go to the extreme (off-grid, etc) then we just roll over and die, i.e., we shouldn't put forth strong opinions about the really shitty things done by the individuals at bp who made the decisions that led to the bp organization as a whole wrecking a region's economy, thereby destroying the livelihoods of many people. in this case, yes, these individuals and this organization are evil

      fwiw, i don't like greenpeace, and i'm not an "anti-globalisation wannabe". bp knew of the problems, yet continued down a wreckless, destructive path :

      http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/05/30/1548218/BP-Knew-of-Deepwater-Horizon-Problems-11-Months-Ago
      http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/12/news/companies/bp_house_hearing/
      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/us/30rig.html?pagewanted=all

      so, cheers victor -- i'll raise my pint of ale, you can raise your cup of koolaid

    107. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 1

      Corporations are groups of people with certain emergent properties, such as diffusion of responsibility . By considering corporations as people, I am engaging in what is commonly known as analogy. Corporations act in the world as if they were people, every group does, and thus we can ask: what kind of people are they? If they are people, and as you admit, by law they are, corporations are sociopaths. So, we should enact laws that deal with them in the same light they deal with the rest of us, harshly limiting their power.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    108. Re:Whew by am+2k · · Score: 2, Funny

      Corporations aren't the uncaring robot beasts you seem to be convinced they are. Corporations are still run by people.

      That's technically true, but it has been proven time and again that in order to get into a top management position in a huge company, you have to be mentally disturbed in a way that you'd be in mental hospital if you weren't in that important position. Thus, decisions by large companies tend to reflect that kind of psychological pattern.

    109. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 1

      Why, that's the exact same thing I say to Libertarians.

      Cheers,
      spun

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    110. Re:Whew by twidarkling · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nobody forces you to buy gas.

      *snerk*

      Gasoline? No. I suppose not. Assuming you live close enough you can bike to work. Like to see you get by without buying anything petrolium-based, though. "Nobody's forcing you" is absolutely the WORST cop-out argument to use when someone's bitching about something. Usually because in some fashion, you are being forced, or at least aren't fully free to do otherwise.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    111. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Saying corporations are 'people by law' no more makes them actual people than calling programming classes actors makes them so. It is an abstraction. It doesn't make them people.

      If you want to make laws limiting what groups of people can do together, that is one thing. But that's all corporations are, groups of people.

      --
      Qxe4
    112. Re:Whew by mirix · · Score: 1

      Drug dealers get into turf wars, and burglars rob houses over their bottom line, too. They aren't doing it to be evil, for evil's sake.

      If a company goes outside the law, be it neglect or what have you, it has committed an evil act, without respect to the fact that they're doing it for gain. Hell, neglect for financial gain is worse than plain old "oops" neglect. it's the motive that makes it evil more than anything.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    113. Re:Whew by GlassHeart · · Score: 1

      designing a fail-back plan for a BOP failure is like designing a plan for what to do if North America suddenly sank into the ocean. though important to think about, no amount of prep is ever going to make it a smooth operation.

      Nonsense. If North American suddenly sank, you're talking about the evacuation of 300 million people in the US alone, nevermind the other stuff we might want to save. This transport capacity does not exist anywhere in the world, and is prohibitively expensive to keep around. It would be a disaster we literally cannot afford to prepare for.

      Since BP appears to now have successfully plugged the well, the cost of a plan could be computed. Apparently they've spent $3.5 billion so far, but that includes payments to claims and clean-up efforts, which should not count against the plan we're discussing. Since BP made $6.1 billion last year (and $82 billion in the last four years) in profits, it's clear that this is something BP could've afforded.

    114. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heya,

      Cheers,
      Victor

      Shut up. Just, shut up. This style of posting is annoying and comes of as infinitely condescending. And having read a half-dozen plus of your posts, you don't even say anything worthy of having a "unique" posting style. So, either just post like it's a post, not a letter, or better yet, just stop saying anything at all. You're increasing the noise side of the ratio.

    115. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the reason it's so cheap in the US is tax breaks, subsidies, and externalized costs.

    116. Re:Whew by morari · · Score: 1

      The oil tycoons running the world aren't uncaring beasts, huh? Wake the fuck up!

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    117. Re:Whew by Mr+Pleco · · Score: 1

      Newsflash, if you get the oil as it comes out of the pipes then it doesn't go in the water...

      Also of note, ALL of the oil they've gotten in this process is being refined (at their expense) and the cash from their selling it is going to a wildlife fund.

    118. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but in all cases, either some good is done, or not, and any secret underlying intentions are irrelevant to the result.

      Untrue. Intentions matter. Doing good for the sake of doing good is, well, good. Doing good in order to immunize oneself from negative backlash in other areas is not good. Most of those projects either use programs and resources already in place, and thus require minimal investiture, or can be easily seen to benefit Google in some fashion in the long or short term. Further, any philanthropic gesture by a company is suspect simply because it's a tax write-off. It's better for the company to post smaller net profits.

      Even if we ignore all the immediately apparent benefits to Google of being philanthropic, there's simply the possibility that due to this, people may be more inclined to be lenient in a case where severe intervention would otherwise be warranted and approved. If it's Google intention to build up leniency for some future ill action, then the good done now could be severely outweighed by the evil done. One could even argue that it's already happened. Many people have an attitude of Google being able to do no intentional wrong. As long as they cloak actions in the guise of accidents, they would be able to do a lot that would get any other company lynched.

    119. Re:Whew by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I wish it was that low even in California. And no, it's not because of taxes.

    120. Re:Whew by victorhooi · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      heya,

      Ok, you're an idiot - corporations, or companies, or whatever, are *just a legal construct*. They're how our economy works. What do you think entrepeneurship is about? The small business around your corner, or the sandwich shop, they're also companies - so if you say COMPANIES ARE EVIL!!!! then friendly Bob around the corner who runs your local milk-bar is also one of these aforesaid evil people.

      I suggest you go take a basic course in economics 101. We're essentially a capitalistic society, tempered by government control for externalities (i.e. to protect the environment, ensure minimum wages etc.).

      If you don't have private corporations, you have what, exactly - government run companies? Lol. Gee, we saw how well that worked in USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, DPRK etc. Even China, once the last bastion of communism, basically went capitalistic in the 1980's, under Deng Xiao Ping.

      Look, communism failed, ok, and it's pretty much a joke in the real world. Maybe in some dream world where everybody is altruistic, but it just doesn't work in our fallen world.

      There isn't an alterantive to it, that we know of yet. You're right that we should have controls.

      However, then you make idiotic statements like "limit their growth", or "they aren't needed". You seem to have very little understanding of how a modern economy functions, or what things like efficient allocation of resources means.

      And I'm not American, so my American history is patchy, but this is the first I've heard of the founding fathers wanting to outlaw capitalism? They were communists? First I've heard of that - can any other American back that up?

      Corporations aren't "worse" for people, or anything like that. Occasionally (or often, depending on your POV), management of these companies may make bad decisions. But that's just like Bob your local hardware store can make a bad decision, or you or I can make a bad decision. It's not the company, it's the people who are managing it.

      Cheers,
      Victor

    121. Re:Whew by daninaustin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't' know whether to take you seriously on this. (I hope you are kidding, otherwise you have absolutely no idea about economics.) Oil is a commodity and prices are set by supply and demand. The US govt has nothing to do with it being cheaper in the US than in Europe. The price difference is almost all tax.

    122. Re:Whew by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      People have morals and ethics, corporations don't. The person following orders does it because he wants to keep his job. This thinking goes up the chain of command to the CEO even, who is thinking "I need to do this if I want to keep my job." Then the board thinks "we need to do these things if we don't want to get sued." The shareholders don't even realize what's going on until something like this happens. Everyone is able to legitimately point to someone else to blame.

    123. Re:Whew by victorhooi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      heya,

      Absolutely, I agree with you.

      In Australia, we've got Bob Brown, leader of the Greens Party.

      Now, ideologically, I've got a lot against extremist environmentalists like him.

      However, I admire and respect the guy for standing up for what he believes. Last time I checked, I believe he lives on his own (or with his male partner) in Tasmania - which is as remote in Australia as you can get =). And I think I read in an interview that he lives quite simply, in a shack-ish sort of place, close to nature, no utilities etc.

      Either way, I think he's wacked off, but I can respect that he's prepared to stick to his guns, and suffer for what he believes in (in this case the environment).

      You compare that against the idiotic faux-greenies we have here in Sydney, driving their over-sized 4WD's, living in their McMansions, and sipping their $6 lattes - and complaining about OH GOSH, WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS ENVIRONMENT ISSUE. IT'S JUST TRAGIC, I TELL YOU.

      About the only thing they do is lobby about airport noise, or about building new roads through their areas, because it'll decrease the value of their property.

      Cheers,
      Victor

    124. Re:Whew by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Can't we just move all that unwealthy wildlife off to a reservations?

    125. Re:Whew by noidentity · · Score: 1

      designing a fail-back plan for a BOP failure is like designing a plan for what to do if North America suddenly sank into the ocean. though important to think about, no amount of prep is ever going to make it a smooth operation.

      Thanks a lot. Now I won't be able to sleep at night. All along I thought we had a plan to handle this.

    126. Re:Whew by victorhooi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      heya,

      Please go read the threads again carefully.

      You're making up some stupid strawman fallacy here.

      My objection is to people who jump up and down screaming corporations are evil. They're not - they're just legal entities. It's like saying a car is evil because it kills people.

      And it's not about putting forth strong opinions, as you say, lol. I'd have no objections to that. You can say, well, the BP management didn't do the right thing here, they didn't put enough contingencies, didn't clean it up in a timely manner etc.

      (Although I might remind you that in the last 100 years, I think we've have err...two BOP disasters, including this one? So why it may have been lax, you can't really blame them for not thinking it would happen.).

      However, to use this as a chance to get on your soapbox, and cry CAPITALISM IS EVIL, UP WITH STALIN! is just pure idiocy.

      I have my doubts that BP "knew" of the problem, in the sense that you're inferring. It may have been a possibility, but somebody, an engineer somebody, weighed up the risks. Either way, it'll all come out in the wash. I'm not entirely sure how if this was say, a communist society, and the government was running this, things would be any different.

      Would the government somehow magically have invested in better engineering, and not had any bureaucratic bungles? Cause gosh, we know the government is ever so efficient at managing large-scale projects in a timely and economical manner...

      Cheers,
      Victor

    127. Re:Whew by victorhooi · · Score: 1

      heya,

      You're on Slashdot. You use computers and electricity. Sorry, fail there.

      And hydroelectric generation also causes vast environmental damage.

      Go talk to Bob Brown, leader of the Greens party here in Australia about that...lol (he campaigned against a dam here in Tasmania).

      I assume you live in some kind of permanent dwelling, as opposed to say, a cave or a tent? Yeah, impact there.

      Fact of the matter is, you can try to mitigate it - e.g. I ride a bike around, I use energy-saving products, I recycle or reduce etc., but at the end of the day, we as humans, are having a major impact on the environment. We should take steps to reduce it, but it's something we have to deal with, at least if we want to keep our current lifestyles.

      The only way to change that would probably be to drastically reduce our population (say, kill around 4-5 billion of us off?), and/or go back to a subsistence lifestyle, where we're at the mercy of predators, nature etc.

      I doubt any of that is going to happen.

    128. Re:Whew by victorhooi · · Score: 1

      heya,

      When I say here, I mean Australia - I'm in Sydney, he's in Tasmania. Tasmania's known for it wildlife freaks =). Beautiful place, though...haha...

      Cheers,
      Victor

    129. Re:Whew by victorhooi · · Score: 1

      heya,

      Posted by a true Anonymous Coward...haha...

      Please use your own account in future.

      Also, I think you just discovered irony. You complain that I add noise - assumably because I don't agree with your particular point of view.

      Yet your entire post didn't actually have any arguments, or indeed anything on-topic about the BP disaster - which is what we're meant to be talking to. It was basically a roundabout way of saying "Boo hoo, I don't agree with you, shut up, I'm taking my toys and going home".

      Please post back on topic.

      Thanks,
      Victor

    130. Re:Whew by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Isn't the main reason it is so expensive in most of the world is due to taxes, and not the oil companies themselves?

      No.

      Oil companies set regional prices the same as media companies. Governments that don't bend over for them and actually enforce rules as to safety, ethical conduct and standards get shafted. Why do you think petrol in Malaysia is still so cheap, because Petronas runs the government.

      I know its a popular thing on /. to blame taxes for every thing but many places have no more tax on oil then the US, but are paying up to 50% more.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    131. Re:Whew by couchslug · · Score: 1

      And there's no way caring lenders would finance people who endanger themselves by being high-risk, and there's no way they'd bundle toxic mortgages and sell them.

      Corporations are as unethical as they can get away with being, and are merely sophisticated "organized crime". That doesn't exclude them being useful and necessary, but never respect them.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    132. Re:Whew by Dravik · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not all taxes. California also has excessive regulation. There is a reason for the huge price drop when you cross state lines out of California.

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
    133. Re:Whew by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Why do you think petrol in Malaysia is still so cheap, because Petronas runs the government.

      What the hell are you smoking? First of all, the current price is roughly in line with other nations. Second of all, the government used to massively subsidize the cost of gasoline which is why it was so inexpensive. They paid the same to the oil companies as everyone else and covered the difference with taxes.

    134. Re:Whew by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      So OPEC doesn't exist?

    135. Re:Whew by WNight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The dirty little secret however is this. We as a modern society cannot maintain our current way of life, progress, and technological advancement without the Corporation.

      Nice religion you have there.

      Such social collective apparatuses are necessary to manage the many abstract layers of social interaction.

      Sure, collective social apparatus are needed, but that doesn't imply the 'such' part.

      It's pure, calculated, and with complete disregard for the individual. But, from the stand-point of another corporation on the receiving end, such behavior is completely and totally acceptable.

      No, from the point of anyone allowed to externalize their costs. If they were billed for the human and environmental damage they inflicted they wouldn't disregard it.

      We could avoid most of the problems with corporations if we'd treat them like any other social organization. Instead of diffusing blame, they amplify and share blame.

      Currently if you're mad at BP we act like there's nothing to do but complain to the corporate HQ. But if you're mad at the KKK, or the democrats, you direct your ire at the entire organization.

      If we fined every element, management, workers, stockholders, equally we'd establish a requirement for good governance. Instead people shove responsibility one thinly veiled step away but expect to share the profits.

    136. Re:Whew by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      It's like saying a car is a sociopath, because when it hits something, it doesn't feel anything. Well of course it doesn't, idiot. It's the person driving the car who controls it - they will be the ones to feel remorse, or grief, or sadness at hitting the person. The car itself is just a amalgamation of metal and plastic.

      See how idiotic it sounds, to say a car is evil?

      The difference being, of course, that the driver of the car will be held liable in a way that corporations really cannot be. Or, if there is a way, we certainly aren't using it. Making them pay for damages is better than nothing, but it isn't justice.

      In this case, BP seriously fucked up through negligence. Why should we trust them to run other offshore wells in this country? Make them shut the other wells down--they can sell the rigs off to someone else since it's their property, but they shouldn't be allowed to run them anymore. The same goes for any subcontractors found to contribute.

    137. Re:Whew by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      P.P.S. I accidentally linked the price for heating oil. Here's the price for gasoline. If you compare them, there isn't much of a $$ difference.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    138. Re:Whew by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "I went looking for a reason to trust BP"

      Google Operation Ajax. You'll look long and hard before you find any reason to "trust BP". They have a long and murky history, despite recent name changes and changes in investors. In the end, they'll throw anyone under the bus, in the name of profit. Governments and nations are thrown under the bus, in the name of profit. A little ecological disaster might be embarrassing, but it will be white washed soon enough.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    139. Re:Whew by WNight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      DOWN WITH CORPORATIONS! DOWN WITH GLOBALISATIONS!, but have you actually stopped and considered how idiotic you actually sound. *sigh*.

      Wow, that's a particularly stupid strawman you're beating there.

      Silly me, I thought paying taxes to fund the government to pass regulations for drilling/industry was supposed to reduce risk, letting me buy shopping bags without dooming the planet. Evidently we should have tolerated the drilling for all non-consumer reasons (fuel for war) and yet have known not to ask for luxuries. Bad consumers. Bad. Those bags are what's killed us, not decades of industry lobbying and government corruption and lies.

      Had it been clear how badly the government has handled the issue before the spill (despite attempted citizen oversight) or how lax BP's safety procedures were, asking for that shopping bag would have been unreasonable. But we were continually assured, by the government and industry, that reasonable steps were being taken - which we now know to be a lie.

    140. Re:Whew by mjwx · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you smoking? First of all, the current price is roughly in line with other nations.

      Nope, the petrol price in Malaysia is below 2.5 Ringit per litre, in fact it's as low as 1.75 RM. 3.2 RM is 1 USD today.

      Further more Petronas runs the government because Petronas is the government (Petronas is short for Petroliam Nasional Berhad, or in English "National Petroleum Company") and supply Malaysia with fuel. The Petronas board have an awesome sway in government policy. INPEX is similar in Japan but due to Japans larger commercial sector INPEX does not have the sway Petronas has.

      Petronas may export at market prices, but internal supply is well below as it doesn't even touch the open market.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    141. Re:Whew by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but your post exposes some naivete. Oil is a STRATEGIC ASSET - not merely a commodity. Supply and demand are certainly non-trivial forces, but they can be manipulated. For evidence of that, just look at the speculative trade that was happening prior to the economic bust.

      Our government in the US manipulates the oil market as much as possible to ensure that the government has as close to an unlimited supply as possible, then they work to ensure that the American public has an adequate supply as well.

      Anyone who believes that oil was NOT a factor in deciding to invade Iraq is really denying reality. Despite all the other reasons given for the invasion, the DECIDING factor was oil. The US needs to ensure that oil flows freely around the world, and that the US always has the lion's share of that oil. We need not benefit directly from the flow of oil out of Iraq. The fact that oil is flowing helps to keep prices down elsewhere.

      Always remember that word "strategic" when you are considering the price and availability of petroleum products. Mere supply and demand take a back seat to strategic concerns.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    142. Re:Whew by CheeseTroll · · Score: 3, Funny

      If I was "premature" to the tune of 60,000 barrels/day, they'd have every right to be concerned. ;-)

      --
      A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
    143. Re:Whew by AbrasiveCat · · Score: 1

      BOPs never fail? If you check the research they fail about 1/2 the time when needing to shear the drill pipe to seal. This all happened because BP's man (or men) on the rig were asleep at the switch during a critical period in the process. End result they'll pay and we pay (less tax revenue from BP, higher price for gas, and more oil fouling the Gulf of Mexico.) Dang them.

    144. Re:Whew by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      Well, if we didn't pay for trillions of dollars in war expanses to protect oil sources, wouldn't prices rise for everybody? Oil is sold on the open world market, so there is no "USA price".

    145. Re:Whew by superdave80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, because the surest way to get oil prices to drop is to start a war in the middle east...

    146. Re:Whew by schmiddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Speak to your government about the enormous taxes they pile on top of that price.

      I don't see why it' so terrible to pay gasoline taxes. We are dumping pollutants into the air with our cars, using the roads which our government funds, causing obnoxious noise and traffic jams...

      I was just in Cuenca, Ecuador, where gas is $1.50 / gallon. The pollution from cars and buses in the city is unbearable: you can barely stand to walk around the city. Of course, hardly anyone walks anywhere, since a taxi anywhere within the city is a flat $2. The pollution is a real shame, since the city is situated in a picturesque valley tucked in the Andes mountains.

      --
      http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
    147. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a huge price difference just between different cities in California.

    148. Re:Whew by Huge_UID · · Score: 1

      Hey! I'm an Apple user. I buy expensive Chinese imports.

    149. Re:Whew by rilister · · Score: 1

      I wonder if BP have considered spinning the leak as one big homeopathic remedy for global warming?

      --
      'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
    150. Re:Whew by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      or you could screw a pipe with an open ball valve on the tap, then close it slowly. Which is what BP did in this case.

    151. Re:Whew by grainofsand · · Score: 1

      Actually OPEC is one the main reasons that gasoline at the retail pump sells for quite different prices from region to region and country to country.

      "Under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in US dollars since 1971 (after the dropping of the gold standard) which makes the US dollar the de facto major international trading currency. If other nations have to hoard dollars to buy oil, then they want to use that hoard for other trading too. This fact gives America a huge trading advantage and helps make it the dominant economy in the world."

      It also helps explain why gasoline / petrol (not oil) tends to be cheaper in the US.

      --
      A dream is good. A plan is better.
    152. Re:Whew by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      a better analogy would probably have been to say you already have a hose, there's not shutoff valve, and you're trying to cap it with one of those spray nozzles. In that case, as I've done with some old hoses where I didn't ( was too lazy or forgot) to turn off the tap the hose eventually bursts, in several places. Where you go from a problem of one leak, in one (relatively) convenient shape, with a sort of hackable even temporary solution, to several cracks in several places.

      Though I live in canada, pipes bursting inside the walls of the house can be a serious problem if you don't drain them properly when winter sets in.

    153. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've a real boner about this for some reason, it seems.

    154. Re:Whew by sjdude · · Score: 1

      It does seem that they were very focused on being able to extract the oil rather than just stopping the leak. Now, I'm not an engineer, but could their desire for continued extraction of oil have delayed their plans, made the stack more complex?

      I thought the same thing, but I have consistently read in the last several weeks that the well that blew up was an exploration well not a production well. So there was no plan to take that well, as it was, into production.

    155. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are missing the point.

      What you just spouted off is akin to saying, "Oh, you don't like various policies X government is promoting? Well, shut up or move."

      How are things supposed to change for the better if people don't get pissed off when corporations do things that *are* evil, regardless of how little you like to apply the term to them? Example? How about Bayer knowingly selling aids infected hemophiliac medication to various countries like Africa because there was no clear cut law preventing them from doing so? That is in fact evil. But you seem to be of the opinion that people should just shut up and not buy Bayer products without making too big of a fuss about it. Or how about that ruling back in 2003 when Monsanto applied some pressure to those reporters from a local Fox news owned station in Florida and the court of appeals there unanimously agreed that it was not illegal for them to deliberately falsify or distort news on public airwaves? I could go on forever about blatantly evil practices that corporations have been responsible for, but I am sure you are rolling your eyes even now.

