• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Is anybody boycotting BP?

Are you boycotting BP

  • Total voters
    114
#62
From the wiki page:

The BP well did not have any remote-control or acoustically-activated shut-off switch for use in case of an emergency such as the rig sinking. The countries of Norway and Brazil require them on all offshore rigs, but oil companies persuaded U.S. regulators that such backup devices were unnecessary due to their expense[40][41]

:scowl:
 
#65
At this point, boycotting BP would just be a reactionary gesture. No one has learned what caused this disaster to happen, no one knows what the final extent of the environmental damage will be. Who knows, maybe it was caused by an act of sabotage. Maybe the clean-up efforts will go better than expected. It's way too early to reach any conclusions, let alone make any policy decisions. And remember, with any disaster, there are entities that are hurt because of it, but there are other entities that benefit greatly as well. It's a dirty business.
 
#66
ericw said:
From the wiki page:

The BP well did not have any remote-control or acoustically-activated shut-off switch for use in case of an emergency such as the rig sinking. The countries of Norway and Brazil require them on all offshore rigs, but oil companies persuaded U.S. regulators that such backup devices were unnecessary due to their expense[40][41]

:scowl:
Click to expand...

See?!? What did I tell ya?!?!

I'll see your :scowl: and raise you :scowl::scowl::scowl:
 
#67
sleepytime said:
And I don't understand the general consensus that inadequate govt. regulation absolves corporate offenders of obligation or blame.
Click to expand...
??

I'm not sure there was a general consensus on the above anywhere in this thread. There are several parties responsible for this, but it seems most people don't want to think past the two-lettered answer. Any inadequacies of government regulations aren't the fault of BP or Transocean. That isn't to say that fact absolves either, but more points to the idea that people should expand their scope of obligation in this situation. If regulations are inadequate, perhaps we should also be looking at those responsible for those regulations.

I'm not trying to clear BP. I'm trying to say that they are only a part of the equation.

Mike
 
#69
DerHoggz said:
That guy from the cellar up there raises interesting points, but if you only read the last few paragraphs he sounds like some insane conspiracy theorist almost.
Click to expand...

From our friends at Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: con·spire
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈspī(-ə)r\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): con·spired; con·spir·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French conspirer, from Latin conspirare to be in harmony, conspire, from com- + spirare to breathe
Date: 14th century
transitive verb
: plot, contrive
intransitive verb
1 a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement <accused of conspiring to overthrow the government> b : scheme
2 : to act in harmony toward a common end <circumstances conspired to defeat his efforts>

If my belief that this definition essentially describes the politician/lobbyist dynamic that drives our government makes me a "conspiracy nut," then deep-fat fry me and roll me in salt... I'm a nut and proud of it!
 
#72
Eric Perry said:
Regardless of who's "fault" it is, it's disgusting regardless.
Click to expand...
It sure is. And it's bound to happen again if the public doesn't want to look past the simple solution of watching BP go down in bankrupcy. Most will find that a fitting end and call it a day, but it doesn't solve the problem. The remote shutoffs everyone is an expert on aren't proven. The rig was equipped with a manual and a "deadman" switch. Both failed. Would the remote have worked? No one knows for sure, really.

Mike
 
#73
mike_v_s said:
Ah, screw it. I deleted my long post. Please read the articles referenced in the wiki link. They don't exactly say what the wiki article says they do. Wiki sucks as a source; we should all know that by now.

Mike
Click to expand...

Disagree. Nothing in your long post counters the wiki quote. All you basically said is that the devices in question haven't thoroughly tested because real-world situations don't occur often and your personal opinion that two shut-off devices is enough.
 
#75
mike_v_s said:
Read the article(s).

Mike
Click to expand...

From the articles:

"The second disastrous failure occurred when the rig's "blowout preventer" - equipment that should have automatically blocked the well when the explosion occurred - failed to work. It has since emerged that the device did not have a remote-control shut-off mechanism - these are commonly required in most offshore oil producing nations, but not the US."

