Originally posted by Ushgarak
BP is putting $20 billion into an independent account to pay compensation to those affected.I hope those who said they would never pay anything now feel silly.
I heard (and I don't know how credible the information is) that the government would be in control of this money, and we know how sticky politician's hands can get. Therefore, the people who said they would never pay anything might be indirectly correct. 😄
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but then the problem is we have changed from gas to oceans and water as our primary fuel source. It would be very difficult to use hydrogen as a fuel without disrupting the water cycle.
You're right. We would cause global warming even faster than before because the "exhaust" from hydrogen burning cars is...drum-roll....water. Water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.
But, hey, at least the exhaust wouldn't smell as bad. lulz!
It'd be almost impossible to burn up all of the "fuel" though, as it gets put right back into the atmosphere in almost the same molecules and ratios that it was taken out of it.
Originally posted by inimalist
Not immediatly, mind you, but humans have a tendency to get comfortable with stuff, and only change when it is problematic.
Yeah, monsoon rain fall in deserts and tundras would probably be the first clue that "atmospheric water pollution" (or AWP...it's what I'm calling a potential new trend where humans pollute the biosphere with too much water vapor from going ape-sh*t over hydrogen fuelcells) is getting out of hand.
Originally posted by inimalist
actually... we might be talking about very different things here... Are you talking about vehicles that, themselves, use hydrogen as fuel, or are you talking about cars that have a bettery which is charged at a station where hydrogen fusion is occuring. The former, while probably the most ideal, afaik, is really science fiction at this point. Modern fusion ideas, that I'm familiar with at least, pose the latter.
Well, then I guess you are actually talking about fusion, though, so we are not talking about the same thing.
I'm talking about fuel cells. We already have stations in California and South Carolina, I believe.
The estimated build out time for that $14 billion highway system would take between 18-24 months, shattering the Obama administrations extremely flawed idea that hydrogen fueling is impractical for cutting short-term carbon emissions. The simple fact that there are dozens of vehicles just two cycles away from mass production, at this moment, more than proves that point. Hell, they actually DO have production buses currently in use in Europe that are hydrgen fuel cell powered.
What does this have to do with the Oil Spill? Everything. Why do we have oil spills when we really shouldn't have to go apesh*t over petro via hasty and shotty off-shore drilling?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, it is being independently controlled.
I heard it will be the pay czar will be in control of the money. That means that Oboma will be in control of the money. Say goodbye to the money.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You clearly didn't mean that, though, since you listed it being owned and operated by Americans separately.
it was owned...and operated by an American crew. If you buy a CD or a poster of your favourite band, the band doesn't own the CD.
Honestly, my observation was too broad - i said ealier that the American people were being left in the dark about the raw truth which Obama was reluctant to disclose. Obama was too quick to point the finger at BP is all i'm saying. When BP had no involvement with the catastrophe.
Originally posted by CadoAngelus
it was owned...and operated by an American crew. If you buy a CD or a poster of your favourite band, the band doesn't own the CD.
what a terrible example
we are living through the RIAA basically using all of its money and power to prove the exact opposite
what was "produced" by the band, is still the "property" of the band
I know everyone else here knows how to use wikipedia, but I'll do a quick debunk of this:
Who is at Fault? BP or Transocean?
Originally posted by CadoAngelus
Telling the American people that BP are at fault, even to the point where the British media have seemingly given up trying to explain Transocean owned everything...so now even the British people aren't able to make head-or-tails of the whole situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon
2001 - construction completed, Transocean purchases from Hyundai Heavy Industries (through R&B Falcon, which had just become a subsidiary of Transocean).
2008 - BP leases Deepwater Horizon from Transocean.
2009 - World's deepest well is dug.
So, here's the deal: While Transocean owns the platform, they were not the current users of it. So, like with rental cars or appartments or anything else, if the problem was caused by faulty product, it would be 100% Transocean's fault, unless it could be shown that Hyundai had some culpability. However, there is an added dimension to this; the well was dug by BP, in no way connected to Transocean, in fact they were paying close to 500 000 a day for the privilage. Therefore, if the cause is related to drilling, even in the abstract, BP is liable. Further, if the cause has to do with improper safety standards or protocols, BP is 100% at fault, because as the operators of the platform, they take on that responsibility.