      Corporations are just a legal construct - they're run by *people*. They people like money, and they're usually profit-driven. As the parent notes, this doesn't make them evil, it just makes them more concentrated form of what we're like

      Erm. I am sorry, but people that are so driven by their greed that they will knowingly put innocent people at risk to achieve their own personal goals are evil, and that is exactly what many corporations have a track record of doing. So what you just said is essentially contradictory, 'Corporations are not evil. Corporations are just a concentrated form of....', evil.

      There are few people these days, in our Western nations that aren't driven by cost/convenience. Yet people are all talk, and no action.

      Talking is action. Informing the public that isn't aware of the plethora of corruptions present and unnoticed in our society is action. The moment someone does take physical action above and beyond just informing people, it is usually quite illegal (because fighting them in the legal system is a losing battle 99.9999% of the time. John Doe cannot fight a legal battle with a corporate entity. Some try. Few win. Even fewer times does it prove to be worth the personal loss to John Doe, even once he is 'victorious' in the courtroom).

      It was trendy to be all anti-imports, but when it came time for people to put their money where their mouth is...they still buy cheap Chinese imports...lol. (I'm assuming here these people believed in mercantilism over globalisation, or something). They're hypcocrites, plain and simple, as many of these anti-globalisation/environmental trendies are.

      It is unfortunate, but at the end of the day, if you have mouths to feed at home you play by the rules you dislike in order to make due. I am single, and I bet you really wouldn't like me, because I do put my money where my mouth is. I am not some crazed anticorporation antiglobalization type, I know that corporations and even to some extent globalization has led to a higher quality of life in many respects for the majority of people, but that doesn't mean that I am going to bend over and say that they can do no evil, to do so is to be an extremist for the other side. A corporate cheerleader. I quit a job as an IT manager at a luxury resort at the age of 24 because I didn't like where I saw myself heading-- all the managers patting me on the back trying to convince me that I was better than the people that were more than twice my age making less than half of what I was, all the while doing more physical actual work in a day than I did in a month. There is something debasing and intoxicating about receiving more monetary compensation than one truly deserves. So I resigned. Some call me stupid, and perhaps they are right, but at the end of the day I sleep better because I didn't stifle conv

    156. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? You think being overwhelmed by liberal white guilt late in life qualifies as human emotions? You're a fucking joke.

    157. Re:Whew by grumpyman · · Score: 1

      Me no engineer either but would it possibly be better to pump as much out as possible so that the potential of the pressure breaking the fix may happen again, if we just seal that sucker off?

    158. Re:Whew by grumpyman · · Score: 1

      No only it's run by people, BP as a beast is not stupid - the less it tries to stop the leak, the more it will have to pay later (claims, clean up).

    159. Re:Whew by adamchou · · Score: 3, Informative

      Corporations aren't the uncaring robot beasts you seem to be convinced they are. Corporations are still run by people. And there's no way that the people running BP would have allowed themselves to continue pumping unthinkable amounts of oil into the ocean without putting up a real effort to stop it, bad press and huge fines or none.

      I'd hate to burst your bubble but oil companies don't give a rats ass. Here's an excerpt from this article. Take note that the article is a bit old though.

      In fact, more oil is spilled from the delta's network of terminals, pipes, pumping stations and oil platforms every year than has been lost in the Gulf of Mexico, the site of a major ecological catastrophe caused by oil that has poured from a leak triggered by the explosion that wrecked BP's Deepwater Horizon rig last month

    160. Re:Whew by tibit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Pumping "as much out as possible" -- you mean depleting the oil field? It'd take a couple of decades at best through that single well...

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    161. Re:Whew by grumpyman · · Score: 1

      Really.... if we think for-profit companies are evil, then well, let's rethink this capitalist thing then..?

    162. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation please? Dehumanization is all that I see you practicing. Dehumanize those that you hate. Nice job.

    163. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations aren't the uncaring robot beasts you seem to be convinced they are.

      Given examples like this (just throw "oil nigeria catastrophe" into your preferred search engine) I'd tend to believe that at least some corporations are the uncaring robot beasts.

      Hint: in this case, Shell gets away without cleaning the mess because there's not much publicity.

    164. Re:Whew by tibit · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't lack of gasoline taxes. The problem is that the cars there are mostly poorly maintained junk. When I came to the U.S. at the turn of the millenium, the cheapest gasoline price per gallon in Ohio dropped to $0.95 for a short while. Yet the air around didn't smell significantly worse than it does now, with gas three times as expensive (almost).

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    165. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about 80 cents/gallon in Libya.

    166. Re:Whew by tibit · · Score: 1

      People at the helm of BP are at best immoral bastards you don't want anything personally to do with. They'd sell you and your mother if they could make a profit that'd pass "legal muster" at the time.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    167. Re:Whew by tibit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Corporations are just a legal construct - they're run by *people*. They people like money, and they're usually profit-driven. As the parent notes, this doesn't make them evil, it just makes them more concentrated form of what we're like.

      You missed the fact that people placed in a corporate environment like that of BPs will adjust their behavior to "fit" within the culture -- the latter having degenerated over the decades. I've personally seen people's whole segments of morality alter almost by 180 degrees simply by spending a decade at a global multinational. It's spooky.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    168. Re:Whew by tibit · · Score: 1

      People running the publicly owned corporations are under a very specific kind of pressure that is generally not present in small business. The corporate meltdowns that happened in this millennium, when you look at courtroom testimonies, are pretty much caused by people who changed enough under this pressure to become profit-at-all-cost mindless drones.

      You cannot ignore how people are affected by their workplace, you know.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    169. Re:Whew by victorhooi · · Score: 1

      heya,

      Actually, BP, as an entity can be held liable, in the sense that it can be fined, or have extra regulatory controls imposed it. So that part at least isn't true.

      And in fact, they could go further, and impose penalties on the board itself, if say, they were found to have acted fraudently. IANAL, of course.

      However, this is all contingent on there actually being wrongdoing. You refer, for example to "justice".

      Also, you claim that they were negligent. That remains to be seen - and I assume it will be proven one way or another in a court of law.

      Obama's grand-standing aside - which to an Australian, just seemed like a bit of empty populist posturing, to try and score cheap political points - we don't yet know the full story.

      At issue is whether they were say, just very unlucky, or whether there was actually say, criminal intent here. I somehow doubt it's at either end of that scale, and it probably lies somewhere in-between.

      If you think of them as rational actors, it might seem plausible that they knew of the risk, but perhaps an engineer or manager screwed up the probabilities somewhere, and the precautions they took were inadequate. That, or they did calculate the risks correctly, but they were just unlucky, and well, s*it happens. Of course, they doesn't mean they're off scotch-free, as they still have to clean up their mess - after all, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if they hadn't drilled at all, unlucky or not.

      However, if it was just bad luck, then we can argue they should clean up their mess, it does limit the sort of holier-than-thou moral attacks we can pile on them. It's a bit like say, somebody in a car hits somebody. Now if aforesaid drive is doped up on illicit substances and driving unlicensed, or even decided to purposely run somebody over just for fun, then we can definitely say, that's quite a morally bad thing to do.

      On the other hand, if it's just a freak accident, then well, it sucks, and it is their fault in a sense, but we wouldn't be as quick to judge. Once again, IANAL, but I'm fairly sure our legal system differentiates between the two cases, as well as in terms of intent.

      If however, say somewhere in between those two extremes, and say, the driver was neglicient in their vehicle maintenance, and skipped a few service visits, or is just having a bad day (*cough* Tiger Woods*) and in good judgment shouldn't have been driving, then I'm sure we wouldn't be hard, as least morally, on them.

      At the end of the day, I don't think there's any grand conspiracy going on, and I'm sure BP wants this mess cleaned up as quickly as anybody else - probably more. Hopefully our justice system will soon sort out exactly what happened, and ensure something on this magnitude doesn't occur again.

      Cheers,
      Victor

    170. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can always choose some radius r around a failed well such that there are 9 facilities within the radius. It doesn't prove anything. Why not look at how many wells they have worldwide?

    171. Re:Whew by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Complex question.

      First there is a USA price because oil is traded in US dollars. This makes an enormous difference to the rest of the world because the US price is predictable and relatively stable. Until Europe developed the Euro, in many smaller countries the price of oil could change quite drastically depending on geopolitical situations or simply internal US politics. For instance when Reagan was elected in 1980 he had a "strong dollar" policy, compounding the effect of the 1979 oil crisis for many client countries, but reducing the price of imports into the US.

      The reason we have OPEC-regulated high oil prices since 1973 is that the US supported Israel in the Yom Kippur war in 1973. At the very least, the first oil so-called shock dates from this very event.

      So at least some wars have had the effect of raising oil prices.

      In addition many client countries e.g. in Europe and elsewhere have taken drastic steps to reduce domestic consumption as much as possible, whereas in the US this hasn't been so clear. If anything, reducing demand has been the primary motive for oil prices to come down again.

    172. Re:Whew by gblackwo · · Score: 1

      I am in Siberia, and gas is 20 rubles per liter, AKA $2.50 a gallon. It isn't "expensive" everywhere.

    173. Re:Whew by rrohbeck · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dear USA,
      high taxes on gas cause reduced consumption via more efficient cars and less driving. That leads to less pollution and less money for the a-holes of the world.
      That's a good thing in my book.

      Signed,
      most of the rest of the world

    174. Re:Whew by Panaflex · · Score: 1

      And I'm not American, so my American history is patchy, but this is the first I've heard of the founding fathers wanting to outlaw capitalism? They were communists? First I've heard of that - can any other American back that up?

      Yes, it's absolutely true... the Colonies were basically being savaged by government mandated corporate taxes and import/export tax inequities which favored British companies.

      For the first 150 years, the only corporations allowed in the USA were for the public good (e.g. Harvard College). All other business activities were handled utilizing trusts, partnerships, and basic self-employment.

      Here's a decent history: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporations/Hx_Corporations_US.html

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    175. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they are the uncaring robot beasts he's convinced they are. It is quite literally illegal for them not to be. It is illegal to act against the shareholder's interests, so the people who run the company are not allowed to give a shit about empathy or the environment, they are only allowed to focus on profits.

      Even if they were legally able to be run by people with feelings, you think CEOs really give the smallest shit about things like this? Most people who make it to CEO positions in large companies are sociopaths, that's how they managed to get into that position.

    176. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You lost me when you said "sheeple". What a fucking useless post.

    177. Re:Whew by Panaflex · · Score: 1

      I won't say that China is a shining beacon of happy goodness, but *every* industrialized nation goes through this sort of crap. You may say we've all advanced and gosh what's so different over there... in which case you would prove that you have not an iota of a clue about China.

      Those farmers are sending their kids to school using every penny they can scrape up, their kids are making money and largely improving life for themselves and their families.

      They are raising their standard of living exponentially, people can own cell phones and bikes. You may think it's pathetic, but they've gone from farmers to industrial giant in 30 years... something which took most western nations 4 times longer.

      I won't white-wash the problems though, it's still a thuggery driven government, it's still polluting and wasting a beautiful environment, and life can be really harsh for the majority either way. But the alternative is more of the same without any opportunity for change.

      I've got no problem with people that call China an evil regime of corporatocracy and refuse to buy their products. But I think it's also fair to claim that it's making a better life for a lot of people, also.

      There's some great documentaries and news reports out there about life in China. Read up and take a real informed position. Meet a few Chinese and get to know them.

      Don't just repeat sensational headlines...That is all.

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    178. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But none of them have failed yet, meanwhile this is the perfect scapegoat that allows everyone to ignore the real issues.

    179. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you drive a car to work? No.
      Do you buy reusable shopping bags? Yes.
      Do you throw recyclable materials in the trash? Nope.
      Do you use air conditioning? Nope.

      See? Not everyone is motivated (exclusively) by cost and convenience. There really aint much we can do, but the little we can, my wife and me are trying to embrace.

    180. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let the proletariat walk, while we ride through traffic-free freeways in our half-million dollar cars!

      Signed,
      The Rich Assholes of the World

    181. Re:Whew by discordia666 · · Score: 1

      The hookers and blow are awesome. Things are great. I don't have a care in the world.

    182. Re:Whew by mr_gorkajuice · · Score: 1

      Oh my! How lucky we all are that we don't need to purchase our oil from, say, MUSLIMS, or worse! USA to the rescue for the benefit of mankind!
      /sarcasm off

    183. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we (the US) subsidize the oil industry to the tune of 31 billion a year. is that what you are talking about concerning taxes? or are you talking about the fact that fuel taxes, per gallon, adjusted for inflation, are only greater than when the automobile was introduced?

    184. Re:Whew by Tom · · Score: 1

      Corporations aren't the uncaring robot beasts you seem to be convinced they are. Corporations are still run by people.

      The problem is the culture. Look at politics. Politicians are also people, yet we would all agree that they are amongst the worst, most pathetic, corrupt and fucked-up sort. Did they start out that way? I can guarantee you they didn't. Most of them were enthusiastic, idealistic young men or women once.

      But before you get a ticket to run on, before you rise enough in any part to get a political position, you have to go through the machine for a few years, and the machine eats you. The machine being the culture that pervades politics. Even if you start out with an agenda to end all this crap, in order to get to a position where you can do it, you have to become the enemy.

      We have seen it with the Green Party here in Germany. Freedom- and Peace-loving hippies once. They voted for the wars in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. The former peace-party.

      Same with corporations. Sure they are led by people, but what have those people become during their rise to power in those corporations? You don't become CEO of any major corporation if you insist on doing the right things instead of the most profitable things.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    185. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is. Using german fuel prices as an example, the price per gallon would be around 2 EUR (i.e. $2.5) without taxes.

    186. Re:Whew by Tom · · Score: 1

      Yes, because even where you have toll roads, those tolls do not pay for road construction and maintainance. The taxes collected from gas are mostly used up on things related to road traffic. There are some great studies on the actual cost of mobility, and it is massive.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    187. Re:Whew by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Excellent, congratulations.

      Incidentally, how much space do you need for your self-sufficient farm (that isn't self sufficient, as you accept aid from others from time to time)?

      I only ask because my self-sufficient techno-industrial complex has a population density high enough to sustain 8 billion people on the planet and feed them all, without increasing the amount of farmland, destroying the rainforests or running out of water.

      How about you?

    188. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear USA,

      Dependence on oil is a Bad Thing. Taxes discourage dependence on Bad Things.

      Signed,
      The rest of the world.

      PS Go on, ask us why it's a Bad Thing in this very thread...

    189. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Because the whole "subsistence agricultural kind of lifestyle" isn't a strawman fallacy?

      Look, some of us are willing to compromise A BIT to reduce environmental damage. I don't use a car or AC, recycle my thrash and don't overheat my appartment. It doesn't mean I don't live very well and benefit from many, many modern luxuries. It does mean that my energy consumption is maybe 50% of the average. People like me and the GP do have a significant impact AND we don't sacrifice much for it. And as awareness rises, our number grows.

    190. Re:Whew by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Now, I'm not an engineer

      And you don't have much business sense either. Let me make something very clear to you and the rest of slashdot who think that this is some big conspiracy to continue to extract oil out of the well. Companies don't try these kinds of solutions while their share price, government regulators, environmental lobbyists, and lawyers representing victims are doing their damest to turn your Fortune 50 status into a Chapter 11.
      Companies who pride themselves (or used to) on being the greenest company in the industry don't sit there evaluating their options as their reputation goes down faster than a groupie at a rock concert. They threw everything they had at this thing (shame they didn't work)

      Also there were quite legitimate concerns from start to end that any attempts to block the flow could cause the pipe to burst (which they ended up cutting off), the blowout preventer to blow out even more so, and the best piece of drama I read was that the soft sand and sediment was unstable enough to let oil just leak straight out of the ground next to the newly plugged well (though I'm not sure if I entirely believe this one, but then it didn't come from BP either).

    191. Re:Whew by the_one(2) · · Score: 1

      All four of those questions where easy stuff you can do that helps significantly (unless you live in a very hot place and then you could probably live with turning the thermostat up a few degrees). They are things that should be done when possible and there really is no reason not to except extreme laziness.

    192. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big difference is that we can legislate the behaviour of corporations much more easily than humans (where those pesky human rights often get in the way, or people rage against government dictating how they run their lives). It's a fallacy to say corporations are no more evil than humans and we just have to accept that when it's clear there are mechanisms to prevent some of the extremes of corporations. The bottom line is the same of course, more rules means slightly higher prices and that's the real reason we don't have a raft of laws governing how these companies behave.

    193. Re:Whew by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      Dear USA,

      We have loads of free stuff paid for by the taxes.

      Signed,
      Europe

      --
      This is blinging
    194. Re:Whew by delinear · · Score: 1

      More often than not they'll leave with a golden parachute or a massive pension, so there's no real incentive for them to act responsibly. We know humans need rules and consequences to play nicely with each other, yet GP expects companies to behave as paragons of society without the same rules or consequences to govern their actions.

    195. Re:Whew by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as people. People are groups of atoms that are group of... and so on.

      In the real world we recognise when someone is making an analogy and don't assume that they mean literally what they say. If most larger corporations were a people we would class them as sociopathic.

      Put another way, if we replaced the leadership structure of most larger corporations so that there was one person directing every action and those actions remained the same that person would have all the attributes of a sociopath.

    196. Re:Whew by delinear · · Score: 1

      That's not entirely true. They're not just a group of people. If a group of people were responsible for the kind of ecological disaster BP are responsible for, they'd be facing serious jail time. If you or I dumped several million barrels of oil in the ocean do you think bad publicity and a fine would be all we'd have to worry about? The fact is that a corporation shields those people so that they have some ability to negate the consequences of their actions knowing, in most cases, the worst that will happen is that the corporation will take a hit. It makes as little sense to judge the psychology of people in such a situation to be the same as just a "group of people" as it does to assume a corporation has a psyche.

    197. Re:Whew by delinear · · Score: 1

      Actually Google is a good example of a company that's specifically traded on the "do no evil" motto and has grown so big partly because of that. Of course this affects a company's bottom line. We've seen a massive rush of companies to prove their green credentials in the last decade - do you think they just came to this decision on a purely philanthropic basis, entirely coincidentally at the time when consumers were taking more of an interest in green affairs? It's a cynical profit generating move and nothing more. Of course that doesn't mean we can't enjoy the benefits, but if it paid a company to devastate the planet you can be sure it would do so. It's difficult for humans to talk about such emotive subjects without using terms such as "evil", really that's wrong but the end results are close enough that it probably doesn't matter, a company is a mindless entity with one goal and largely no compunctions about how they attain said goal - it's up to humans (either on the inside, or on the outside, even in the form of protestors, or through enactment of legislation) to define the parameters of how a company should behave (and that can be rewarding the good as much as punishing the bad).

    198. Re:Whew by delinear · · Score: 1

      They screwed up, and they're going to pay for it, I'm sure, all of it. However, to allege it's some weird quasi-government conspiracy, or that they wanted the leak to happen just seems silly and uninformed.

      In the same week that we found out how much Goldman Sachs are being "made to pay" for their deliberate fraud (here's a clue, analysts are calling it a victory for GS), you expect us to believe BP will be made to fully pay for what you consider just a "screw up"? I'm afraid it just doesn't work that way, and if you believe it does then you're clearly the ranting fool who refuses to acknowledge the mountain of prior evidence to the contrary.

    199. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we are all trained to think corporations are evil. But have you ever chosen money or convenience over what's best for the environment?

      Do you drive a car to work?
      Do you buy reusable shopping bags?
      Do you throw recyclable materials in the trash?
      Do you use air conditioning?

      No.
      Yes.
      No.
      No.

      It's not that I disagree with your point, I often do choose convenience over the environment - but outside of North America I think you'll find the average answers to those particular questions are a bit different to what you expect (in the UK air conditioning is a luxury reserved for the rich and server rooms - most of what ppl think is air conditioning is little more than assisted circulation - which only serves to spread germs and other pollutants around people more efficiently :/)

    200. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you say that like you're proud of it. don't you realise that the lower price of oil leads to greater dependence and therefore the increased need to send American boys and girls out to get shot at and blown up?

    201. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&&sa=X&ei=W0lATMH0NdS7jAfDpd0G&ved=0CBYQvwUoAQ&q=2.5+ringgit+per+liter+in+dollars+per+gallon&spell=1&fp=270cd07514528d23

      2.5 (Malaysian ringgits per litre) = 3.54278077 U.S. dollars per Imperial gallon

      You guys aren't very good with units, are you?

    202. Re:Whew by lostsoulz · · Score: 1

      Not based on my understanding since they are continuing with the relief well, the purpose of which is to plug the well with cement.

      Now that they have the cap in place, if it works I don't see why they don't just turn the well into a producing well. Might as well get something out of the disaster...

      The relief well(s) are designed to intersect the payzone that's currently responsible for this blowout. Once the relief well is at total depth and cased, they'll pump a kill-weight fluid into the payzone to stop it producing and then plug and abandon the relief well(s).

      WRT production from the current well, that's not viable. There is a huge difference between the well control measures in place at the moment and what would normally constitute a sub-sea completion - cased hole, production string with downhole safety valve and a conventional production wellhead.

    203. Re:Whew by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      It's highly subsidized by society. We all pay the cost for you filling up your tank, whether we actually drive a car or not.
      Yep, b/c unless you're amish(at which point why are you on /.) you enjoy the benefits of our oil powered and enriched society. TAANSTAFL

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    204. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA, the "home of the car" has the worst shitty roads I have ever driven on. Their driver education program (aka, getting a license) is a complete joke, and they tolerate a significant death toll on their roads annually.

      While the rest of the world does charge more taxes on their fuel, there are real and positive benefits that come from this: better roads, better education, less deaths.

      Looking at 2006 (because it was the most recent year that had easily correlating data):

      US Road Deaths: 42,708
      EU Road Deaths: 39,213

      US Road Deaths / 100,000 people: 14.3
      EU Road Deaths / 100,000 people: 7.9

      Think about that.