"The efficacy of the devices is unclear. Major offshore oil-well blowouts are rare, and it remained unclear Wednesday evening whether acoustic switches have ever been put to the test in a real-world accident. When wells do surge out of control, the primary shut-off systems almost always work. Remote control systems such as the acoustic switch, which have been tested in simulations, are intended as a last resort."

All you are saying is that you don't think we need a last resort - that a single backup is enough, which depends on your definition of an acceptable number of failures. The small sample size and the primary backup devices "almost always" working doesn't infer a very high statistical confidence.
 
#77
To anyone else reading this, please read the ENTIRE article.
ericw said:
From the articles:

"The second disastrous failure occurred when the rig's "blowout preventer" - equipment that should have automatically blocked the well when the explosion occurred - failed to work. It has since emerged that the device did not have a remote-control shut-off mechanism - these are commonly required in most offshore oil producing nations, but not the US."

"The efficacy of the devices is unclear. Major offshore oil-well blowouts are rare, and it remained unclear Wednesday evening whether acoustic switches have ever been put to the test in a real-world accident. When wells do surge out of control, the primary shut-off systems almost always work. Remote control systems such as the acoustic switch, which have been tested in simulations, are intended as a last resort."

All you are saying is that you don't think we need a last resort - that a single backup is enough, which depends on your definition of an acceptable number of failures. The small sample size and the primary backup devices "almost always" working doesntly imply a very high statistical confidence.
Click to expand...
A) What I was saying is that wiki sucks as a source. It's like Cliff's Notes written by a 5 year old.
B)I never said we don't need a last resort.
C) A portion of the article you either haven't read or neglected to post references other last resorts that, right or wrong, were deemed enough.

Mike
 
#79
mike_v_s said:
It sure is. And it's bound to happen again if the public doesn't want to look past the simple solution of watching BP go down in bankrupcy. Most will find that a fitting end and call it a day, but it doesn't solve the problem.
Mike
Click to expand...

actually, it's a pretty basic example of how capitalism is supposed to work. if BP goes bankrupt and falls apart because of this, then IN THEORY, the other companies will see that failing to take the steps needed to keep things like this from happening could mean the end of their business and in turn make for a safer and cleaner "big oil."

I do agree that there is a lot more to the issue, but IMO a little tar and feathering would probably be a good thing, and a much needed flexing of the almost completely atrophied free market muscles here in the U.S. and abroad.

It just seems that a lot of the people who are against government regulations of these sort of things are now the same people who are trying to divert blame away from BP.

I do understand that technically another company was operating the rig, but if BP stops paying the bill, the rig stops operating. It was BPs mess and BPs problem, and just because they convinced another company to slap their name on the lease doesn't mean a damn thing IMHO. What effects BP will effect their little shell corporation as well.

BP has made BILLIONS of dollars off of these rigs, and I guarantee that thousands of regular people are royally F%&$^#& because of this disaster while the fat cats who made those billions will be just fine in their mansions. THAT is what is most infuriating to me. It just echoes the same issues that we are seeing over and over again (banking "crisis" anyone?) where the rich and the wealthy bourgeoisie (not any of us) take advantage of the apathetic proletariat (all of us).
 
#80
mike_v_s said:
To anyone else reading this, please read the ENTIRE article. A) What I was saying is that wiki sucks as a source. It's like Cliff's Notes written by a 5 year old.
B)I never said we don't need a last resort.
C) A portion of the article you either haven't read or neglected to post references other last resorts that, right or wrong, were deemed enough.

Mike
Click to expand...

I have read both the articles. I am not sure where our misunderstanding lies. Other countries require the acoustic trigger and the U.S. does not. The articles support this. The presence of other dead-man systems prior to the acoustic trigger and common to many countries is irrelevent to me.

I am also not tryign to shift blame away from anyone. Doing the bare minimum required by regulation would not fly in the company I work for.

I'm going to let this go.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back