So, the question then becomes, was it a problem with the rig itself or was it anything else, which would leave the culpable parties as BP or God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_explosion
American laws, though not without some sway from BP and the rest of the oil industry applied, generally don't require as strict safety requirements, and thus, unless we count morally, BP isn't technically responsible for some safety equipment that might have prevented explosion and spill not being there, and a more abstract concept like "market forces" will have to take the blame.
However, "Documents discussed during congressional hearings June 17 indicated that BP previously made modifications to the BOP for the Macondo site which increased the risk of BOP failure, in spite of warnings from their contractor to that effect.", talked about also here: http://bearmarketnews.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/read-bp-e-mails-show-decisions-pre-blast-to-save-%E2%80%98lots-of-time%E2%80%99-and-money/
This is fairly implicating of a huge portion of blame, directly on BP's shoulders. In spite of expert adivse, BP “repeatedly chose risky procedures in order to reduce costs and save time... made minimal efforts to contain the added risk.” <-- that is a quote from the House Energy and Commerce Commitee website
The Plot Thickens
Ok, but hey, doesn't Transocean have some repsonsibility? Don't they have the responsbility of making sure their tenent isn't messing stuff up too much?
Yes. And they were failing miserably.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/08/oil.rig.warning.signs/index.html
While ex-employess say BP was negligent and cut corners, they had similar things to say of Transocean, pointing to examples of times they had been forced to break Transocean's own safety policies.
However, according to workers who survived the blast, problems that had arisen on the day of the explosion had caused an argument between a BP and Transocean official regarding the pipe and mud leaking into the hole, where the BP official had chosen a riskier procedure against the advise of the Transocean official and engineers on the rig's staff.
All in all, neither company is blameless, but BP is clearly more culpable, and much more directly responsible for the explosion and spill.
Originally posted by inimalist
I know everyone else here knows how to use wikipedia, but I'll do a quick debunk of this:[b]Who is at Fault? BP or Transocean?
...
All in all, neither company is blameless, but BP is clearly more culpable, and much more directly responsible for the explosion and spill. [/B]
Awe shit, son.
Well, as long as your sources and thoughts are credible, that should put it to rest, shouldn't it?
After reading that, the fact that BP had the balls to blame someone else is very astounding.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, as long as your sources and thoughts are credible, that should put it to rest, shouldn't it?
how dare you question my sources!
I am impartiality personified
Originally posted by dadudemon
After reading that, the fact that BP had the balls to blame someone else is very astounding.
stock prices. admitting fault would have made them tank much faster.
Originally posted by dadudemon
After reading that, the fact that BP had the balls to blame someone else is very astounding.
I was under the impression that BP hasn't blamed anyone officially - or if they have, British media hasn't got a hold of it.
Originally posted by inimalist
All in all, neither company is blameless, but BP is clearly more culpable, and much more directly responsible for the explosion and spill.
And while all of your post seems to have enlightened me somewhat in the happenings of the "BP Oil Spill", surely the rig was still crewed by Transocean staff. So anything that happened the day of the start of the spill would be linked to whatever Transocean staff did...
I'd say BP and Transocean were both as culpable as one another.
Slightly off on a tangent here: As soons as Transocean officials and high ranking staff realised about the burst pipe they used a maritime law to cover there arses. The law allowed them to class the rig as a sailing ship, which made it so they'd only need to pay 18million compared to what would happen if they were taken to a tribunal and sentenced accordingly.
Originally posted by Liberator
Someone told me the president of BP is the most 'hated man in America'.So yanks is he?
The "yanks" who were working on the rig, owners of the rig and equipment or the 39% US shareholders of BP and the "Yank" politicians who in their greed allowed this risky sort of operation to take place should have a share of the blame.