      Sources:

      http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
      http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/
      http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=tps00001&tableSelection=1&footnotes=yes&labeling=labels&plugin=1

    205. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also have to consider the consequences of failure. If my alarm clock fails to go off, I'm late for work and probably buy a new alarm clock. If my smoke detector fails to go off the consequences are a lot worse. I know which one of the two I would rather they over-engineered/tested to destruction. When the consequences of your device failing are massive ecological disaster, you'd better either be 100% sure nothing could ever go wrong or you build in some redundancy to your safety features.

    206. Re:Whew by lostsoulz · · Score: 2, Informative

      The BOP stack is generally the last resort - it's the fluid in the hole and the skills of the drillers, derrick-men, mud loggers, mud engineers and tool pushers that keep wells (relatively,) safe.

      WRT stack safely, a scheduled pressure test cannot replicate a kick or other loss of well control. In fact, a BOP can't shear pipe arbitrarily. Generally, pipe joints are landed in the stack's pipe rams before the shears are operated. If you have a collar or joint across the shears, they won't close properly. You can't operate the brake on the drill floor if the derrick has been engulfed in flames.

    207. Re:Whew by SynthaxError · · Score: 1

      Posting to undo moderation

      --
      "There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it's all dark."
    208. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are deluded. The "people" running BP (I prefer to call them "Monkeys") care about one thing: Money. Nothing else matters. The only reason they even give a shit about the spill is because it is costing them money. If it would have turned out being cheaper to let that well run into the Ocean forever, they would have.

    209. Re:Whew by zildgulf · · Score: 1

      Exactly, if we were paying the true price, funding part of our military expenses in the Gulf, we would easily be paying over $3/gal now. Add in a tax to partly fund the expense of the proper maintenance of the interstate system and that cost could start at $3.75/gal or more.

      As we saw, at $3.95/gal the demand for gasoline started to drop off. It made more sense to carpool and to cut out unnecessary trips. It also caused a decline in spending on other retail outlets as people were cutting back to pay for their now expensive commute to work.

    210. Re:Whew by suffe · · Score: 1

      Wow, this post actually made me feel good about myself.

      No car to work - check (bus running on biomethane)
      Do buy reusable shopping bags - check (actually, bought once and used since)
      Recycle trash - check (into 6 different categories, I think)
      Don't use air conditioning - check

      And I'm not actually even trying that hard. I just go about my daily life, not exactly spending hours thinking about these things. The fact that so many people can't even take these simple, non-intrusive, steps to curb real problems is pretty sad. Granted, I live in a city where they make a lot of these things easier for you but so could any city. Cities are run by people and, unlike the aforementioned corporations, not driven in the same way by profit. Also, something usually overlooked, these are actually economically sensible things to do. Not a single thing on that list increases monetary outlays, it lessens them!

      --

      Karma: 2.71828182846 (Mostly due to small, fun pills)
    211. Re:Whew by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      They're not evil, or good, they're just a legal construct, that does things to make money.

      The construct of corporations may not be good or evil but the real-world results definitely are.

      Let's say we have robots programmed to collect biomatter. Nothing inherently good or evil about that construct right? Good. They're collecting dead leaves and lawn clippings and stuff, going about their merry way. Pretty soon they find that they can collect more biomatter by feeding wild animals and unattended pets through their biomass shredders. Now as a pet owner I won't give a damn if you continue to make philosophical arguments over the morality of the concept of a biomatter collecting robot. These robots are acting in a manner that is malevolent from a practical viewpoint. I would only be anthropomorphizing to say that these robots are evil.

      Corporations, especially large and publicly traded ones, dilute responsibility and accountability, and make it very easy to shift blame and liability, all while maximizing and concentrating profit for those who are collectively making the decisions. This construct strikes me as inherently dangerous to society in the same way that a robot programmed to collect biomatter does. It doesn't require anything evil (or good) to be done by definition, but the potential and motive to do evil is clearly there. This is why the inherently dangerous-to-society activity of running a corporation requires safeguards in the same way that unleashing biomatter collecting robots on the public would.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    212. Re:Whew by maxume · · Score: 1

      So have 2 sets of shears and never put pipe joints at that stride. More expensive than 1 set of shears, but not particularly expensive in the world of $1 million a day rig rentals.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    213. Re:Whew by maxume · · Score: 1

      Relax. The gulf ecosystems will be surprisingly normal 12 months from now.

      (That doesn't mean that screwing up and releasing millions of gallons of oil is o.k., I'm just pointing out that you are being ridiculous)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    214. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't think BP cared that untold barrels of valuable oil they could otherwise have sold was being dumped into the ocean?

      Every second that well leakes it's loosing value. If BP could have stopped the leak quickely they would have done it just to preserve the value of the deposit (which they could attempt to exploit again later).

    215. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In the U.S. our roads are payed for with the current rate of taxation. And given the vast size of our country our roads are quite nice. Simply adding another 40% cost in taxes will do nothing but give the government more money to waste on pork.

    216. Re:Whew by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      They're not evil, or good, they're just a legal construct, that does things to make money. You can judge each action they do, on a moral scale, but you can't make blanket statements like COMPANIES ARE EVIL.

      Once the company takes enough actions that would be on the lower half of the moral scale and I think you can classify them as evil. I don't think BP is classified as evil for the actual accident but for their shotty safety record. I saw a report on TV that they had safety violations int eh triple digits while other companies had only a small fraction of that. Their willingness to rather seduce inspectors rather than spend the money and follow safety regulations is what earns them the black mark.

    217. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 1

      Cars don't act like sociopaths. Corporations do. You have not addressed any of the actual arguments I've raised, simply repeated your silly assertion that corporations are not people, thereby demonstrating your failure to grasp the use of analogy. So I'll put it in very. simple. language.

      Corporations, as dynamic entities that affect the individuals involved with them, have certain emergent properties, such as the diffusion of responsibility, that causes the decision makers involved to make sociopathic decisions. Clear now?

      See how idiotic it sounds when you deliberately pretend to misunderstand simple analogies?

      Cheers,
      Spun

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    218. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That utterly depends on how you were dumping....if you personally owned a well that blew up like BP's did, you would not be facing any more consequences than they are. On the other hand, if BP sent boat of oil out to the Gulf of Mexico and purposely started dumping there, then real people would be facing charges as well.

      --
      Qxe4
    219. Re:Whew by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      The price is less important than the fact that the oil is flowing. Before the war, little oil was flowing. Today, oil flows freely. Much of it is flowing in the direction of China, but it is flowing all the same. And, the flow of oil to China benefits us indirectly, because China has less of a need to cut into our other supplies, elsewhere in the world.

      Prices may have gone up and down, due to fears about the war, but ultimately, the prices have come down. At least for awhile. The war in Iraq was just part of an overall strategy.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    220. Re:Whew by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      Actually, you do, you're on Slashdot, for crying out loud.

      I use IP by pigeon, you insensitive clod!

    221. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 1

      Not originally. The nobility were cash poor, the merchant class were wealthy, and they had them some colinizin' to do. So they set up little economic fiefdoms for the merchants, in order to encourage them to invest in colonization. But of course the crown sharply limited the power of corporations so the merchant class wouldn't get too uppity. Only took them 400 years to turn their little mini fiefs into the real thing.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    222. Re:Whew by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the incorrect AC. Yes, the taxes are most of the cost of gas in the US and UK at least. I always questioned it when the gas prices skyrocketed why congress/state govs didn't suggest reducing the taxes instead of blaming the corps, but of course, lowering taxes never happens.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    223. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 1

      Why so angry, little guy?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    224. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 1

      No, our consciousness is geared to make evolutionarily useful simplifications. All thinking is a simplification. Or do you think your map of reality is reality?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    225. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 1

      I don't think your argument is coming across very well. Maybe it's time to try another.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    226. Re:Whew by lostsoulz · · Score: 1

      Meh, my point it that one cannot arbitrarily expect to shear pipe. Drill collars are another example of something you don't want across your rams when it's time to throw the switch. In any case, the stack and the pipe across the rams has to be managed to ensure the stack has a chance to operate properly.

      The fact that the rams needed to shear means that other means of well control had failed. That the stack failed is appalling, but one does not rely upon the stack alone.

      I believe the derrick-man has reported massive returns (at the shakers,) to the driller before the abandonment fluid was ejected up the derrick. There were signs before the blowout, but I believe things got out of control very, very quickly. Once gas was settling about the rig, ignition was only a matter of time in the still conditions that night.

    227. Re:Whew by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      They weren't just asleep at the switch, they were actively making decisions that increased the risk for the sake of more profit.

    228. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 1

      Ok, you're an idiot. If you think the small business around your corner, or the sandwich shop, are corporations with limited liability, you don't understand small businesses.

      Let's see, sole proprietorship, partnership, worker's and buyer's cooperatives, there are plenty of other business structures that do not promote diffusion of responsibility as much as the corporation.

      What we need, though, is real democratic control over the means of production.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    229. Re:Whew by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I think we're both on the same side of this debate. Look at any of the major disasters of the last 30 years; Bhopal, Piper Alpha, Chernobyl, Toulouse they all show that you need a series of failures to line up to get a catastrophic failure. You ever heard of the 'swiss cheese model?'

      Whatever plans BP had, they don't seem to have worked well have they?

      They may not be an evil genius twisting their mustache at how much damage they can do, but they have put profit before safety.

      I was talking to a bloke yesterday who said that we just have to accept things like this otherwise we'd have to pay $4/gallon for gas. Those priorities scare me a little.

    230. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Sure, as you wish. You have an irrational dislike of corporations, characterized by your persistent attempts to villainize them and give them attributes of live humans, despite evidence to the contrary. It is symptomatic of a borderline psychosis, you might want to have it checked out by a therapist. Might do you good.

      Seriously, a corporation is just a convenient legal/tax structure for a group of people working together. If you make the laws too restrictive, people will use a different legal structure, maybe just arranging everything with contracts between each other. Getting rid of corporations won't solve all the problems in the world, in fact won't solve very many at all.

      Get help for your psychosis.

      --
      Qxe4
    231. Re:Whew by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      So, that works out to about 25 cents per gallon (135 billion gallons consumed in US per year). Still doesn't get us anywhere near European gas prices.

    232. Re:Whew by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Oil is a commodity and prices are set by supply and demand. The US govt has nothing to do with it being cheaper in the US than in Europe. The price difference is almost all tax.

      You also have to distinguish between crude oil (which has a single global price) and gasoline (which does not). The supply of gasoline varies across locales because of variables like availability of pipelines, cost of refining, local regulations on additives, and, of course, taxes.

      Oil is a commodity (like corn, or iron). Gasoline is not. There are significant differences between gasoline blends sold in different locations. California gasoline is not the same as Texas gasoline, and neither of those are the same as Dutch gasoline. The differences in gasoline composition across location also has a significant impact on price.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    233. Re:Whew by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Well, that's New York gas, though, which isn't the same as California gas. In the US, at least, it seems like each state has its own regulations on what additives are necessary. This also adds to the price, since you have to go to the trouble of setting the additive blend properly before shipping the gasoline to the filling stations.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    234. Re:Whew by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Well, this BOP failed. It clearly CAN happen. Maybe we should start working on that North America sinking into the ocean plan.

    235. Re:Whew by quanticle · · Score: 1

      The only "intrinsic" motivation BP has for capping the well is in the loss of potential revenue from a broken/leaking well. All other reasons for stopping the well are extrinsic.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    236. Re:Whew by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Corporation's don't have empathy or remorse, but individuals do.

      Not always. Sociopathic individuals do not show empathy or remorse. Unfortunately for the rest of us, it seems that succesful managers score higher on tests of sociopathy.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    237. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 1

      As I have clearly stated my rational for disliking the corporate structure, and for using the 'human being' analogy, this argument fails as well.

      Seriously, groups have an impact on their members, and different structuring of groups have different impacts. A sole proprietorship or partnership do not have the same potential for diffusion of responsibility (you might want to try addressing 'diffusion of responsibility' in your arguments.

      I'd be all for people using pure contract to arrange their business, rather than having a government backed limited liability entity.

      Now, let me try your style of argumentation. The status quo has served you well, and thus you defend it. Society may change, and in changing, decrease both your personal power over other people, and the good light in which the current status quo will remember your achievements. It's not just that when things change, your position might change. Everything you've done in your life might be seen in a new, negative light. So you fight against any change in the status quo as if your very life depended on it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    238. Re:Whew by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      So let me summarize your comment:

      Ad hominem. (Ad hominem.) Statement based on a perfect world fantasy with no accompanying arguments that follow from common paradigms. Statement waiting for arguments to back it up. Argument as backup to the previous statement, but itself not backed up by anything.

      Your comment holds no arguments that follow from any common paradigms, and hence is not more that a meaningless bag of words. Try again.
      I recommend starting out with commonly accepted paradigms and building a proper chain to your final argument from there.
      But don’t try this on me, as I will notice: http://xkcd.com/759/ ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    239. Re:Whew by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      You know, I was going to lament the waste that it seems it will be to pump the relief well and seal off this oil well because of the vastness of the reserve and how much oil and natural gas they could get from it since they can collect it now with the cap on it.

      Most reserves have a great many wells associated with them. It's a big reservoir, it's not unusable because one well had a blowout.

      What's more intriguing is the quality of the crude coming out of the well. It's not typical stuff.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    240. Re:Whew by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      Being from the US, I'm really looking forward to the day when we won't use combustion engines. I think we're heading in the right direction, in that respect.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    241. Re:Whew by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Yep, b/c unless you're amish(at which point why are you on /.) you enjoy the benefits of our oil powered and enriched society.

      I never said I didn't.

      It's just that some abuse it more than others, even though we all pay. For example, people who drive ridiculously unnecessary vehicles like Hummers. That's a world away from oil being used for useful purposes that increase quality of life or productivity.

      What's so bad about paying for the benefits oil provides, rather than passing the buck on to others? Many people suffer for our oil-driven luxuries. I don't like that.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    242. Re:Whew by Burnhard · · Score: 1

      Look, if you're prepared to go back to a subsistence agricultural kind of lifestyle, by all means.

      Indeed and it's ironic, is it not, that the most sanctimonious individuals tend to be the wealthy (and guilty), such as Al Gore and Zak Goldsmith.

    243. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      . A sole proprietorship or partnership do not have the same potential for diffusion of responsibility (you might want to try addressing 'diffusion of responsibility' in your arguments.

      This is a nice idea, but it only seems to be the case because most sole proprietorships are small. Any group of people large enough will have potential for diffusion of responsibility, because tasks are spread throughout. Look at the mess the government is in, even without the legal abstraction of personhood. The way the accounts are kept, especially in regards to retirement accounts, are so bad that the CEO of any corporation would face criminal charges if their accounts looked similar. California has an unfunded liability of nearly $500billion dollars because they made bad assumptions; such obviously bad assumptions that they would have been illegal for a corporation to make. Who is going to take responsibility for that? No one. In fact, when was the last time you heard any politician take responsibility for anything? It has nothing to do with corporate personhood, and everything to do with the nature of large groups of people. Corporations are not special in this regard.

      Society may change, and in changing, decrease both your personal power over other people, and the good light in which the current status quo will remember your achievements.

      Ah, thanks for the assessment, but I desire neither power nor to be remembered. Besides, however society changes, I feel confident I am capable of seizing power under the new order of things. ;)

      --
      Qxe4
    244. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Put another way, if we replaced the leadership structure of most larger corporations so that there was one person directing every action and those actions remained the same that person would have all the attributes of a sociopath.

      That's an interesting idea, but, actually it wouldn't have all the attributes of a sociopath. You might be able to make a case for a dissociative identity disorder, but that's being silly.

      --
      Qxe4
    245. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 1

      Often times, people spin stories about themselves that downplay or ignore their true motives, instead focusing on what they believe to be positive aspects and motivations. This is especially true of people with borderline psychosis, who tend to become unreasonably angry and start flinging insults when their world view is threatened. Just FYI.

      Okay, are we done dick waving now? Can we actually debate shit?

      California has an unfunded liability of half a billion dollars because California stupidly allowed its citizens to vote themselves tax decreases, but people still want the services. Yes, this is an example of diffusion of responsibility. Someone else will pay for it all, right? Sigh.

      Sole proprietorships and partnerships are unlikely to grow as large as corporations, because each individual investor is liable for more than just what they invest. And being smaller, we see major benefits. More, smaller businesses means more competition, and a more efficient free market. It also means less diffusion of responsibility. And finally, with money concentrated in fewer hands, money will have a smaller impact on politics. Wins all around, right? Larger organizations should ALL be democratic cooperatives that smaller members join for the mutual benefits. Such organizations, like the California Almond Grower's Cooperative, could easily take the place of corporations while maintaining transparency and accountability.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    246. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And being smaller, we see major benefits. More, smaller businesses means more competition, and a more efficient free market.

      This may be true, I haven't really considered about it. I will have to think about it. Off the top of my head though, with smaller companies we will likely see more inefficiencies and higher prices, so as with everything, there will be some tradeoffs. We do benefit from having large corporations.

      Larger organizations should ALL be democratic cooperatives that smaller members join for the mutual benefits.

      Actually this is the way things are going anyway, see for example The Great Game of Business by Jack Stack. It's just more efficient to run a company like that. The only caveat is that people at all levels need to be interested and capable of contributing, otherwise the power gets concentrated in the hands of few (as with any democratic system). It easily works for almond growers because each rancher is independently capable of running their own business.

      And finally, with money concentrated in fewer hands, money will have a smaller impact on politics.

      This is an interesting idea, but as long as most people don't pay attention to politics, those who do will have more power.

      California has an unfunded liability of half a billion dollars because California stupidly allowed its citizens to vote themselves tax decreases, but people still want the services. Yes, this is an example of diffusion of responsibility. Someone else will pay for it all, right? Sigh.

      No, it is separate from the tax problem. The unfunded liability in California's pension fund comes because of literally criminal assumptions; in theory a pension works by the employee contributing part each month, and the government contributing part each month, and then investing and making money on the interest. California assumed it could make an 8% return each year by investing in the stock market. If a corporation did this, the CEO would be jailed: it legally needs to be calculated based on a safer investment, like 10 year treasury bonds (which are closer to 4% annually). For California's estimate to be correct, the DOW would have needed to reach 20,000 by now.

      OK, I think I see the thing we disagree in. I think we are in agreement over the idea of spreading power around, making things democratic, and people being responsible for their actions. Our disagreement is that you want to reach the goal by cutting down the strong, and making them weaker. I want to reach the goal by empowering the weak and making them stronger. Any time you cut down the strong, new ones will grow to replace them and sometimes even worse. But when the weak become strong and competent, we all benefit.

      --
      Qxe4
    247. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 1

      The benefits inherent in having large corporations may be maintained through the use of democratic cooperatives, as I mentioned. I challenge you to come up with an example of corporate efficiency that can not be replicated or exceeded by a group of smaller businesses acting cooperatively.

      I don't want to cut down the strong. I don't consider the bandit who has me at gunpoint to be 'strong.' In fact, I consider him to be weak. The truly strong can give away all that they have because of their inherent strength. The weak seek every unfair advantage they can find, be it a gun or a law.

      The weak can not grow strong while the strong seek to maintain their monopoly. Leveling the playing field is the first step. The strong, if they are truly strong, can not be 'cut down' simply by changing the rules of the game. If they are inherently strong, they will find a way to succeed in any system. I've lived all over the world and found a way to contribute and be strong everywhere, even when I was an illegal immigrant in a foreign country.

      To be clear, I don't seek equality of outcome, only equality of opportunity. No one should be more powerful, influential, or wealthy than the majority agrees they should be. That is stealing power from the majority, demanding they respect you, using intimidation to get your way. But the majority of people, when they are not being abused, actually love to look up to someone. Let the powerful be the ones the people choose to give power to, not those who take power from others through force.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    248. Re:Whew by Paranatural · · Score: 1

      Haha I wish.

      Signed,
      The rest of the world

      Dear the rest of the world;

      BP & others are selling refined gasoline at significantly less than $3/gallon.
      Speak to your government about the enormous taxes they pile on top of that price.

      Signed,
      The USA

      P.S. Since I'm in the USA, here's the NY spot price for gasoline

      Actually, it's because the USA heavily, heavily subsidizes gasoline, whereas other countries do not, to the tune of (Conservatively) $9.1 billion dollars a year.

    249. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The weak can not grow strong while the strong seek to maintain their monopoly.

      I utterly disagree with this.

      That is stealing power from the majority, demanding they respect you, using intimidation to get your way. But the majority of people, when they are not being abused, actually love to look up to someone. Let the powerful be the ones the people choose to give power to, not those who take power from others through force.

      Supposedly this is the way the US government is meant to work, and it will, as long as the citizens participate. I don't think there is any government system that can work this way if the citizens don't participate. If they are abused when they don't participate, it is their own collective fault.

      --
      Qxe4
    250. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't believe in Jesus, you're simply misinformed. The jews and muslims know he existed. He's an actualy historical figure who was crucified at the hands of Pilot (not really, but for the sake of this statement). Maybe you meant "do you believe Jesus was God incarnate?"

      Learn your history.

    251. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 1

      The strong do not want the weak becoming strong, because strength is relative. If everyone has the same strength, no one is stronger than anyone else, and no one can force their will on others. Right now, the rich can force their will on others. Why would they allow the weak to become strong, and give up that privilege?

      As for the rest, you have my complete agreement, even the last sentence. Ultimately, no one can oppress you unless you oppress yourself first. That does not excuse the oppressors, of course.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    252. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Right now, the rich can force their will on others. Why would they allow the weak to become strong, and give up that privilege?

      Nah, I don't they will want to give up that privilege (some won't care, of course, not every rich person is like that, a lot are just happy to keep what they have and grow it reasonably if they can, like most people); there will be some few who are so desperate to maintain their power that they will go to extreme lengths (like Nixon). I just don't think it is within their capability to keep the weak from becoming strong, if the weak have the will.

      When it comes to power, I order them in a rough list from weakest to strongest:

      1) Weakest is physical strength. I can get you to do something by threatening to punch you in the face, or pulling out a gun.
      2) Above that is money. I don't care if you have a gun when I can hire body-guards, for example.
      3) Above that is the ability to influence other people. Money can help with this, of course, but money alone won't get you too far. Most dictators are very good at this; the ones who last a long time are extremely good at it. Dictators need to have a high popularity at a minimum within the army.

      So the most powerful ones are those who can influence other people, and get a following. But they will only get a following if the people are willing to follow them. And that is why I say that even if the powerful try to hold on to their power, the weak will eventually be able to escape and become strong, if they have the will to do so.

      --
      Qxe4
    253. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 1

      Can't we kill a few sociopathic oppressors along the way? Please? It'll be fun!

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    254. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could go on, but the point is, almost everyone is motivated by cost and convenience.

      There's a difference between being motivated by cost and convenience and motivated by cost and convenience to the exclusion of all else.

    255. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      lol well, if you put it like that, I guess I have no objection really

      --
      Qxe4
    256. Re:Whew by spun · · Score: 1

      Seriously, though, I agree with your point: building people up is better than tearing people down. Even people who deserve to be torn down. It may be justice, but it isn't efficient.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    257. Re:Whew by Miser · · Score: 1

      Dear most of the rest of the world,

      Higher taxes forcing reduced consumption and more efficient cars is a self defeating prophecy as it will result in ... you guessed it! Higher efficiency and less consumption and LESS TAXES COLLECTED, causing them to raise taxes more, which makes no sense.

      Signed,
      some of the most of the rest of the world :)

    258. Re:Whew by yuhong · · Score: 1

      It is not a legal duty, but I have this slashdot submission on exactly this: http://slashdot.org/submission/1285008/Why-Modern-Business-Is-Bad-for-Your-Mental-Health Mod it up if you want to discuss this further.

    259. Re:Whew by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      Are you being intentionally dense? Do you simply not get what an analogy is?

      At first I just assumed you were nitpicking so I went and reminded myself what the attributes of APD are. Please go ahead and name one of the major attributes of APD that large corporations fail to exhibit at least to some extent.

    260. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      lolol no I'm pretty sure you are dense. Like most psychological disorders, there are no major attributes of APD that humans fail to exhibit at least to some extent. But I don't go around saying every human has APD. That wouldn't make sense. Either give up the issue now or continue looking incompetent.

      --
      Qxe4
    261. Re:Whew by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      So I take it you don't have an empirical case for why we wouldn't label the emergent behaviour of large corporations as sociopathic then? Because I ask you to point to empirical evidence that large corporations do not behave as though they were sociopathic and you have completely avoided the question.

      There is a distinction between every human having some of the attributes of a sociopath and every large corporation behaving exactly like a person having every attribute of a sociopath. We get it, corporations aren't people, they are groups of people. Your argument makes as much sense as saying that the Russian Communist Party wasn't brutal and cruel because cruely and brutality are attributes of people not groups of people. Or are you going to claim that the KPSS was not also sociopathic?

    262. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, when I said this two years ago I got a lot of snarky responses about how it "couldn't have been anything but democracy-building". Good to see the people on this site have finally grown some brains. :-)

    263. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      lolol still at it, eh? Well, I have to inform you, anecdotally I talked to a corporation the other day and it didn't show any of the signs of a psychopath. I never talked to the Russian Communist Party so I can't say whether it was a psychopath or not, but certainly it had members who were rather odd.

      --
      Qxe4
    264. Re:Whew by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      You're now just a joke. Your reasoning amounts to a absurd form of reductionism where a single human is the atomic unit. If you really do think that humans don't have any emergent behaviour when organised into collectives then you are absolutely and completely insane.

    265. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And you want to paint all corporations with the same brush. It's not a sign of a very distinguishing intelligence.

      --
      Qxe4
    266. Re:Whew by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      No I want to point out that most large corporations are the same, because they are. For the same reason that most gases are the same in the sense that they have similar statistical properties. They have common emergent behaviour.

      Sociopathic behaviour is something that will occur in any system with diffusion of responsibility, just look at most governments. Large limited liability corporations are particularly bad for this because they are designed precisely with the intent of dispersing and reducing responsibility and tend to operate on dangerously short time scales.

      Get N people together where N is sufficiently large, put them in a structure where no one (or two, or some small number) are responsible for the actions the group decide to take collectively and watch as the group behave sociopathically.

    267. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      By talking about psychopaths you are using outdated assumptions. DSM-IV doesn't even recognize psychopathy as a psychological issue. I don't know why you keep going back to it. It makes it sound like you are repeating some propaganda you heard somewhere or something.

      Secondly, you seem to have this weird idea that corporations somehow remove personal responsibility, but that isn't the case. A corporation can't murder someone and then say no-one did it. Someone did it, and they will be responsible; in addition, whoever ordered the murder will be responsible, and anyone who helped with it will be responsible for their actions as well. You need to improve your information acquiring skills, because you keep coming across as someone who doesn't know much.

      --
      Qxe4
    268. Re:Whew by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      Your ability to intentionally miss the point is matched only by your ability to sound patronising while doing it.

      No I don't have this weird idea that forming a corporation somehow removes all personal responsibility, is there something wrong with your reading comprehension or do you just enjoy putting words in other peoples mouths. I believe forming a corporation reduces personal responsibility because that is precisely what they were created with the intention of doing, financially initially but now this extends to other areas as well.

      Take the recent financial troubles. I can list a number of situations where corporate entities have taken bad debts off their books by setting up sham arrangements with other financial institutions to fool investors and wont get prosecuted for fraud. If I did the equivalent with my finances I would be facing serious consequences right now. You are totally naive if believe that people acting on behalf of large corporations are not protected from the consequences of a large subset of their actions.

      Since we are analysing posting styles I will add that you come across as someone with an ideological and philosophical axe to grind who while admittedly not particularly poorly informed suffers from severe nuance blindness. This is nicely illustrated by your last post where your 'corporations cant murder' argument serves nicely as an archetypal straw man. I invite you to look back over my posts and tell me where I said corporations could get away with murder, you wont find any such suggestion. You are basically arguing with me like I'm some kind of amalgamation of every bad hippy stereotype.

      As to your comment on my information gathering skills, I cant deny you do have a point. Right now I am wasting time that could be better spent learning something new, trying to explain simple concepts to a moronic ideologue with a fetish for stereotyping people who disagree with him.

    269. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Take the recent financial troubles. I can list a number of situations where corporate entities have taken bad debts off their books by setting up sham arrangements with other financial institutions to fool investors and wont get prosecuted for fraud. If I did the equivalent with my finances I would be facing serious consequences right now.

      Sure, if you'd like to, bring some up, and we can discuss them.

      --
      Qxe4
    270. Re:Whew by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      Lets take as an example this little gem...

      http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2936724320080729

      Lone Star have done nothing particularly wrong in this deal but Merrill Lynch's write down would be considered out and out fraud on top of previous out and out fraud if an individual did it. Ignoring the questionable legality of the original valuation of the CDO the value Merrill Lynch quote this deal as on their balance sheet is a complete fabrication as one look at the deal will tell you. They are hiding the fact that these CDOs are almost certainly worthless by loaning Lone Star the money to buy them from them and then using the CDOs they are buying as collateral for the loan (and making them the only collateral)! If I told people I was good for a debt (which is what a stock basically is) by shifting money around in a similar way I would never get away with it.

    271. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      OK, this is good. I much prefer concrete examples to vague generalizations.

      Now, there are lots of things I dislike about big banks, but this is not really one of them. The model of a lot of the big banks is they rip people off by selling them things for a price of greater than they are worth. Legally they can do this, as long as they don't outright commit fraud. They do it by giving so much information that they buyer gets confused (among other tricks). In other words, if you do business with a bank, you better have a deep understanding of the deal you are making, along with all the fine print, otherwise you are likely to get ripped off. But it only becomes a problem when they start hiding stuff.

      Lone Star understands this. The stock holders should understand this, and be careful to look at the numbers before investing in a bank (I don't invest in bank stock because it takes too much time to do an analysis; I'd rather deal with companies that are easier for me to understand).

      You could do the same thing, but if you ask for a loan from a bank, they are going to ask to see all your financial information. They are going to want to know about your loans and debts, and they are going to consider them (actually that's not entirely true, sometimes banks make NINJA loans and they end up getting ripped off too, but then that's their fault for not investigating deeply enough). No matter how ugly your personal accounts are, you have not committed fraud as long as you weren't hiding anything.

      Now, I don't care if banks play these games, as long as it stays between them and their customers. What bothers me is when they start asking the taxpayers to help them out. Paul Volcker says that any bank that is so big that it needs a bailout should be broken up and the sold in pieces. And he is right.

      --
      Qxe4
    272. Re:Whew by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      I take your point but the problem I have is the value they quote on the balance sheet. What Lone Star is doing represents a great deal for them because some of these toxic assets they are buying are probably worth more than they are paying and the ones that are not they wont take a hit on. M-L on the other hand are claiming that the asset they have just sold is worth far less than the market is prepared to pay for it (they are claiming it is basically worth the value of the deal they have just made where any idiot can see that Lone Star are far smarter than that).
      If I was asked to value my house for the purposes of a home loan and claimed it was worth 20% more than the market rate I would be in trouble later. Sure if the banks investigated they might catch me, but if they didn't I'd be in hot water if I later couldn't pay.
      I agree with you about breaking up the banks, but the real problem is the way we have structured our fractional reserve banking system. I don't have a problem with having a banking system where banks essentially abuse the yield curve, but if we are going to make them de facto extensions of the state (not just by bailing them out but by protecting certain assets with cheap government backed insurance) then they should all be heavily regulated, or government operated corporations. Better yet make them co-operatives so that their interests are commensurate with the people taking the risk while keeping the idiot government out as much as possible.
      An alternative would be to reform the banking system so the banks were not protected by government backing. I have no idea how to do this without introducing worse perverse incentives than exist right now or forcing people incapable of sensibly calculating risk to do exactly that.

    273. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I am pretty ok with re-writing banking regulation, although I don't claim to be an expert enough to know how it should be. I like the FDIC guaranteeing deposits (but not the survival of the bank). Back before the FDIC when there were runs on the bank, it was really bad. Now we don't have to worry about that.

      I think you are right that there are a lot of bad incentives. I wish Obama's bank regulation bill had fixed that, but it didn't. Oh well.

      --
      Qxe4
    274. Re:Whew by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      Yeah I don't dislike the FDIC guarantees, but they do represent massive government intervention in the market which causes very big distortions and perverse incentives. Obama's regulations were very weak and are inviting the exact same problem again. That said the bailouts (which both Obama and Bush supported) have created serious perverse incentives in the banking industry. I don't know enough about banking to say how things should be regulated but I do know enough about basic market economics to know what wont work. Now there exists incentives for every bank to keep increasing the risk it takes on at a commensurate rate to the amount other banks take on. That is not good.
      This ties in nicely with what we were discussing before. It is very likely given the regulation we have in place and given the way corporations like banks are structured that the collective action of the banks employees will be very detrimental to society. The banks employees with behave in a highly unempathetic manner.
      Sociopathic behaviour isn't always a bad thing by the way. If you have properly functioning markets with government regulation in place to minimise perverse incentives and align corporate interests with social interests then it doesn't really matter how much responsibility is diffused within an organisation, it will act for the collective good in exactly the same way that someone with APD can be made to behave for the collective good.
      In fact if you want to talk about where the analogy breaks down I think this is a good place to start (there are plenty of problems with the analogy). Large corporations can act for the collective good, even if most of the time it is incidentally. People with APD are rarely able to do so most of the time because we have little means to incentivise them. This isn't the only way this analogy breaks down by the way (other problems I can think of are with corporations essentially under the complete control of a very small number of individuals, when one stock holder has sufficient power over the corporation, Google is a good example of this and it's behaviour is far more nuanced than most large corporate entities).
      Understanding a system by analogy can lead to faulty reasoning if you don't know the limitations of the analogy. If I were trying to convince people that an analogy was flawed I would try to think of ways in which it breaks down and give examples of that rather than simply dismissing said reasoning. Ultimately all reasoning is just layers of imprecise analogies anyway.

    275. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It is very likely given the regulation we have in place and given the way corporations like banks are structured that the collective action of the banks employees will be very detrimental to society. The banks employees with behave in a highly unempathetic manner.

      Yeap, but this is independent of whether the banks are people grouped together in corporations or not. :) There are plenty of examples of people acting unethically independently during the banking crisis merely because they knew they could get away with it.

      Ultimately all reasoning is just layers of imprecise analogies anyway.

      Good point.

      --
      Qxe4
    276. Re:Whew by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      "Yeap, but this is independent of whether the banks are people grouped together in corporations or not."

      The incentive here is directed towards people in large corporate structures. The bailout was not by and large going to mom-and-pop shop banks. Sure lots of individuals acted unethically but the new incentive to behave unethically is not independent of the corporate structures in place.

      Sure people will act unethically with or without corporate structures in place, but the question here is does being in a large corporations either encourage people to be more unethical or make it possible to behave more unethically (when compared to the alternatives)?

    277. Re:Whew by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Sure people will act unethically with or without corporate structures in place, but the question here is does being in a large corporations either encourage people to be more unethical or make it possible to behave more unethically (when compared to the alternatives)?

      This is an excellent way to state the question, and I think the answer is no.

      Some people like to blame the rich and powerful for being evil, but I've found homeless people are just as likely (if not more) to be unethical as rich people. Rich people are more likely to obey the law strictly (which isn't the same as being ethical, obviously) because they have more to lose, and that is also what happened with the banks: they didn't really break the law, they were careful to be within the law when they ripped people off. It is just annoying how much influence large banks have when it comes to laws being written.....but that's already a different topic.

      People who are unethical will behave unethically when they can get away with it. This is independent of whether they are rich or poor or in a corporation or a sole proprietorship.

      --
      Qxe4
  3. Great News by gregrah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All skepticism aside, this is f-ing great news.

    Seriously.

    1. Re:Great News by Itninja · · Score: 0, Troll

      Or at least an f-ing positive headline. I am dubious that it's been closed given the BP controls all video feeds from the well. Give me an independent view and I will believe.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    2. Re:Great News by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 1

      we are not out of the woods yet though - preasure tests could fail, and there is the risk of tapping into this thing to cement it permanently that can cause additional leaking.

    3. Re:Great News by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, you're assuming that they've spent the last couple months building a dummy wellhead on an underwater movie set? I suppose stranger things have happened. I can't think of one at the moment, though.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    4. Re:Great News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the moon "landing"?

    5. Re:Great News by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Not really, this is just a temporary fix. If it's left on for too long it'll more than likely cause a blowout further down. It's just to stop the flow for a couple of days in case they need to leave the site to get out of the path of a hurricane.

    6. Re:Great News by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      That was positive, it could be WORSE

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    7. Re:Great News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh for fucks' sake, why don't you build some open source underwater cameras and then dive down in your open source submarine to check they really have closed it.

      It's a fucking massive oil leak. If BP have tried to pull a Capricorn One on us, we'll know soon enough because the sticky black stuff will keep on coming out.

    8. Re:Great News by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      No, just that if it leaks around the edges they are going to not show that. Same if the seabed starts to leak a little.

    9. Re:Great News by camperdave · · Score: 1

      No, but they could have spent the last few months photoshopping it. I mean, look at the reflections.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    10. Re:Great News by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Well, they did hire James Cameron for some inexplicable reason. Maybe this is that reason...

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    11. Re:Great News by Itninja · · Score: 1

      Could you really tell the difference between the real thing and a static looped scene of similar hardware?

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    12. Re:Great News by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Kudos to the engineers who made this happen - you guys are heroes.

      Now, the engineers who allowed the corners to be cut and didn't raise holy hell and quit in protest when the BOP gaskets came up in the drilling op and they kept pumping - you're gonna need an ass kickin'.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    13. Re:Great News by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      What if they're the same people? We just call it a wash and be done with 'em?

    14. Re:Great News by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      No. It is “back to zero” news. You know. Kow (-10000)+5000 still is only -5000.

      Great news would be, if they not only reversed the whole catastrophe, but additonally also did manage to make the world better because of the whole thing.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    15. Re:Great News by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      Could you really tell the difference between the real thing and a static looped scene of similar hardware?

      If that were the case, they would have "capped" the gusher within a week and gotten everyone off their back.

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    16. Re:Great News by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Not unless I had all the time in the world and a Rainman-like ability to memorize every little fleck of undersea god-knows-what that floats by, in an effort to find repeating patterns.

      Come to think of it, that sounds like something that could either be crowdsourced in /. meatspace, or someone here could write a program to scan the video for repeating patters. Volunteers? Bueller? Bueller?

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    17. Re:Great News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It didn't take them months, they just reused parts of the set from the moon landing.

  4. What a shame by Kenoli · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was getting rather used to it.

    1. Re:What a shame by IICV · · Score: 2, Funny

      When you read that title, pretend J.C. Denton is saying it. You'll have a pretty good idea of how the BP executives feel, I think.

  5. How long by mark72005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How long until Washington starts claiming credit for it?

    1. Re:How long by syntheticmemory · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was wondering how long it will be until DHS takes credit for it....

    2. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How long until we collectively pull our heads out of our asses and take the blame for it?

    3. Re:How long by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 0, Troll

      How long until a conservatard tries to bring Obama up in regards to this...

      Oh wait.

    4. Re:How long by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Okay. I'm sorry. It was me. Now its your turn.

    5. Re:How long by JDmetro · · Score: 1

      If i pull my head out of my ass people will see how much shit is behind my ears.

    6. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that will never happen, not as long as its easier to blame somebody els then to blame yourself.

      also, i believe videogames are the cause of this, they probably tought drilling a well would be like motherload.

    7. Re:How long by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He didn't bring up Obama. He brought up Washington, which generally means the entire government... but don't let the English language cloud your political prejudices.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    8. Re:How long by bonch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is it everyone's fault? By your logic, every automobile driver is at fault when there's a massive pileup on a highway. It's BP's fault as well as the fault of the administration, which essentially did nothing to clean up the spill. That ass Obama said he was looking to kick? It was a whopping 20-minute meeting with the head of BP. This is Obama's Katrina.

      And if you're going to go down the "oil addiction" line, that's completely retarded. We're not "addicted" to oil. It's just the best resource we have to get things done at the moment, so that's what we use. If there was a superior resource, and we got rid of our use of oil, it's not like we'd suffer physical symptoms of oil withdrawal. The addiction comparison makes no sense and has more to do with trying to make people feel guilty for existing on the planet and using technology to live their lives. Sorry, but I'll never feel guilty for using technology--especially since oil drilling is always dangerous, there will always be the risk of accidents, and BP has been forced to drill in riskier, deeper waters in the first place because of restrictions that prevent them from drilling in safer areas closer to the shore. Idealistic attempts to fix things often end up making things worse.

    9. Re:How long by gangien · · Score: 1

      i just searched this entire slashdot page and the only instance of Obama i found, was yours.

    10. Re:How long by NiceGeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Remarkable how these anti-government types only got this shrill after Obama was elected, isn't it?

    11. Re:How long by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1, Interesting

      How long until a conservatard tries to bring Obama up in regards to this...

      Oh wait.

      Please. You probably used to mock people who said things like this when Bush was President. Don't be naive.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    12. Re:How long by copponex · · Score: 1

      In all fairness, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the federal deficit, the bank bailout, the lack of oversight in the oil industry, and the phenomenon of waxy buildup are all recent developments under the Obama Administration. And, as everyone knows, 9/11 happened because Clinton didn't take national security seriously. If Bush had been in office just a few months longer, he would have found a way to stop it.

      See, when a Democrat is the president, the recession can be his fault even before he's inaugurated. When a Republican is president, I'm not even sure any blame can be assigned to him, especially when he had no information to go on. I have been assured that this viewpoint is entirely rational.

    13. Re:How long by gewalker · · Score: 1

      Too tempting to ignore. Part of the delay in fixing the oil leak is a fault of the US government. I have no love for BP, but I don't for the gubment either. I sure blame fixing will require decades of hindsight. Maybe you will believe me if you read this , generally liberal news source

    14. Re:How long by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      That's because it was Bush's fault. But this isn't Obama's fault, he couldn't help it.

      [/sarcasm]

      I'm waiting for someone to somehow say that this was an inherited problem from the previous administration. Like everything else bad that will happen in the next 2.5 years :)

    15. Re:How long by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      About as long as it takes a libertard tries to blame a conservatard for something a conservatard never did...

      Oh wait.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    16. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's government approved every step of the way? Who had 18 months to get some rational and effective regulatory changes through Congress? Who's been asleep at the wheel for the clean-up effort. Obama doesn't even have to tip-toe around the over-sensitive state's rights issues with this; at least Bush and Palin know what kind of weasels the oil companies and especially BP are, Obama is a babe in the woods here and the wolf says "trust me".

    17. Re:How long by bonch · · Score: 1

      Maybe you haven't been following, but liberal environmentalists are pissed at Obama too. Accusing someone of being a "conservatard" for bringing up Obama smells of pre-emptive defensiveness on your part, trying to brush off critics by portraying them as being part of some biased group. You maybe an Obama supporter, but it's hard to argue that his response to the disaster was anything but passive and absent-minded, and that's how the public sees it.

      Part of the reason America never solves its problems is that people like you are too partisan to see anything objectively.

    18. Re:How long by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Seems you did right at 03:59 PM July 15th, 2010

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    19. Re:How long by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Yeah there werent any anti-government types at all! I am quite amazed at how well loved Bush was, for instance.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    20. Re:How long by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Katrina wasn't Bush's fault, but how he handled it was (that's not a statement as to how he handled it; but however he handled it, good or bad, was "his" fault).

      The deficit? You can hardly blame that ALL on Bush. I thought he spent too much. I think Obama is spending way more.

      Afghanistan? We can only blame Obama for how he is currently handling it.

      Anyone that continually blames bad handling of the current situation on the past administration because the problem started with them is trying to blame-shift. Obama should take the blame - good or bad - for how he is handling the current issues, even if the issues did not START with him. There are plenty of "new" things to complain about with any given President, too.

    21. Re:How long by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is it everyone's fault?

      Because the Oil industry is the most heavily regulated industry in the US, and we hired the people who wrote the regulations, and who also hired the people who hired the people who were supposed to be enforcing those regulations (that's Congress/The Prez > MMS > MMS inspectors in case you didn't follow).

      We are the ones who put the people in power who allowed the corruption in the regulators to grow - primarily the Bush administration, but Obama wasn't exactly on the ball fixing this particular issue, and in fact it appeared that his people made little to no effort to change the way the MMS was wrong.

      In that respect, we the people are, to an extent, ultimately responsible. We do not care enough about corruption in government to make sure we get people who make it a primary goal to eliminate that corruption. We'd much rather have our pet projects instead.

      What pisses me off most is how little the MMS is being investigated by all this. Those are the people we pay with our hard earned tax money to be sure this kind of shit doesn't happen, yet there was obvious corruption in the MMS that led directly to this catastrophe. Not to take any blame away from BP, but if the MMS had been doing its job the spill would not have happened.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    22. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long until Washington starts claiming credit for it?

      I dunno - probably as long as it took Limbo and friends to imply that it was a White House plot and then start blaming the government for not doing anything about it.

    23. Re:How long by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Not really, most of the sentiment and it's popularity hasn't changed in the last decade. It's just that Fox News has its own agenda, and they also happen to be the only mouthpiece available for anybody right of center in this country. So if Fox isn't pushing the right wing anti-government message because a republican is in office (they'd rather a big government repub be in office than any form of democrat) then the anti-government message simply does not get out. The left wing media certainly isn't going to push that message just because a repub happens to be in office - the idea is cancer for them.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    24. Re:How long by bonch · · Score: 1

      I didn't hire the people who wrote the regulations, and I didn't put the current administration in power. I care very much about corruption in government, which is why I'm opposed to big government. Big government leads to big mistakes, but it's harder to punish a government organization or replace it with a better one.

      If the oil industry is the most heavily regulated industry in the U.S., this disaster proves how meaningless regulations actually are.

    25. Re:How long by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      It's BP's fault as well as the fault of the administration, which essentially did nothing to clean up the spill. That ass Obama said he was looking to kick? It was a whopping 20-minute meeting with the head of BP. This is Obama's Katrina.

      Actually, I cut Obama a lot of slack until he started grandstanding on the issue. For better or worse the Federal Government doesn't have the experience or the resources to deal with a problem of this nature. Of course coming out and stating the obvious would be political suicide, so instead he has to go on TV and deliver a rhetorical smackdown to BP so the American public gets the impression that he's "doing something"

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    26. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how you've forgotten about all the anti-government harping done by Democrats during the Bush administration.

      "Bush is shredding the Constitution!"

      "Free-speech zones! Domestic surveillance! They'll send us all to Gitmo!"

    27. Re:How long by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course it was the previous administration's fault. Bush lied and pelicans died!

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    28. Re:How long by bonch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's hard to figure out what's going on in his head. One of his big problems is how he comes off as a passive observer, watching things happen around him. As president, he needs to at least appear to be on top of things, and all the golf trips don't help (even Bush believed that he shouldn't be golfing while troops died in Iraq).

    29. Re:How long by copponex · · Score: 1

      Hey, you just inherited a business that's racked up too much debt, and your income is down by 30%. You have two choices: borrow to restructure your business, or fire most of your staff, sell off your assets, and pray you don't have to declare bankruptcy.

      In the business world, most people are going for option one. When you're a government, and option 2 includes sending millions of people into poverty, it's a pretty bad option.

      Bottom line, Bush cut taxes for the wealthy and started two wars, and we're going to suffer for it for a long time. Even McCain said back in 2000 that tax cuts for the wealthy didn't make sense when we had to make sure that we kept our promise to the greatest generation and made sure social security was solvent. And he said again around 2003 that keeping the tax cuts was unwise when we didn't know the cost of reconstruction.

      By the way, the cost of those two wars just tipped over 1 trillion dollars.

      http://costofwar.com/

    30. Re:How long by blair1q · · Score: 1

      He was well-loved by Grover Norquist, the architect of most GOP policy in the '90s, who famously said he wanted a smaller government, one small enough you could drown it in a bathtub.

      Bush, remember, pretty much doubled the size of the government.

      The GOP is a bunch of liars; their lies are designed to garner a political bloc of voters; that those voters are being duped by claptrap and falsehoods does not matter to the GOP, because their goal is not governance, it is directing the revenues of the government to the wealthy.

    31. Re:How long by c6gunner · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What the ... were you born in 2008??

    32. Re:How long by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      So what exactly are you proposing as your alternative to the so-called corrupted "big government", that would have prevented this problem?

    33. Re:How long by blair1q · · Score: 4, Insightful

      this was an inherited problem from the previous administration.

      The regulatory system in place for the oil industry is the result of 8 years of direct action on the part of Bush and Cheney.

      They set up the rules that allowed lax safety and backup systems, set the liability levels that induced the company to ignore safety and backups, packed the civil service component of the department with oil-company cronies who ignored the mounting pile of known safety violations (which no doubt were only a fraction of the regulated vulnerabilities and a small fraction of the factual vulnerabilities), and made oil men their best friends (well, more oil men; oil men have always been Bush and Cheney's best friends, right next to defense contractors).

      Obama trusted the regulatory structure of this department because he hadn't had it audited for integrity and was too busy with several active fires Bush and Cheney had left behind to deal with something that merely hadn't blown up yet. He even believed their assurances enough that he approved drilling off the East Coast just a few weeks before this well blew up. So clearly they were not informing him of the corruption of their office or the decrepitude of the industry.

      So now you don't have to wait any more. You just have to ask yourself why you didn't know these facts existed, and whether you should ever again trust the people who led you to believe these facts didn't exist.

    34. Re:How long by blair1q · · Score: 1

      The deficit? You can hardly blame that ALL on Bush. I thought he spent too much. I think Obama is spending way more.

      There are graphs (over on zfacts.com if they're still around) showing that republican presidents grow the debt and democrats shrink it, as a pct of GDP. But Republicans ignore Republican debt growth entirely, and point to Democrat growth while ignoring the absolute-vs-relative distinction.

      Also, look at what they're spending on. Bush and Cheney blew $Trillions on explosions that, if anything, have made terrorism worse, not better (because they should have stuck to Afghanistan, on which the world saw us as righteously justified, instead of starting an illegal war over lies in Iraq). Obama is building infrastructure, investing in kickstarting technologies, and keeping unemployed people from becoming homeless people.

      Anyone that continually blames bad handling of the current situation on the past administration because the problem started with them is trying to blame-shift.

      Wrong. Anyone who blames the results of Bush's policies on Obama is the one doing the blame-shifting.

    35. Re:How long by countertrolling · · Score: 0

      Bush took more time off than any of his predecessors... But who the fuck cares about Bush? He's not president anymore. What Obama could/should have done is issue an executive order freezing/seizing all BP assets to insure the taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for the cleanup and loss of income to the locals. He should order the DOJ to subpoena all BP documents, all of them, even the dirty pictures and illegal downloads (that should please you, of all people) on their computers He should have forcefully maintained the moratorium and demanded a full inspection of all existing rigs. A president can do those things. Like Nixon said, it's not illegal if he does.

      Now go away, troll!

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    36. Re:How long by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for someone to somehow say that this was an inherited problem from the previous administration.

      Ahem.

      Just like Guantanamo, the bullshit is 100 percent Dubya's fault. And just like Guantanamo, the lack of progress since January 2009 is 100 percent Obama's fault. But it is inherited nonetheless.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    37. Re:How long by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      As a Washingtonian, I find this use of the word "Washington" confusing. If you mean the Federal Government, say so, damnit. Don't demean our beautiful state by associating it with that east-coast crap.

    38. Re:How long by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Informative

      For better or worse the Federal Government doesn't have the experience or the resources to deal with a problem of this nature.

      Very true. But they refused the help of those who did (the Dutch). Their boats could only get out something like 98% of the oil and EPA regulations say you can't discharge water back into the Gulf that's less than 99.998% pure or whatever, so they've been trying to pump the Gulf of Mexico into ships and bring it on shore into storage containers for later processing.

      It's so asinine I can't go to 'incompetence' on this one.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    39. Re:How long by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Of course it was the previous administration's fault.

      Yeah, we heard quite a lot of that from the previous administration over 9/11... I guess it happens all the time.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    40. Re:How long by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bush took more time off than any of his predecessors... But who the fuck cares about Bush?

      Apparently you do ;)

      What Obama could/should have done is issue an executive order freezing/seizing all BP assets to insure the taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for the cleanup and loss of income to the locals.

      Please point out the Federal statue and/or section of the US Constitution that authorizes the President to seize assets by Executive Order. We have a little thing called "Rule of Law" in this country, perhaps you've heard of it?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    41. Re:How long by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that law is only in and of itself, not supposed to serve any higher purpose at all. Justice will just have to wait until the law is satisfied. What's that old saying about justice delayed?

      In life there is no justice, only law... In the afterlife there is justice

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    42. Re:How long by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Are you so blinded by your distaste for BP that you can't see the downsides of the President having the power to freeze and/or seize privately held assets without going through the courts or abiding by the 4th amendment?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    43. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I assume of course that your logic has led you to also blame Clinton for all the failures that led up to 9/11, right? I mean, Bush only had 9 months in office and didn't have time to redo all the damage Clinton had done to our intelligence apparatuses.

      The point of this post isn't to say R's are better than D's, it's to say they are both liars and terrible leaders and that our government is far too bloated to be anything approaching "nimble". If we want to function in the 21st century we need to gut government.

    44. Re:How long by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      What, you mean to say that a bureaucracy cut off it's nose to spite it's face? Say it isn't so.....

      What was the rationale the Administration provided for declining the help of the Dutch?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    45. Re:How long by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      RICO makes it legal. It's not about BP. The banks are much worse Just because we benefit from their actions, it does make them any less criminal. We have the right to put a stop to it, but apparently not the balls...

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    46. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to cite? Didn't think so.

    47. Re:How long by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      RICO requires that the Government go through the courts and be able to prove their case. You were professing a desire for the President to seize their assets without according them due process. The former really has nothing to do with the latter.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    48. Re:How long by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      "...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    49. Re:How long by twidarkling · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don'tcha know? The only suitable replacement for "Big Government" is an Unregulated Free Market, since BP clearly would have spent billions of dollars fixing everything if there was no one to hold them accountable. No way they simply would have walked away and disavowed all knowledge.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    50. Re:How long by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot. We mock everyone equally.

    51. Re:How long by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      What was the rationale the Administration provided for declining the help of the Dutch?

      That was the bit about the Dutch boats not being up to EPA snuff.

      They wouldn't want to say that accepting outside help threatens the perceived legitimacy/supremacy of the State, so better to leave the oil in the water than remove 98% of it.

      If Bobby Jindal had a pair downstairs he would have called in the Dutch boats and used a flotilla of those idle fishing boats to escort the ships to sea and stationed National Guard on the boats to protect the ships from the Coast Guard. Barking down a Coast Guard cutter with a TV crew on board would have practically guaranteed a successful glide to the White House. Instead he regularly called press conferences to complain about the red tape. Unfortunately for Bobby, nobody votes for a whiny bitch.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    52. Re:How long by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. People have been bashing the government for a long time now (not that it doesn't generally deserve it). If you think that it has anything to do with Obama, that's your personal bias talking.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    53. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we want to function in the 21st century we need to gut government.

      Ahh, the "government is always the problem" mantra ... it's a bit simplistic, isn't it?

      What we need to do is demand that government function - sometimes, that's by making it smaller; other times, it needs to grow. Transparency and accountability are the keys - they're just not easy.

    54. Re:How long by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Ah. So basically our Commander-in-Chief deferred to some EPA bureaucrat instead of taking charge and applying some common sense. I guess that's what you get when you elect someone with zero executive experience.

      I'm not so sure that your idea would have worked even if Jindal the pair to try it but either way he does come across looking worse for this experience. I've not been real impressed by him. I'll find out what the locals think in October -- taking a trip to NOLA.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    55. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this was an inherited problem from the previous administration.

      The regulatory system in place for National Securityis the result of 8 years of direct action on the part of Bill Clinton

      They set up the rules that allowed lax safety and backup systems, set the liability levels that crippled the NSA and CIA causing those in intelligence to be fearful of their jobs. (which no doubt were only a fraction of the regulated vulnerabilities and a small fraction of the factual vulnerabilities), and made terrorists their best friends (well, at least Bin Laden, Pakistan had him and was willing to surrender him to us, but we told them to let him go).

      Bush trusted the regulatory structure of this department because he hadn't had it audited for integrity and was too busy with the dot com bust and "That's My Bush" on comedy central. He even believed their assurances enough that he used intelligence from the then crippled CIA that showed Iraqi weapons on mass destruction. So clearly they were not informing him of the corruption of their office or the decrepitude of the Agency.

      So now you don't have to wait any more. You just have to ask yourself why you didn't know these facts existed, and whether you should ever again trust the people who led you to believe these facts didn't exist.

      Fixed that for ya. Ignorance and blaming the previous administration didn't work for Bush, why should it work for Obama. Doesn't matter if there is some truth to it, he's still the boss so it's still his failure. He should take it like a man. I hated a lot of what Bush did, but at least with him "The buck stops here."

    56. Re:How long by schon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I assume of course that your logic has led you to also blame Clinton for all the failures that led up to 9/11, right? I mean, Bush only had 9 months in office and didn't have time to redo all the damage Clinton had done to our intelligence apparatuses.

      Except for the fact that the intelligence systems were working, and Bush was briefed daily about possible terror attacks before 9/11 and yet decided to ignore the reports.

      Now, if you'd like to blame Clinton for the dot-com bubble, that could be roughly analogous to the BP/Gulf crisis for Obama.

    57. Re:How long by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I guess it turned the quote bot on.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    58. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but at least with him "The buck stops here."

      Let's hear it for selective memory ...

    59. Re:How long by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Just let me know when you're ready to address the issue. I'm not interested in platitudes about law when we aren't afforded equal protection. There are rules that permit what should be done, but it has become much more important not to "upset the market". A single judge can rubber stamp it, and it would be legal, and it's off to the races. But it ain't gonna happen. The perps are going to walk, as they already have so many times, and it doesn't end here. The government already in violation through its neglect. And if this were a single individual, you would be all over 'em if they didn't do something.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    60. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long until a conservatard tries to bring Obama up in regards to this...

      If you must know, the time stamp on your post is on Thursday July 15, @05:59PM

      That should answer your question :P

    61. Re:How long by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Well there ya go, buddy! That's the way to do it. It all makes sense now. The misinformed really do dig in when when their ideology is challenged. Very enlightening... oh well, enjoy your echo chamber...

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    62. Re:How long by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry that you feel that our legal system does not afford you enough rubber stamping.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    63. Re:How long by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      ICMP TYPE 0

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    64. Re:How long by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      When it's legal, I'm perfectly ok with it. You seem to be perfectly ok with "too big to punish", so it's patently absurd to even try.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    65. Re:How long by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Nope, I like seeing the big get punished. It's rather satisfying. But only when they are accorded due process of the law. That's the difference between the two of us.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    66. Re:How long by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      The difference is that you hold process above justice.. a good bureaucrat you are. The kind who would let an innocent man die for not following procedure to the letter. But hey! we have to clear the docket before dinner time. Bummer that attitude goes beyond traffic court

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    67. Re:How long by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Try adding the 4th and 5th amendments to that quote bot you were running earlier.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    68. Re:How long by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Informative

      As you wish...
      The 4th:
      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

      We have probable cause. 11 people are dead. 15 were killed in Texas. They continue to have other "accidents". And please note the word "unreasonable". There's nothing unreasonable in my demand. They have a worse safety record than Air France. They are a clear and present danger, possibly to the whole planet. They have repeatedly shown blatant disregard for human life. Ah, but the money...

      The 5th:
      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      Well, the government failed to call a grand jury, not for lack of evidence, but for economic clout. All these things could have been accomplished a few short days after the rig sank. You never heard me say this authority shouldn't be used. Remember those 11 dead folks? They're still quite dead. And nobody's been called to answered for it. You and me would have locked up tight. You're only showing yourself as an apologist. And pretty blatantly... Very typical with folks of your persuasion...

      Put that in your bot and smoke it...

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    69. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don'tcha know? The only suitable replacement for "Big Government" is an Unregulated Free Market, since BP clearly would have spent billions of dollars fixing everything if there was no one to hold them accountable. No way they simply would have walked away and disavowed all knowledge.

      In no fucking sense whatsoever does a free market imply freedom from liability as you just stated, twidarkling (1537077). Why is this site populated with people just begging for government to wipe their ass cradle to grave. Any excuse to bash the concept of free market is never passed. The culpability of the government is near zero. Now, I am not saying and would not say a free market would prevent this disaster. However, two things would be different:

      a) foreign aid/vessels would be accepted from day one not two months later
      b) money would not have been as wasted with regulatory bodies that fail to prevent disaster regardless

      You nerds don't want freedom, you want security. It is really sad.

    70. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      But they refused the help of those who did (the Dutch). Their boats could only get out something like 98% of the oil and EPA regulations say you can't discharge water back into the Gulf that's less than 99.998% pure or whatever...

      That republican talking point has long since been discounted as a myth. Just lookup "dutch skimmers myth". Just because a radio talk show host said so does not make it so.

    71. Re:How long by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Free reign. Duh.

      This would mean sea-faring pirates which have commandeered the drilling rig to turn it into a floating trading post with card games and women who will have sex for money.

    72. Re:How long by Cow+Jones · · Score: 1

      Alright, I tried to look it up, but came up mostly empty. Most sites actually confirm the version of the story in which EPA regulations prevented the use of Dutch skimmer vessels (it appears that the've been given permission in the meantime).

      So, what's the "myth" about this?
      Citation kindly requested. From a reliable source, if possible.

      CJ

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
    73. Re:How long by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Replace GOP with DNC and you've said the same thing about democrats. Are you really so stupid?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    74. Re:How long by blair1q · · Score: 1

      No, you haven't, and no, I'm not.

      The GOP is a bunch of liars; their lies are designed to garner a political bloc of voters; that those voters are being duped by claptrap and falsehoods does not matter to the GOP, because their goal is not governance, it is directing the revenues of the government to the wealthy.

      That is true of the GOP. Your belief that it is also true of the DNC flies in the face of fact, and is partly or wholly ingrained in you by the propaganda machine being run by the GOP. You're a dupe. Wake the fuck up.

    75. Re:How long by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      The GOP is a bunch of liars; their lies are designed to garner a political bloc of voters; that those voters are being duped by claptrap and falsehoods does not matter to the GOP, because their goal is not governance, it is directing the revenues of the government to the wealthy.

      Strange that the Democrats have been in complete control for 2 years now, and thats exactly what they have done, and on a scale never before seen in the history of mankind.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  6. Not a permanent solution. by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Informative

    Let's hope the fix holds.

    Actually, this isn't meant as a permanent fix at all. This cap is a temporary solution to prevent excessive leakage in the event that a hurricane prevents them from collecting the oil that does escape. They are still going ahead with the relief valves which are intended to be the permanent solution. That said, I do hope the cap holds the oil for as long as necessary.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re:Not a permanent solution. by lmnfrs · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not even close to permanent. The current plan is to monitor "for up to 48 hours before reopening the cap while they decide what to do".

    2. Re:Not a permanent solution. by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Yeah, let's just hope the relief well doesn't blow out. That'd really suck. Really.

    3. Re:Not a permanent solution. by blair1q · · Score: 5, Informative

      here's what I heard:

      1. they capped it.
      2. they closed the cap
      2a. if the pressure suddenly drops, they know the pipe is ruptured below and they are forcing oil into the sea floor, where it will seep up into the sea, meaning the cap is not preventing a leak, just shifting it to the rupture. they will open the cap immediately and work to start pumping oil to the surface.
      2b. if the pressure is high and holding, they will monitor for up to 48 hours it to determine if it is dropping slowly.
      2b(1). if it is, then there is likely a leak below and they will work to start pumping oil to the surface, to keep the pressure in the pipe low while they wait for the relief well to be completed.
      2b(2). if it is not, then the pipe is stable and intact
      2b(2)(i). they may keep the cap in place and wait for the relief well to be completed
      2b(2)(ii). they may work to start pumping oil to the surface while they wait for the relief well to be completed.
      3. when the relief well is completed, they will open the cap, or remove the pumps, and pump concrete into the pipe to cap this wellhead permanently. the relief well will in any case be the production wellhead for this shaft.

      what's really shocking about the whole deal isn't that they had a faulty blowout preventer, it's that they always knew that the pipe and the rock surrounding it were at points not strong enough to contain the pressure in the well. they knew this either before they started drilling or shortly after, and still they drilled all the way to the oil. they knew that there was no way ever to completely cap this well. as soon as they hit the oil, they would have to allow it to flow to keep the pressure low, or it would eventually rupture the pipe and vent the entire oilfield into the seafloor and then to the sea. and, for some reason, they foresaw no reasonable circumstance under which that plan might fail. they believed it not possible that they wouldn't be able to complete the well and pump it continuously, without a problem, without ever having to stop the flow. and they apparently suppressed knowledge of the entire consideration, because anyone looking at the concept would immediately say they were not only courting disaster, but raising it to a high probability of occurring.

      frankly, i think it makes the deaths of those 11 men nothing short of murder.

    4. Re:Not a permanent solution. by TopSpin · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is correct. The cap WILL be reopened in any case. If the well pressure does not build to about 8000 psi they will reopen the cap because this would indicate a bore containment problem. Even if the pressure does build to the proper level 'they' want to perform seismic tests without pressure in the well bore after 48 hours. Finally, if they then decide the well bore and/or formation does not have sufficient integrity the cap will then remain open permanently, otherwise they'll close it again.

      In all cases the cap will be reopened and gush into the Gulf for some period of time, so don't be surprised when it happens. The best case is that the conclusions made from the seismic tests will allow the cap to be closed again relatively quickly.

      If the cap cannot remain closed for whatever reason another containment plan is then used; four different ships are attached to the new cap in various configurations (kill lines, floating risers, etc.) to attempt to recover and/or burn the entire flow from the well.

      A thoughtful reader may ask; why risk the "shut in" (closing the cap) and possible well bore/formation damage when 'they' can just collect/burn all of the flow without closing the cap? The answer is that ships, even big ships, have to escape hurricanes; if a cane blows through and the collection ships have to leave then the well will, once again, flow into the Gulf until the storm passes and the entire multi-ship apparatus can be reconnected. This could take weeks if the storm is uncooperative.

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    5. Re:Not a permanent solution. by maxume · · Score: 1

      Are you going to be sad when they seal up the relief well too?

      They aren't going to use it for production.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Not a permanent solution. by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Please stop throwing the 'murder' term around willy-nilly. It is clearly defined. The deaths of the 11 men is a classic case of manslaughter.

    7. Re:Not a permanent solution. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      The difference is in intent. Not what you protest was your intent, but your actual intent.

      If you know that a situation is statistically deadly, and you know that placing enough people into that dangerous situation enough times leads to a statistical likelihood of their death, and you know you are increasing the danger through your own policies and actions, then your intent is not to keep those people alive, it is to kill them to improve your profit.

      Not negligence; intent. Not manslaughter, murder.

    8. Re:Not a permanent solution. by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Yes, the difference is intent. BP did not set out to kill these men, they set out to make money. They simply didn't care that the men died along the way.

    9. Re:Not a permanent solution. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      They built the dangerous device and placed the men in its way.

      If the device didn't explode the company would make a lot of money.

      If the device did explode the company would make somewhat less money.

      The fact that certain portions of the probability distribution for the results of BP's actions do not include dead people does not mean they are not culpable for murdering those men in the other portions of the probability distribution.

  7. They Deserve No Credit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    They didn't fix it, the deposit just ran out.

  8. Yes it's true, I've confirmed it.... by d474 · · Score: 1

    BP must have stopped the leak, I'm at Wikileaks right now and I don't see any new info from whistle blowers. Must of been the WBOP.

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  9. Re:Thar's oil in them oceans . . . by RobertLTux · · Score: 0, Troll

    and what should be said is not only no but HELL NO in fact both BP and the drilling company should be banned from US waters. (currently online rigs should be forfeited as part of the fines BP will be paying for the next hundred years)

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  10. A low tech solution .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It involved a Dutch boy in a wet suit.

    1. Re:A low tech solution .... by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

      It involved a Dutch boy in a wet suit.

      I put my finger in a dyke last night. She didn't seem to appreciate it very much.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:A low tech solution .... by spun · · Score: 0, Troll

      I can say rug muching, bull-dyking scissor sister. In fact, I just did. And I did put my finger in a dyke once, but I had a guy's dick in my mouth at the time, so I'm not sure if it counts.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  11. BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped by omar.sahal · · Score: 2, Funny

    Rubbish get it from the horse's mouth BPGlobalPR

    1. Re:BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Informative

      Lest anyone is confused, BPGlobalPR is a parody/joke. Not BP. I find it distasteful that they are so angry at BP that they don't even appear to be happy that BP has actually stopped the leak for the time being.

    2. Re:BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gushing leek

      A bumper crop?!?

    3. Re:BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Wow...

      I'll bet whoever that guy is is making a fortune right now. I had a hard time laughing though.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    4. Re:BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Let's say I bomb your country into the stone age. Should I be grateful to you when you stop? Should I be happy if you give me bag of rice?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    5. Re:BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped by rubenerd · · Score: 1

      I find it "distasteful" that a company knowingly cut corners on safety to raise short term gains at such a grave risk. My anger towards that can't begin to compare with what someone says on a silly Twitter account.

      Not trolling, I just find it bewildering that people are willing to come to the defense of BP over such tiny things when we've read all the shenanigans they've been up to. Same goes for Transocean.

      --
      Cheers, ~ Ruben
    6. Re:BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      No shit?

      It boggles my mind how you can even dream of dreaming of thinking you could maybe possibly shortly perhaps assume that any life form, be it moss or even bacterial slurry, could by any chance ever be confused about if this is the actual BP TwittBLARGHerBLARRRGH feed. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    7. Re:BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      I find it "distasteful" that a company knowingly cut corners on safety to raise short term gains at such a grave risk. My anger towards that can't begin to compare with what someone says on a silly Twitter account.

      I don't mean to defend BP. I mean to be sympathetic towards those that the oil spill has hurt and be HAPPY, finally, that the spilling is stopped. Fine, still be mad at BP, but at least be happy that the spill has stopped ... not for the sake of BP, but for the sake of those it is still affecting.

    8. Re:BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      No, you should not be grateful to ME, but you should be grateful.

      I guess the correct response towards BP making progress towards fixing what they caused is more anger and derision. That will make them want to fix it better. Yeah.

      I'm all for holding BP (and other corps) culpable for the damage they cause, etc., but I'm also all for being empathetic to those who it has hurt. I, for one, have found BP finally stopping the leak (at least temporarily) to be extremely welcome news, and I am NOT going to deride them for that progress. Am I upset with they way they handled the drilling and all that? Yes. But I'm not going to blast them for something they did that has actually made a noted difference. That's stupid and rather unsympathetic towards those who have been waiting for it to stop for months.

    9. Re:BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      The correct response towards BP, for starters, would be a prohibition of any further drilling operations until a real inspection is performed on all their equipment and personnel. Plus we have probable cause to seize all documentation and assets until all claims are settled to the satisfaction of all those effected, and there's good reason to add negligent homicide, or even voluntary manslaughter to the charges. That right there would have done a hell of a lot to alleviate a lot of that anger, much of which should be directed at the government for its neglect in the whole affair. Any government official who opposes legal action should be impeached or fired, and charged with obstruction of justice. I hope the anger remains high enough to motivate people to demand real action. I hope it lasts until election time at least. I would hope that people would be angry enough to actually reduce consumption, but I know better than to think that will ever happen. Sometimes anger is a good thing. It just needs proper direction. Keeping the pressure up can only help.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    10. Re: BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped by pauly99 · · Score: 1

      Lets see what happens in the coming weeks. I don't think we can say this has been stopped at this point. Relief wells need to be taken care of first.

      --
      Seeking Private Lenders Who Want To Earn Double Digit Returns On Their Money http://www.private-lenders-wanted.com
  12. So, can we confirm that? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Are we allowed to go there and take pictures now to be sure, or are we going to have to rely on BP's unbelievable honesty and trustworthiness for this statement?

    1. Re:So, can we confirm that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's been a live camera stream at the site for a very long time now. The US government mandated it, and it's been running pretty much nonstop.

    2. Re:So, can we confirm that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we allowed to go there and take pictures now to be sure, or are we going to have to rely on BP's unbelievable honesty and trustworthiness for this statement?

      Sure, just dive right on down with a camera and go to town. A bit deep, though, so you might want flippers.

    3. Re:So, can we confirm that? by black3d · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You say that with sarcasm, but I don't remember them lying at all.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    4. Re:So, can we confirm that? by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Or, you could look at the live video feed that was perfectly honest and trustworthy when it was leaking. I assume you just didn't know about it, hehe.

    5. Re:So, can we confirm that? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what do you call it when they claimed it was only leaking 5k barrels a day?

    6. Re:So, can we confirm that? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      If you can get a camera down 5,000 feet, there's nothing stopping you.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    7. Re:So, can we confirm that? by black3d · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Being wrong. ;) As they discovered more, their estimates went up, and up, and up. The information has always come from them - there were no investigative reporter's in SCUBA gear taking their own flow readings. As the realisation of the issue scope increased, so did the announcements in the volume of the leaks.

      Your problem is the media - if initially BP say that they estimate 5,000 barrels are leaking, then that gets played for 24 hours. Then, 2 days later, when BP increase that estimate to 10,000, the media starts replaying the quote about 5,000 and starts complaining about how incompetent "British Petroleum" is. Then, a week later, when they get cameras down there and BP increases their estimate to 30,000 barrels, the original estimate of 5,000 barrels is still being played, and BP now being labelled "liars", who have been "intentionally misleading the public and the government all along".

      Whether it's 5,000 barrels or 15,000 barrels, lying about it wouldn't reduce BP's cleanup costs. Being wrong doesn't make someone intentionally malicious. Either way, they still have to stop it and pay for it. All the media is tricking you into doing is demonising an enemy because there always has to be a "bad guy" or else how will those same media corporations ever make a movie about it? ;)

      For Slashdot, its surprising how many people side with the media on this one, simply because being able to label it with a decades-old British name makes hating it a Patriotic issue..

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    8. Re:So, can we confirm that? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      That was the Coast Guard's estimate.

    9. Re:So, can we confirm that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh? Your memory's shit or your a lyning sack of shit. What was that about only 1000 barrels leaking a day? Or Only 5000? What's they been forced to admit to now?

  13. Re:Thar's oil in them oceans . . . by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

    I thought I read somewhere that it was an exploratory well that they were planning on abandoning. Just because oil is coming out doesn't mean that it is currently economical to collect it there. If oil exploration continues here, whoever does it would certainly just drill a new well anyway.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  14. Well... by Auto_Lykos · · Score: 4, Informative

    Seeing is believing: http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:45683.asx?bkup=45684 Odds are the feed will cut out after a few seconds with how swamped it is now. Oh and if you're really interested here's one of the bottom of the BOP which is being watched so it doesn't explode. http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:31499.asx?bkup=31500

    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone else has a video feed that doesn't require Windows Media Player?

    2. Re:Well... by Cthefuture · · Score: 1

      It works in Linux with VLC if you cut and paste the URL. I have all the Medibuntu codecs installed but I don't know if that's required.

      --
      The ratio of people to cake is too big
  15. To bad Billy Mays is not around. by Zarf_is_with_you · · Score: 1


    They could have used Mighty Puddy!

    1. Re:To bad Billy Mays is not around. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My solution was similar. It involved plugging it up with Vince Offer.

  16. This about sums up... by pongo000 · · Score: 1
    1. Re:This about sums up... by black3d · · Score: 1

      Dissing a company which doesn't exist? Clever. The majority US-owned company hasn't been "British Petroleum" for several decades now.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    2. Re:This about sums up... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I must say so as well, it's going to be much harder for us environmentalists to push our agenda unless there is an ongoing man made disaster. #%$& you BP for closing this up. I hope it fails so we can proceed with shutting down all drilling and oil related industry.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    3. Re:This about sums up... by gilgongo · · Score: 1

      "F***k you British Petroleum"

      I'm curious: how does the fact that BP happens to be registered in the UK change anything? If it had been Shell, would Americans start calling Shell "Royal Dutch Shell" all of a sudden and start ranting about how the Dutch were awful? Shell is only Dutch because it's registered in Holland. BP is only British because they're registered in the UK. But BP (and indeed Shell) are substantially part-owned by Americans, employ thousands of US citizens in the US, and the drilling operation in question was in partnership with US and Japanese companies.

      If the US president refers to "British Petroleum" when lambasting them, should the British remind Barack Hussein Obama that Union Carbide was an "American" company?

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    4. Re:This about sums up... by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      If the US president refers to "British Petroleum" when lambasting them, should the British remind Barack Hussein Obama that Union Carbide was an "American" company?

      As an American, I say YES . The affected area is pretty much a superfund site and Warren Anderson is still a free man in the US. Dow Chemical Company, which bought Union Carbide, still hasn't paid up what UC owed to the survivors. The injustice is boggling.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

  17. Back to business as usual then... by fantomas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Back to business as usual then. US government will make noises about it clearly being a British conspiracy to destroy America, demand BP gets sued for quadratrillions, gets banned from US trading, say it wouldn't have happened if it was a good ole US oil company from Texas. Local lawyers sue on behalf of local residents for quintillions, combined wealth of ten planet Earths etc. BP puts lawyers on to the case, forms holding company to take over US operations, carries on drilling, settles for a few million ten years from now. Local fishermen out of jobs, local environment messed up for the next 50 years, local lawyers get rich, politicians get promoted and oil companies carry on drilling and make substantial profits every year, held up by US government as fine examples of free market pioneers who are great examples for the world's entrepreneurs. Rinse and repeat.

    1. Re:Back to business as usual then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly right. Minus the "rinse" part. That could take a while.

    2. Re:Back to business as usual then... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Informative

      And you'll still want to drive your car/truck/suv and want cheap gas. You'll want fresh produce brought from far away places via vehicles, boats and planes using the petroleum. Farmed by farm equipment running on petroleum.

      And you'll probably still vote for the people doing this all of this in your name, because thay are better than the other guy. You'll reject tort reforms so the lawyers will still win, or you will support Tort reform and keep victims from suing for bazillions they are owed. You'll own stock in the very companies you hate in your 401k equity funds.

      Yeah, you're right. Back to business as usual.

      My point? We ALL are to blame for this one way or another. Some more so than others. I'm not passing the buck pass BP at all. They surely deserve a lions share of the blame. But so does all the people who are STILL getting in the way of cleaning up this mess. Bill Clinton was right when he said there will be enough time later to play the blame game, and we should have been focusing on the problem 100%.

      On a side note, I'm happy for the relatively good news. Let us hope that it holds.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Back to business as usual then... by blair1q · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're an extremist.

      More likely, Britain will get no blame, BP will get all of the blame and share it with TransOcean and Halliburton. They're already suing each other over it.

      The government will likely have to sue to get the several $billion it has spent on manpower and material to deal with the problem. Many people along the gulf coast directly affected by the problem will likely have to sue as well, since BP has turned over administration of the claims process to a company whose marching orders are to minimize the cost to BP (not "minimize costs due to fraud" but "minimize cost, period").

      Oil drilling will likely resume, but this time it will be under regulations more like the ones used to maintain air safety, and under regulators whose goal is enforcing the regulations, not getting onto private planes with oil men and their teams of hookers.

      What politicians do in their manipulation of public opinion is predictable in scope and unpredictable in magnitude. That's why we have to get new ones ever couple of years.

    4. Re:Back to business as usual then... by funkatron · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Lets hope they get sued for all they're worth. I think that there are two groups of cunts that shouldn't be allowed to piss on my nationality and BP is one of them. The other has an N in their name.

      --
      "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
    5. Re:Back to business as usual then... by fermion · · Score: 1, Troll
      Well, BP did collaborate with terrorists. That is fact, so they are no beyond putting business interests ahead of the well being of the cousins across the pond.

      But I agree that there are cultural and geographical distances that caused BP to really screw up the public relations. For instance, though everyone in Texas knows on which side their bread is buttered, but we like our coast line only as oily as necessary. This means that we likely would not have wasted time trying to save the hole. We like drilling holes. It makes us a lot of money. Recall, the rig was insured. Plug the hole, build a new rig, drill a new hole, a thousand engineers don't lose their jobs. Texas is all about engineering jobs. England is a nation of shopkeepers paranoid about keeping stock, not creating it. Half of BP problems was an unwillingness to give up on the hole.

      Also, Texas would have never given into the fishing and tourists interests. The fishing industry will not admit that they kill more in bycatch and destroy their livelihood by overfishing way more than an oil spill ever will. Let the fishing industry sue for loss of income. As we have seen in the articles, many of them do cash business, so cannot substantiate income, or at least not substantiate without getting in trouble with internal revenue. Louisiana in particular would have a hard time whining given that they support killing sea turtles to get shrimp.

      Of course the tourist industry psychotically believes that it can exist without cheap energy. Florida might make a ruckus in congress, but Texas has the craziest congress people of all. These are the people who complain about the deficit while maximizing it by insuring clear lake always has high paying government jobs, and fighting for contract for their fishing buddies. One word from them and energy goes up 25%. Look at it this way. Texas has it own personal grid. Not hooked up to the national grid. It is like we are the Brits that did not cave into the EU.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    6. Re:Back to business as usual then... by Wolfling1 · · Score: 1

      Sort of... you have to remember that this disaster will cost BP billions. They need to recover that money somehow. Their shareholders won't suck it up. So... you can reasonable expect the price of crude from BPO to rise.

      Mobil, Shell, Caltex, etc will see this as a golden opportunity to do some profiteering.

      Cue the rise in oil prices. Justified by this disaster, and the need for more conscientious (eg expensive) procedures in the future.

      We will pay for this. One way or another, we'll all pay for it.

    7. Re:Back to business as usual then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However British Petrolium hasn't been very British for a VERY long time. The American media are making themselves look like fools by shifting the blame and pretending it is.

      90% American shareholders, problems caused by Americans on American soil (or waters in this case).

      Grow up and take ownership of YOU problems you cowards.

    8. Re:Back to business as usual then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. Not really a prediction, though. Except for some details, the modus operandi is rather old, the one I remember is Union Carbide in India.

    9. Re:Back to business as usual then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do I make my check for Carbon Tax out to? Oh that's right I don't have any checks anymore.

      Cause I don't have a fucking JOB ANYMORE!

    10. Re:Back to business as usual then... by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 1

      Oil drilling will likely resume, but this time it will be under regulations more like the ones used to maintain air safety, and under regulators whose goal is enforcing the regulations, not getting onto private planes with oil men and their teams of hookers.

      You're an optimist.

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
  18. Stock Price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stock price rose 7.5% right after this was announced....

    1. Re:Stock Price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, I bought 500 shares at about $30, now it's $39. I will make a profit off this disaster.

  19. BP Claims Gulf Well Has Been Stopped by omar.sahal · · Score: 1

    Great news!
    It better not be some stupid PR trick. If these guys put a big camera 24/7 next to a gushing leek, so all the people out of work can watch it on 24hr news, could you put it past them

  20. nature by parasite · · Score: 0

    It's about time this idiotic saga ended, it is getting old hearing the same idiots who talk about how good natural food is and decrying everything 'artificial', stop condemning the leak of NATURAL OIL into the sea.

    IT's NATURAL FOLKS, why should it cause any harm?

    1. Re:nature by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >IT's NATURAL FOLKS, why should it cause any harm?

      You won't mind being buried 100 tons of granola and tofu, then? It's all natural, right?
      How about we pump natural raw untreated sewage into your living room? You won't get upset about this, obviously.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:nature by parasite · · Score: 0

      i think you got it backwards man. i'm not a nature boy and DON'T advocate all-natural things. organic food? for the love of god, i hope to be 50% robot in the coming years, the last i need is more organic/natural in me.

  21. Gratuitous conspiracy theory by poly_pusher · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pfffft.... Documentation means nothing. Just look at the amazing work done on the faked moon landing!

    1. Re:Gratuitous conspiracy theory by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      You believe that BP faked the oil accident? Great! I thought I was the only one.

      Now we just need to figure out why they would do such a thing.

    2. Re:Gratuitous conspiracy theory by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      You believe that BP faked the oil accident? Great! I thought I was the only one.

      Now we just need to figure out why they would do such a thing.

      It's obvious: Drive the stock down and buy back the company for pennies. /Muuuuuhahahaha!

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  22. As a contractor... by awjr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I still don't get why this is BP's fault and not the sub-contractor. As a software contractor I have a professional duty to deliver sound good quality code. If not I get sued. At what point is Halliburton or one of the other contractors involved not financially responsible for their poor work.

    1. Re:As a contractor... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Halliburton did do a 'substandard' cementing job, but they immediately told BP that it wouldn't be safe to continue, and they have do fix it. The powers that be at BP decided that it would cost too much to fix, so they'd just go with it.

      Making mistakes is human, ignoring mistakes is criminally negligent.

    2. Re:As a contractor... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Well, can you structure your contracts such that you are not liable to get sued?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:As a contractor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, if they are operating the way most corporations are these days they took the lowest bid and the lowest bids usually come from someone who tends to cut corners, use poor quality materials, hires lower quality workers. BP is also the controller of the project, defining the the target goals, usually the most production for the lowest cost and least amount of time. So, it falls on their shoulders to make sure that things were done correctly.

      You may take it upon yourself to produce a quality product but you're going to have to admit that not everyone operates with such a work ethic.

  23. Re:Thar's oil in them oceans . . . by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 4, Informative

    They weren't abandoning it, no producer in their right mind would abandon a well that can pump out 60,000+ barrels a day, that's a fucking gusher!

    The accident actually occurred while they were capping it with cement - which is done when the exploratory drilling is finished and they want to bring in a production rig.

    Granted, it's the exact same procedure to permanently abandon a well (because they never really abandon them permanently), but a well like that they definitely would produce. The average well in the gulf produces something like 1,800 barrels of oil a day, for a comparison.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  24. Re:Thar's oil in them oceans . . . by BluBrick · · Score: 1

    and what should be said is not only no but HELL NO in fact both BP and the drilling company should be banned from US waters. (currently online rigs should be forfeited as part of the fines BP will be paying for the next hundred years)

    Why's that? So that the next Big Oil Co. that suffers a major leak just walks away from their disaster without even trying to fix it or clean up?

    I can imagine the sentiment in the board meeting going something a little like this:
    How can we justify spending any money on assets that we know will be confiscated? And what incentive do we have to clean up the resulting spill if we are no longer permitted to operate the well? We know it is spewing toxic muck into the sea, but if they're going to seize our wells in the end, they can have the lot now.

    --
    Ahh - My eye!
    The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
  25. Re:Thar's oil in them oceans . . . by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the info.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  26. It had to happen sooner or later by osgeek · · Score: 1

    I assume that the well went dry.

    1. Re:It had to happen sooner or later by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      At the rate it was actually flowing, there was about a year's worth of oil in there.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  27. Don't worry by bonch · · Score: 1

    Going by the pace at which the administration responded to the disaster in the first place, they'll be claiming credit sometime around Christmas.

  28. Oh, Hurrah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now the problem will be to make sure people remember that BP didn't solve a random problem. They solved a problem they created. It's a common cartoon plot; idiot causes problem, idiot finally fixes problem, idiot gets accolades and awards for solving problem because the common crowd have forgotten that the idiot caused the problem in the first place.

    Let's not forget who the original idiots were in this and let them off the hook just because it looks like they've finally stopped the oil.

  29. Pollution by Subm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now we can disperse the oil into the environment through car engines so we won't pollute so much ...

    ... oh wait

    1. Re:Pollution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, go fuck a tree, you goddamned hippy.

  30. Too late, we're all doomed by RobertB-DC · · Score: 0

    Well, according to one article, at least, we're all doomed. To extinction. By an eruption of methane gas that will generate "a towering supersonic tsunami annihilating everything along the coast and well inland".

    I hesitate to even post the URL, but I'm sure the Slashdot folks will give this "ominous report" the debunking it so thoroughly needs:
    Doomsday: How BP Gulf disaster may have triggered a 'world-killing' event

    Perhaps I'm jaded... I grew up in Reagan's 1980s and never ONCE did I see the nuclear annihilation we were all expecting. Promises, promises... I'll believe it when I see the wall of water approaching Dallas.

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. Re:Too late, we're all doomed by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      By an eruption of methane gas that will generate "a towering supersonic tsunami annihilating everything along the coast and well inland".

      It's not just the methane, in the story I read, it's a GIANT UNDERWATER METHANE EXPLOSION!!! One bolt of lighting was going to set it off.

      Except nobody could ever tell me where the oxygen comes from. The ones I asked didn't see what oxygen had to do with it.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Too late, we're all doomed by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure Slashdot actually posted that tripe as an article... is that the same crockpot who wrote this: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/05/13/1953208/Gulf-Gusher-Worst-Case-Scenario ?

    3. Re:Too late, we're all doomed by forceman130 · · Score: 1

      Wow, and over 38,000 people "liked" the article, according to their Facebook counter.

      --
      Wow, a 7 digit ID - let that be a lesson in the perils of procrastination.
    4. Re:Too late, we're all doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fairness (though I'm not all sure why I should bother being fair to that crap), they didn't imply a chemical explosion under the sea -- the "underwater explosion" is the bubble rapidly expanding and rising through the water, and IMO that's a correct, if colloquial, usage of "explosion". Then they also talked about methane dispersed in the atmosphere (where it would mix with plenty of oxygen) being an explosive gas, and at risk from lightning bolts.

      Now to rid myself of the dirty feeling for defending them, I offer this quote for general entertainment & mocking: "Whereas pure methane is lighter than air, methane loaded with water droplets is much heavier, and thus spreads over the land, mixing with air in the process (and losing water as rain)."
      Because we all know that a lighter-than air gas won't diffuse upward into the air, until the heavier-than-air water droplets combine and sink; they're magically bound into a single horizontally diffusing, but vertically stratified SILENT KILLER FART FROM HELL!

  31. Among all the "skeptics*" out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how many of you mouthpieces have done anything about your oil consumption? As customers of the industry we all bear some of the burden here.

    And no, boycotting BP doesn't count. If you think it does you don't understand the oil industry.

    * While I call them skeptics the fact is that most of them are outright trolls being modded up because partisan politics sell.

    1. Re:Among all the "skeptics*" out there... by Khyber · · Score: 0

      "I wonder how many of you mouthpieces have done anything about your oil consumption?"

      Quite a bit, on my end, anyways. I've cut my lighting power by 70%. I design energy-efficient hydroponics systems. I'm working on low-energy solutions that make it possible for man to live in space.

      WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:Among all the "skeptics*" out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because we're consuming so much oil in space today. Get a clue, bitch.

    3. Re:Among all the "skeptics*" out there... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I've got more of a clue than you when I've got a NASA contract for supplies and research.

      Come back when you've got a clue about how much energy went into producing the fuel to put our asses in space.

      Then bear in mind my panels cost less to put into space, purely by virtue of weight alone.

      I think you're the one without a clue. Maybe when you actually talk to NASA, you can make a worth-while statement.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  32. Re:Thar's oil in them oceans . . . by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

    I thought I read somewhere that it was an exploratory well that they were planning on abandoning. Just because oil is coming out doesn't mean that it is currently economical to collect it there. If oil exploration continues here, whoever does it would certainly just drill a new well anyway.

    That's not really how it works. Yes, the well was 'exploratory' in that they were not sure they could get oil out of that particular place. But what they were doing before they fucked up big time was 'closing' the well: Sealing it off until they could bring out the production crews who would place pipelines to the feeder system (they have to collect it somehow and just spilling it into the ocean appears to have a bunch of problems associated with it) and the various bits and pieces that make up a production well.

    But if the relief wells go as planned, they will pump mud down to stop the flow and then cement the thing closed. Theoretically, there isn't anything that would prevent BP (or somebody else) from drilling another well into the same formation and starting the process over, but that seems politically unwise.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  33. Great! but... by multimediavt · · Score: 0

    Ok, they got the well capped, FINALLY! I guess that's one thing less to worry about, but there's still the clean up and the decades (if not centuries) of ecological and economical recovery. But, of course, the media will now pack up and move on to the next sensational story and the mess will be forgotten in two weeks, until they come back around a year later to do a follow up story. If they ever do...

  34. one down... by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

    now fix the other leaks in the gulf, cuz there isn't just this one, sole pipe that needed capping.

    --
    ...
  35. 30 days per spill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the costs this spill has generated (closing, fishing, environment) should be included in the costs of oil before concluding it is cheaper than other energy sources.

  36. Unreadiness for Spills by catchblue22 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Any success that BP may or may not have in this endeavor does not change the fact that they should have had methods to cap a blowout ready before they started drilling. The fact that this well has been gushing for months is simply unacceptable. The keystone cops spectacle of Top-Hat, Hot-Tap, Junk Shot (tm) is strong evidence that BP didn't devote any significant resources to dealing with a deep water blowout. Strong regulation of these rogue corporations is needed. They should not be able to drill without having capping equipment and emergency tankers ready at dock.

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    1. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by cj_nologic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Any success that BP may or may not have in this endeavor does not change the fact that they should have had methods to cap a blowout ready before they started drilling. The fact that this well has been gushing for months is simply unacceptable. The keystone cops spectacle of Top-Hat, Hot-Tap, Junk Shot (tm) is strong evidence that BP didn't devote any significant resources to dealing with a deep water blowout. Strong regulation of these rogue corporations is needed. They should not be able to drill without having capping equipment and emergency tankers ready at dock.

      sed 's/BP/the oil industry/g'

      I didn't see any of the other large multinationals drilling in the area jumping in and offering their solutions. This gung-ho approach is not restricted to BP, it's endemic in the culture of the oil industry, and all the other companies are looking on grateful it wasn't them that got "unlucky".

      Just wait until this happens in Alaska or somewhere where it's a trifle more difficult to get to with the relief equipment.

      I'm off down to the local planetarium to put a down-payment on a new planet for my kids. They're going to need it.

    2. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by timmarhy · · Score: 1, Interesting
      your comment is pretty typical of the junk reporting on this issue and the lack of understanding of what really happened.

      BP had the industry standard blind shear ram installed on the well. this device cuts through the drill pipe and seals off the well for good - as long as the 2 blades meet. when the blow out came, the operators found they couldn't control the pressure so they hit the fail safe and the jaws on the shears started to close, but stopped short of sealing the well.

      the reasons for why this failed are unknown, and it's probably a valid critisism that BP should have had 2 fail safes not just one, though i'd make the point everyone is an expert in hindsight.

      but to say BP had no safe guards and to call them a rogue corporation is just plain bullshit, and makes you more dishonest then the company your attacking.

      having emergency tankers "ready" at the dock (whatever that is supposed to be) is a useless idea. whats the tanker supposed to do after it arrives? not to mention that it'll take days for a tanker to get there at best anyway.

      it's also an outright lie to say BP haven't invested significant resources in dealing with the blowout. they have spent over 3 billion and deployed 22,000 people to try contain the spill, and they are still up for billions more. i'm not sure what circles you travel in but i'd consider billions of dollars significant.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    3. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by abundance · · Score: 5, Informative

      "The reasons for why this failed" are not so unknown, since it's known that the welhead's blowout preventer had gone under repair and maintenance works that were identified as inadequate, exposing to the risk of BOP's failure, in a note that a BP's contractor sent to BP management.

      There were also internal notes about the probable inadequacy of the wellhead cement casing, and various reports about dangerous shortcuts took in the operations of the drill in the days preceding the incident, which were protested by the drill workers.

      :/

    4. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by catchblue22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it's also an outright lie to say BP haven't invested significant resources in dealing with the blowout. they have spent over 3 billion and deployed 22,000 people to try contain the spill, and they are still up for billions more. i'm not sure what circles you travel in but i'd consider billions of dollars significant.

      Straw man much? I didn't say that BP hadn't invested any money in fixing this. I said that BP hadn't invested significant resources BEFORE the blowout.

      having emergency tankers "ready" at the dock (whatever that is supposed to be) is a useless idea. whats the tanker supposed to do after it arrives? not to mention that it'll take days for a tanker to get there at best anyway.

      What I actually said/meant was that there should be tankers AND equipment to straddle a broken pipe, the same type of equipment that they have just finished building and installing. My point is that this shouldn't be trial and error. As a condition of drilling, they should have already invested in recovery methods before they begin. As for your comment about it taking days for the emergency tankers to arrive, oil has been gushing for 3 months! Even if the tankers were docked in Europe, it would only take a couple of weeks or so at full steam to arrive at the gulf. That is significantly less than 3 months.

      Your post doesn't make sense, and you will forgive me if I write you off as a corporate drone.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    5. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      To true. Anytime men's lives are at stake, there should be redundant backup plans in place before the men arrive. In this case, more than just a dozen lives were at stake. It's hard to establish an exchange rate - but the pollution in the gulf, and the damage that will last for decades far outweighs a few human deaths. Most definitely, the tools necessary to contain and control a catastrophic blowout should be onhand long before the drilling gets close to the reservoir.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    6. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by aliquis · · Score: 1

      It's not the first time they make "mistakes" and most likely not the last, for instance:
      http://www.google.com/search?q=ecuador+texaco+oil

    7. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by aliquis · · Score: 1

      But in what industry do we see companies/people actually investing in putting everything back?

      Carbon capture (yeah right ..)?
      Mining?
      Water dams?
      Deforestation?
      Farming?
      Nuclear power?

      Do any consumers try to?

      In the cases of surface mining but also to quite some extent farming/deforestation I think it suck balls because the ones doing it earn money and afterward everyone else is left with a useless pile of broken stones / much crappier soil.

      Preferably compost and sewage waste would get back to the areas and plenty of trees and non-straight natural ditches/creeks/rivers with less manufactured fertilizers.

    8. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Any success that BP may or may not have in this endeavor does not change the fact that they should have had methods to cap a blowout ready before they started drilling.

      Oh, give'em a break! Everyone knows BP lacks capping methods for anything worse than a coffee spill. ;-)

    9. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Informative

      I didn't see any of the other large multinationals drilling in the area jumping in and offering their solutions.

      Well, you can't really offer to build the well correctly after the fact, now can you?

      Other countries require safeguards to already be in place before the well goes into production. We could have required an acoustic dead-man switch, or relief wells to be in place, before the well went into production. If they had been in place, we would have already had the solution when the wellhead blew.

      Brazil and Norway require these acoustic switches. If the oil companies don't want to do it on their own, we can just require them to do it.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    10. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 2, Informative

      As far as the deforestation is concerned, [from an unverified source] I've been told that in the Pacific Northwest, Weyerhaeuser will replant 5 trees for every 1 they cut down, knowing that 2-3 probably won't make it. They already own the land, at that point it becomes a farm with a 25-year crop cycle.

      And I don't know how long you've been involved in farms, but in the Midwest if you want to continue farming (and turning a profit) after more than one crop, you need to till the soil and replenish the nutrients such as nitrogen using fertilizer and crop rotation. If farmers didn't do that, the world would have run out of Wheaties and Cheerios back in the 50's.

    11. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Troll

      how about you read what i posted and stop misquoting me - i said it's unknown why the jaws on the shear didn't close. i'm happy to be proven wrong on this with a credible link that deals with the actual events and isn't just a BP hate blah blah blah blog post.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    12. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by catchblue22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      BP built the initial chamber that was lowered onto the well from scratch. And it failed, because it was an experiment. They built the top hat system from scratch, and it failed because it was an experiment. They have tried numerous methods to fix this gusher and they have failed. Finally we are starting to see a more robust system being put in place. But even this system was almost certainly built from scratch.

      My point is that coming up with the processes to fix a gushing well from scratch while the oil is flowing is not a good approach. There should have been in place devices and systems to deal with such a disaster. They should have been designed, built and ready, before the disaster. Given the repeated failure of their initial attempts, it seems very likely that they did not devote significant thought (BEFORE THE EXPLOSION) to what would happen if their blowout preventer failed in such a disastrous fashion. That is unforgivable.

      Oh, and in my original post, I specifically used the phrase "...before they started drilling..." in the first sentence. The next phrase "... BP didn't devote any significant resources..." is clearly referring to the same "before explosion" period. I even put "before" in italics.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    13. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by delire · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They've got a lot of catching up to do, 26% of land area on earth is used for grazing, not to mention an area almost as large to grow grains to feed cows. Large tracts of land are being dehydrated as water is pumped in from elsewhere to feed these cattle. It takes 7000lbs of water just to produce 7lbs of feedlot grain which in turn is sufficient to grow 1lb of beef.

      The impact of the oil and automobile industries are small concerns in comparison. If you want to help the planet, eat less (ideally no) meat.

    14. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      Don't blame everything on BP - there were a couple of American companies involved as well. But hey - if you can blame the foreigner, do! It is however a known fact, that BP is one of the worst when it comes to maintenance, not only in GOM but we have the same issue in the North Sea as well.

      Just remember one thing - BP wasn't alone when it happened, but they solved it by themselves.

      --
      This is blinging
    15. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by sectoidman · · Score: 5, Informative

      The acoustic dead-man's switch wouldn't have been any help, since it's linked to the same valve on the BOP that failed even when they sent robots to manually shut it down. And, that valve failed because of an accident that happened some weeks before that destroyed the annulus seals: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197_page4.shtml. I agree that the relief wells should be required for this kind of eventuality, but if BP hadn't been criminally negligent in maintaining its equipment, this never would have happened.

    16. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by afidel · · Score: 1

      There are ~402 Trillion acre feet of water in the smallest of the great lakes, it takes ~2 acre feet to produce 12,000lbs of grain which is enough to create 1714lbs of beef by your numbers so just Lake Erie has enough water to make 689,028 trillion lbs of beef or enough to feed each person in the world 100 million pounds of beef. Claiming that water is a reason to go vegan/vegetarian is just asinine. Energy for fertilizer on the other hand might be a more compelling argument.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    17. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by quanticle · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm happy to be proven wrong with a credible link that deals with the actual events...

      How about this? In that story, a survivor of the disaster is interviewed. He talks about how several components of the blowout preventer were damaged by accidents in the weeks preceding the explosion. Rather than stopping to repair the blowout preventer, though, British Petroleum chose to continue drilling. They did so because the rig was already behind schedule and over budget. If this witness' allegations are substantiated, it'd be a damning indictment of British Petroleum. They deliberately chose to sacrifice safety in the pursuit of profit. They did so over the warnings and objections of their own employees.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    18. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What I actually said/meant was that there should be tankers AND equipment to straddle a broken pipe, the same type of equipment that they have just finished building and installing. My point is that this shouldn't be trial and error. As a condition of drilling, they should have already invested in recovery methods before they begin. As for your comment about it taking days for the emergency tankers to arrive, oil has been gushing for 3 months! Even if the tankers were docked in Europe, it would only take a couple of weeks or so at full steam to arrive at the gulf. That is significantly less than 3 months.

      The standard is a blowout preventer, which works just fine. In this case, it was the blowout preventer that was damaged. BP's failure was more likely the result of cost-cutting measures of not ensuring that their equipment was up to standard, and not that they didn't have loads of additional precautionary emergency support.

      BP will probably go under on account of this. It was their fault that they weren't following regulation, for if they had, none of this would have happened.

      Your post doesn't make sense, and you will forgive me if I write you off as a corporate drone.

      This part makes me more inclined to write you off.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    19. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by afidel · · Score: 1

      I don't think most American's are blaming BP because they are British, I think they are blaming them because they are a huge corporation with ginormous profits that have done everything possible to avoid proactively stopping something like this from happening. When you are making 10's of Billions each year and not spending the millions it would cost to run your business in a safer manner it's borderline criminal, and in cases like this where that negligence leads to the worst destruction of nature in human history it really SHOULD be criminal.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    20. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      ...but to say BP had no safe guards and to call them a rogue corporation is just plain bullshit...

      Oooo... another apologist on the attack! So this isn't rogue enough for you? They invested a lot more in covering up than anything else.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    21. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by uassholes · · Score: 1

      Then the solution is to get everyone in Australia, western U.S., Iran, Phillipines, China, Indian, Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Mexico and Pakistan, Yemen, Balochistan; dozens of other areas where agriculture or aquaculture is depleting the aquafers, to move to Ohio.

    22. Re:Unreadiness for Spills by afidel · · Score: 1

      Or you know, don't overpopulate areas where water is a scarce resource and don't grow water intensive plants like cotton in the desert.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  37. People can be as bad as corportations. by uncqual · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are plenty of people who run small, unincorporated, business that show little empathy and even actively defraud people and shirk their responsibilities. Many of these individuals are far less responsible than "big corporations" -- mostly because they lack oversight by a BOD, by investors, by a multitude of people in the company, and by regulators.

    I've known individuals who ran their own small, unincorporated, business that were the most amoral people I know.

    If you've ever tried to collect money that you are legally owed, even with a judgment, you will probably know what I mean.

    The notion that "corporations are bad" and that individuals are better (showing more empathy, morality, ethics etc.) is largely a fantasy IMHO.

    --
    Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    1. Re:People can be as bad as corportations. by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The corporate structure of limited liability creates a climate of diffused responsibility. The emergent behavior of corporations is sociopathic, even if there are no sociopaths in positions of any power.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:People can be as bad as corportations. by victorhooi · · Score: 1

      heya,

      Yeah, I'd have to agree with you there.

      My father runs a small engineering business and he's had plenty of dealings with dodgy people who don't want to payup.

      You're right, at least with big companies, you have shareholders, and regulatory oversight, as well as the threat of bad publicity. Whereas a small-time operator can just close shop and disappear. And it's not like the papers report on every single small-business that cheats, or goes under.

      Also, in a big corporation, every person is a cog in the big machine - at the end of the day, they usually get their paycheque. It's not like a sole proprietor, who tries to save a few cents here and there, and knows it's all his own money on the line. Even the shareholders, who are ultimately the ones to benefit most from revenues/profits - their voting is on record, and it's usually an open forum between them.

      Cheers,
      Victor

    3. Re:People can be as bad as corportations. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Smaller operations are easier to stop. They are more limited in the scope of evil they can achieve.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:People can be as bad as corportations. by uncqual · · Score: 1

      If we got rid of corporations, most big stuff wouldn't be possible, so to some extent, I agree.

      However, imagine if every well in the GOM was drilled by a different bunch of investors. That would much harder to regulate (if, for some reason, MMS suddenly decided to actually regulate). If a rag tag bunch of investors had scraped together $90M to drill the well and it went BOOM, where would the $10 billion to clean this mess up come from? One can't get blood from a stone and individuals will risk their entire fortune in hopes of a windfall.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    5. Re:People can be as bad as corportations. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So wait, this clown posts basically the exact same post twice, and he gets modded up both times for it? What's wrong with the moderators these days? You should't get modded up for posting the same drivel multiple times. Learn to fucking read before you spend your mod points ffs.

    6. Re:People can be as bad as corportations. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. So in your view, EVERYONE is bad, huh?

    7. Re:People can be as bad as corportations. by spun · · Score: 1

      Boo to the motherfucking hoo, babycakes. Bitter much?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    8. Re:People can be as bad as corportations. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Sounds a lot like the instances in NY or other large cites where someone gets raped in the middle of the subway during the day or laying injured from a stabbing in the street in broad daylight and not one of the hundreds of people do anything.

      Apparently the phenomena happens when everyone thinks everyone else is going to do something about it, with the end result being no one does anything.

    9. Re:People can be as bad as corportations. by spun · · Score: 1

      That's one type of diffusion of responsibility. Another kind is the 'just following orders' concept, then we have the 'but everyone's doing it' echo chamber type, where evil is gradually normalized. And then we have all the investors, who are free to profit from blatantly criminal activities without having to even acknowledge their part in the system.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    10. Re:People can be as bad as corportations. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Blinded by profits seems an apt phrase.

      Even those suckers in ponzi schemes it is a slippery slide. I mean as much as they call themselves victims, etc... however they were involved in an illegal operation... and profited for many years from it usually.

      When you are magically making 20% returns and the rest of the world is making 3%, and then you "suddenly" figure out after 20 years it was all a scam?

      I have some sympathy, but not much.

    11. Re:People can be as bad as corportations. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Also then to sue for all the money you "lost"... that you obtained illegally....absurd.

  38. Re:Thar's oil in them oceans . . . by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    lol. That was an excellent parody of the environuts! You just forgot to suggest that we abandon all vehicles, install solar panels, start raising vegetables on our balconies, and legalize marijuana. Otherwise, PERFECT!

  39. So why by cervo · · Score: 1

    Why don't they have to have relief wells partially drilled before drilling the main well? It seems like if you could cut the work down from months to a week or so it would be a lot better (although a week of this thing gushing in the ocean would still a disaster...).

    Anyway maybe people should bet on how long the cap will last before it starts leaking lower in the well, or something else happens... Call my bookie!!!!

    1. Re:So why by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Because there is no need to. With a BOP, you need minutes to close the well. It just so happens that this crappy BOP design has a single point of failure in its supposedly-redundant hydraulic system. This spill belongs to the design team of that BOP and nobody else. It was a stupid decision that never should have made it out of the building.

    2. Re:So why by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Let's say you drill a relief well for each producing well. Um well these relief wells can blow out too. So you need a relief well relief well too. But that can blow out too....

      I think you get the picture.

    3. Re:So why by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      A partially drilled relief well can't blow out. Can it?

  40. Re:Thar's oil in them oceans . . . by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    ...should be banned from US waters...

    That's a contingency they did plan for...

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  41. It'll get buried by realxmp · · Score: 1

    After the public anger had died down I suspect the US gov will bury this. There is no longer very much "British" left in BP. US shareholders hold approximately 40odd% same as UK shareholders. They also have about twice as many US employees as UK. Basically what happened was BP took over a hoard of the old US oil companies (including some of the old standard oil spinoffs) using money from their old middle east operations. Voilla Instant US oil company.

  42. Mop up ? by speedlaw · · Score: 1

    Now all they need to do is stonewall claims until the claimants give up.

    1. Re:Mop up ? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Now all they need to do is stonewall claims until the claimants give up.

      James Hardie could recomend some good lawyers.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  43. A remarkably factual summary for Slashdot. by John+Hasler · · Score: 0

    n/t

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  44. More "Oh Noes !1!!" noise - Article is wrong. by zooblethorpe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Debunking requested? Sure! :)

    I hesitate to even post the URL, but I'm sure the Slashdot folks will give this "ominous report" the debunking it so thoroughly needs: Doomsday: How BP Gulf disaster may have triggered a 'world-killing' event

    Interesting link, albeit woefully flawed. The beginning, emphasis mine:

    Ominous reports are leaking past the BP Gulf salvage operation news blackout that the disaster unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico may be about to reach biblical proportions.

    251 million years ago a mammoth undersea methane bubble caused massive explosions, poisoned the atmosphere and destroyed more than 96 percent of all life on Earth. [1] Experts agree that what is known as the Permian extinction event was the greatest mass extinction event in the history of the world. [2]

    55 million years later another methane bubble ruptured causing more mass extinctions during the Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum (LPTM).

    The LPTM lasted 100,000 years. [3]

    Those subterranean seas of methane virtually reshaped the planet when they explosively blew from deep beneath the waters of what is today called the Gulf of Mexico.

    Here's a pic of the world's land masses around 255 mya, and another of around 237 mya. Here's a pic from close to the 55 million years later mentioned in the article above, around 195 mya.

    In none of these scenarios is the current Gulf of Mexico a body of water. This would seem to rule out any sort of clathrate-based "sea fart", at least from that specific region.

    Moreover, the two events the article mentions aren't quite right. The first is the Permian-Triassic extinction, indeed around 251 mya, but the cause is still debated, with one of the leading explanations being a combination of factors that include one or more impact events.

    The second event is dated in the article at 55 million years after the Permian-Triassic extinction, or around 196 mya. However, the Paleocene didn't even begin until around 65 mya. What the article author was probably thinking about was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, dated to around 55 mya. One of the theories for the cause of the PETM is indeed that methane clathrates may have destabilized, causing a runaway greenhouse effect, until the poles were warm enough for palm trees and sea turtles. However, the PETM isn't associated with any mass extinction -- the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction happened 65 mya when the geologic K-T boundary was laid down in the rock, and is again theorized to be due mainly to one or more impact events. Note in the pic here that the Gulf of Mexico is indeed a body of water by this time, but rather than being the source of any clathrate fart, it is instead noted as the location of the Chicxulub crater, theorized to be the kicker that killed the dinosaurs.

    So basically, as disruptive as any sustained "sea fart" might be, the article you linked is full of bunkum and misinformation. And that's just in the intro.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
    1. Re:More "Oh Noes !1!!" noise - Article is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >55 million years later [than 251 million years ago] another methane bubble ruptured causing
      >more mass extinctions during the Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum (LPTM)."

      "Here's a pic of the world's land masses around 255 mya, and another of around 237 mya. Here's a pic from close to the 55 million years later mentioned in the article above, around 195 mya."

      Yes, you're right. The article confused "55 million years ago" with "55 million after the ~251 million Permian/Triassic extinction". The Paleocene/Eocene boundary isn't even a particularly large extinction event. It isn't one of the "big 5" largest ones.

      Anyway, such a basic error gives you some idea of how reliable the rest of the nonsense at that site is, but it just gets worse and worse. 100000 psi in the well? Uh, no. It was measured in the well as it was drilled. It's ~11000-13000psi at the depth of the reservoir. Even if it was 100000 psi it would never have stayed that way under natural conditions because that would have been strong enough to fracture the rock and leak off, thus reducing the pressure. It's simply impossible. Like trying to pressurize a water bed to 1000 psi. Leaks of oil and gas at the sea floor? Uh, no, it's nothing but confused people making guesses when they see some mud stirred up by the ROVs when they take off from the bottom. Bulging of the sea floor over thousands of square miles? This one makes even less sense. If the BP well poked a hole into some (impossibly) high-pressured reservoir and started leaking out fluids the sea bed should be *sagging*down* as the gas and oil are released, not inflating.

      The guy sourced for some of this stuff, Matt Simmons, is described in the media as an "expert" in oil and gas. He is -- in oil and gas supply/demand estimates and *finances*. He's not a geologist or oceanographer, but for some reason the news media love the insane stuff he's been claiming over the last few months (like the "100000 psi"), and label him as an "oil and gas expert" as if that makes him qualified in all areas of the subject.

      As spectacular as it is, the BP leak is too small to have a global effect even if it were left for a few years at the current rate. And the current rate wouldn't be sustained for years anyway because eventually the reservoir will partially deplete, pressures will drop, and the rates will steadily slow.

      Anyone with half a brain that looked at the history of the Ixtoc-1 well in the 1970s, also in the Gulf of Mexico and also a sub-sea blowout on the scale of millions of barrels (~3 million), would realize that didn't lead to a 'world killing' event, so why should this one be any different?

      That whole site is loopy hyperbole and things that don't make any scientific sense, neatly collected together into a nice bit of hype. It's a good example of a media trend already noticed by xkcd. The reporting for this event is another disaster.

  45. what gives? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    Seriously, this isn't about whether big or small corporations are good or bad in the abstract. This is about a massive crime committed by a specific corporation who will by and large escape responsibility for their actions. If an individual made a mess like this they'd be in jail and they'd be disallowed from profiting even indirectly from their crimes. Limited liability means this will never happen here but I don't see why not. This is a huge ecological and economic disaster. If we had any sense we'd seize all of the company's assets in the Gulf and use those assets to deal with the disaster they caused. Any of the execs who wants to stay out of jail can do so by working full time to clean up the mess. Call me a fucking socialist if it makes you feel better but as far as I'm concerned this is exactly the kind of thing that we have eminent domain powers for. Don't like it? Don't drill holes in our ocean floor. I'm glad they're finally capping it after months of spewing oil into the gulf, but there's no reason it should have taken this long.

    1. Re:what gives? by styrotech · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm glad they're finally capping it after months of spewing oil into the gulf, but there's no reason it should have taken this long.

      This I don't get. Sure appalling incompetence/greed/irresponsibility etc lead to the disaster, but to imply that they dragged out fixing the problem without any reason doesn't make any sense.

      Why on earth would they deliberately squander huge sums of money every day the leak went on and allow that growing damage to their image after the event? Once it had happened, it was definitely in BPs best interest to fix the leak as soon as possible. If it really was that easy to fix and someone else was capable of doing so (as you seem to think so), don't you think the govt would've forced the issue?

    2. Re:what gives? by pinkushun · · Score: 1

      This!

      TFA:

      As of Thursday, the 86th day of the disaster, between 93.5 million and 184.3 million gallons of oil had spewed into the Gulf

      That's a *huge* range, it just shows how ignorant everyone, with how much damage has been done. It's probably much worse than we think, or can imagine. :-(

    3. Re:what gives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad they're finally capping it after months of spewing oil into the gulf, but there's no reason it should have taken this long.

      This I don't get. Sure appalling incompetence/greed/irresponsibility etc lead to the disaster, but to imply that they dragged out fixing the problem without any reason doesn't make any sense.

      Why on earth would they deliberately squander huge sums of money every day the leak went on and allow that growing damage to their image after the event? Once it had happened, it was definitely in BPs best interest to fix the leak as soon as possible. If it really was that easy to fix and someone else was capable of doing so (as you seem to think so), don't you think the govt would've forced the issue?

      Of course once the accident happened BP wanted to get it over quickly, but it's been vary clear that they had absolutely no effective plan prepared beforehand on how to accomplish this! Instead it's been 85 days of desperate, almost spur-of-the-moment, schemes.

      On the other hand, if they had made serious attempts to plan and prepare for an accident like this in the Gulf of Mexico capping the well probably wouldn't have taken so long. For the cost very likely less than 0.001% of their total expenses to-date BP could have done serious study, planning, and preparations prior to this event, and even if it only halved the time to cap the well it would have been better for BP, everyone who lives on the Gulf Coast, and the regional ecology of this part of the Gulf of Mexico. This is what I take the GP's "but there's no reason it should have taken this long" to mean, not that the delay was all part of some bizarre plot by BP.

  46. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, your questions are WEAK!

    I do not drive a car to work. Rain or shine, I use my currently 12-year old bicycle.
    I use reusable shopping bags (cotton, made in the USA).
    I recycle. I probably miss a few things, but I try my best.
    I do not have air conditioning. I suffer through 100+F some days of the year.

    I still think the earth would be better off with me dead.

    Your question should've been, "are you a human, alive and breathing?"

  47. Not a production well by TheMeuge · · Score: 1

    I know you won't let facts interfere with your words, but repeat after me:
    "This was not a production well"

    Repeat it like 500 times and see if that sinks in. The well that blew was an exploration well. Nobody was trying to suckle on it to sell the few barrels of oil they managed to capture. It wasn't the goal of BP, or anyone else.

    BP are guilty of a lot of things in this mess: inadequate safety mechanisms, excessive micromanagement of the drilling team by corporate, ensuring poor oversight by the regulatory commission.

    There's a lot you could talk about. There really is no need to invent more reason to hate "corporations". It just makes you look like a dumb disingenuous hippie.

    1. Re:Not a production well by spun · · Score: 1

      Does it make me look like a dumb disingenuous hippie? With +5 insightful? Must be a bunch of us dumb disingenuous hipppies out there. Does it burn, just a little, knowing your opinion of me is not shared by anyone?

      Who said I said this was a production well? You fail reading comprehension, too.

      And talking about how corporations diffuse responsibility and turn ordinary people into soviopathic decision makers is important. In fact, it is one of the more important issues of our times.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Not a production well by TheMeuge · · Score: 1

      Does it make me look like a dumb disingenuous hippie? With +5 insightful?

      Are you serious? Are you really saying that 3 people modding you on Slashdot makes your point a valid one?

      Must be a bunch of us dumb disingenuous hipppies out there.

      There are indeed.

    3. Re:Not a production well by spun · · Score: 1

      Three people? How many insightful mods have I gotten this thread? More than three, by a long shot.

      But you still haven't addressed the issues I raised, merely continued your baseless and disjointed yammering. We get it. You don't like how I think. Do some of your own thinking if you don't like it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  48. Re:Thar's oil in them oceans . . . by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

    [...] Sealing it off until they could bring out the production crews who would place pipelines to the feeder system (they have to collect it somehow and just spilling it into the ocean appears to have a bunch of problems associated with it) and the various bits and pieces that make up a production well.

    I don't know if it's necessary, but to clarify: Deepwater Horizon is a drilling rig, not a production rig. Once the well was plugged, the rig would have moved on to another drilling location. A separate, production rig would have then been brought out to that location to reopen the well and begin collection.

    --
    People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
  49. Re:Thar's oil in them oceans . . . by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

    Deepwater Horizon is a drilling rig [...]

    Err... was. :o/

    --
    People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
  50. Yes by daninaustin · · Score: 1

    It has nothing to do with the oil companies. It's almost all tax.

  51. But... by rjiy · · Score: 0

    Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom. This makes me very angry, very angry indeed.

  52. One Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a corporation ever does a crime it never does the time.

  53. will get severer by notony · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's the wost oil spill event in USA history/ chi flat iron , chi hair strighteners
    chi hair straighteners , chi flat iron
    chi nano ceramic flat iron , chi nano ceramic flat iron
    [url=http://www.superflatiron.com]chi hair straighteners[/url] chi hair straighteners [url=http://www.superflatiron.com]chi flat iron[/url] chi flat iron

  54. Re:Thar's oil in them oceans . . . by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, the barrier rock now has a bunch of pin pricks in it. If they drain the reservoir, there won't be any oil under those wells to spill....

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  55. A Bridge Too Far ? ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonderfull job BP Engineers!

    Yet. If the pressure beneath the well-head exceeds the pressure by the Cap (75 Tonns), then she spews!

    How much time before that?

    Seems the current solution has bought some time ... but is this "time" enought? ... before the final solution, or extinction of Homo Sapians.

  56. Eheh by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Follow the OTHER news story about BP. How they lobied to have the Lockebee bomber released so they could geta contract from Libie. How the doctor that diagnosed him now suddenly claims he made a "mistake".

    Money talks. BP is run by greedy assholes and we are letting them get away with it.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  57. Theres two ways to look at the gulf oil spill, by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

    There are two ways to look at this spill. One. Selective pressure was put on the gulf's wildlife and the end result will be a more hardy set of lifeforms. Or Two, humanity has just fucked the shit out of another food resource so they in effect screwed themselves.

    --
    That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    1. Re:Theres two ways to look at the gulf oil spill, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or three, humanity just fucked the shit out of another food resource, so they put selective pressure on themselves, and the end result will be either a hunger-resistant population, or just one that's good at stealing other people's food.

  58. Free Your Mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cheers Victor,

    Your posts seem to imply that unless one can completely remove themselves from modern society and make it on their own without electricity or oil than they are some kind of enviromoral poseur and that small efforts or even idealogical positions towards sustainability are worthless .

    It is obvious to all but the obtuse that we are and destroying webs of life that have arisen over extremely long cycles of time. You seem like a smart person - don't put your gifts to use HATING on individuals who are making efforts against what you know to be true but believe to be impossible.

    Ascetics have already given their gifts to humanity (and will continue to in some regard). But, NOW is a time for integration and a radically new idea of co-operation. This could be 10, 20, 30, or 50 years (who really knows are capacity to change) but the efforts that will build momentum toward this point are already happening now - and yes, that includes using renewable shopping bags and recycling your waste while we wait for convenience to acquire its proper economic value.

  59. Meh by heteromonomer · · Score: 1

    The well must've run out of oil. Now all they had to do was just drop a cap on top of it. Easy peasy.

  60. He shoots, he scores! by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    Heh, and you win the internets...

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  61. anyone know? by Ibetthisisvalid · · Score: 0

    I heard that BP were looking at drilling another oil well, pretty damn close to the one they haven't even fixed just after they have 'repaired' it. Where will BP strike next?!

  62. Re:Whew - should be higher still by N+Monkey · · Score: 1

    Not all taxes. California also has excessive regulation. There is a reason for the huge price drop when you cross state lines out of California.

    Judging by the brown tint in air around LA (easily noticeable as you fly in) seems to me the price difference is not big enough.

  63. We are missing the larger picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ominous reports are leaking past the BP Gulf salvage operation news blackout that the disaster unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico may be about to reach biblical proportions.

    http://www.helium.com/items/1882339-doomsday-how-bp-gulf-disaster-may-have-triggered-a-world-killing-event

  64. "N in their name"? by fantomas · · Score: 1

    err... "N in their name"? bit clever for me this time in the morning.... Nepalese? Nigerians? people called Nigel? caNadiaNs?

    nope, you'll have to tell me, I can't work it out....

    1. Re:"N in their name"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope, you'll have to tell me, I can't work it out....

      I'd guess he means the BNP... BP..BNP, you know...It's like England's Nazi party.

  65. "Forever?" "Forever." by Omniskio · · Score: 1

    How long before the concrete degrades?

  66. Re:Thar's oil in them oceans . . . by lostsoulz · · Score: 1

    Deepwater Horizon is a drilling rig, not a production rig. Once the well was plugged, the rig would have moved on to another drilling location. A separate, production rig would have then been brought out to that location to reopen the well and begin collection.

    Correction - the DWH could have run the completion string and installed the sub sea well head. You don't necessarily need another rig to come along to do that job. As it was, the DWH was overdue to spud another well and had to move.

  67. Can anyone tell me... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    >If it doesn't hold at the expected readings, then they'll re-attach the pipe used for producing to the surface and start collecting again
    Can anyone tell me why they are not leaving the pipe attached anyways to get oil out from the ground, sounds to me like they could use some money these days to pay for the mess they will have to clean up...

    I also heard a story about having 27,000 similar wells abandoned in the golf of mexico (of which about 1000 belong to BP) can we force them to open them back up to get ALL the oil out, seems to me when you pop a pimple, you don't leave anything behind, is it not the same principle? What makes a well (like this one) supposedly not profitable to siphon when it is still spewing out oil, especially 100,000 barrels of oil per day......who is that stupid to think it was not good enough well???

  68. Corporations: often have diffused responsibility by zildgulf · · Score: 1

    There are ways to mitigate the diffused responsibility problem, but it usually takes some sort of "belief shift".

    You have to be instilled, and in some cases absolutely brainwashed, into believing that "your the drop in the flood" or "you are your brother's keeper" or "you are personally responsible for your company's actions" regardless of how low your position. Unfortunately that can cause some dire consequences for the individual, anywhere from "getting into trouble" to getting blackballed to being killed because they often are surrounded with many others that take the implied license to not take any responsibility for the situation.

    I believe these people would be considered whistle-blowers or heroes or "troublemakers". They are the ones that often suffer.

  69. Re:Thar's oil in them oceans . . . by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

    Why would it be politically unwise to drill the same formation again? We know there's oil down there, and we know it'll come out. Someone will drill there.

  70. Research, research, research... by superdave80 · · Score: 1

    Sorry, prices have NOT come down since the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan. Gas prices were about $2.00/gal around the 2001-2003 period, and now sit above $3.00. Crude prices were in the $20-$30 per barrel range, and now sit around $50-$60. What is your definition of "prices have come down"?

    As for "oil flowing more freely": http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1105.html
    Iraq hasn't really upped it's production in the last decade, and in fact has dropped from it's peek prior to the war.

    I think you need to research your points, as you seem to just make assumptions based on no evidence.

    1. Re:Research, research, research... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Somehow, I don't think I'm making my point. Strategy.

      Iraq is producing nearly as much oil today as their peak in 2000 - 2.36 vs 2.57. And, there is every reason to believe that production will increase over time.

      Prices? Maybe I flubbed on that - but I'm not paying $3.00 either. I filled yesterday for 2.59/gal.

      But, in the strategy game, what would oil prices be if Saddam were still in charge? I can't say, and neither can you. I SUSPECT they might be higher, now.

      Anyway - sometimes you need to look past the details, to get the big picture. The United States wanted Iraq's oil made available to the world, and they were hoping to get control of a large part of it. China messed up the control part. Remember when BP and the other big oil companies refused to take Iraq's offer? Pump the oil out of the ground, it remains the property of Iraq, and Iraq pays $2.00 / barrel. No one wanted any of that, UNTIL China started taking the contracts.

      Funny how our "most favored trading partner" threw a monkey wrench into those works, huh?

      The US didn't gain as much as it was hoping to gain, but there is a net gain, strategically speaking. And, if you throw the bogeyman, aka, Al Queda into the mix, the US gained even more. Presuming, of course, that Washington actually believed all that bullshit about Saddam and Al Queda being allied.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:Research, research, research... by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      I know what your point is: the US invaded Iraq to get access to more, cheap oil. However, you have shown absolutely no proof that you are correct. Everything points to the US being WORSE off in both regards.

      "I SUSPECT they might be higher, now."

      You can 'suspect' all you want, but so could I.

      The real reason we invaded was to prevent Iraq from attacking us with a WMD. I SUSPECT Saddam would have acquired a WMD by now and used it against the US via terrorist groups.

      Now, I have absolutely no proof to back that up, but that doesn't seem to matter to you.

    3. Re:Research, research, research... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "I know what your point is: the US invaded Iraq to get access to more, cheap oil."

      No. That wasn't my statement, and it only approximates my point, in a simplified way.

      STRATEGY.

      The people in Washington, and the corporate heads all agreed that Saddam and company were taking the world and the world's oil supply in a direction that they didn't like. We meddled and mucked about, hoping to change things more to our liking. We did not get the whole pie, but we got a slice of the pie.

      BUT - I think that Washington and the corporate heads were full of shit, to start with. For instance, Al Queda and Saddam were never buddy-buddy. Washington's fears were bogus, or at least the crap the publicized about those fears were so much bullshit.

      Anyway - oil is, and always has been, a strategic resource, ever since ships were converted from burning coal, to burning oil. And, aircraft certainly never did burn coal. The oil in Iraq is now at least partially controlled by interests freindly to the US and the UK, and that's what it was all about.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  71. Turtles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And in other news BP reports that turtles, dolphins, and pelicans if left alive eat children.

  72. OPEC has nothing to do with price differences by daninaustin · · Score: 1

    OPEC causes the global price to rise. It doesn't cause it to rise in Europe but not in the US. There is a global market for Oil.

  73. Nonsense by daninaustin · · Score: 1

    The fact that oil is traded in dollars may effect a country that is importing oil but it won't cause the price of gasoline to be cheaper in the US than elsewhere. Currency is freely traded and Oil is as well. The difference in prices is taxes. Transportation, refining, blending, etc are all pretty insignificant when compared to the differences in taxes.

  74. How exactly do they do that... by daninaustin · · Score: 1

    Aside from the US Govt's purchase of oil for the strategic petroleum reserver (I"m not sure but i think that it's filled now and they are no longer purchasing oil for it), what exactly are they doing to "Ensure that the government has as close to an endless supply as possible."? How exactly are they manipulating the oil market? You have been reading too much left wing propaganda. Certainly, there is speculation on the oil market, but it's by hedge funds and other large corporate investors, not the US Govt.

  75. Here are the numbers.... by daninaustin · · Score: 1

    For all the lefties that keep talking about global oil conspiracies, take a look at the numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax Taxes on gas in the US are roughly 46 cents/gallon Taxes in the UK are around $3.49/(US)gallon Taxes in Germany are around $6.28/gallon No conspiracy, just taxes.