Is anybody boycotting BP?

[FromTheBassMent]

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).

Amen.

And I like your tar-and-feathering idea. Maybe we should make all of the BP and Transocean fat cats take a nice long swim in the Gulf, then roll them in feathers plucked from the dead waterfowl that's going to be piling up on the beaches over the next weeks and months. I mean, I know it wouldn't solve any of the problems identified in this thread... but it sure would feel good!

 

[TheVoiceless]

Its so sad what is happening down there right now. The problem is bigger then boycotting BP. Its the people who are in charge of keeping BP up to snuff with there emergency response.

Until we move to more environmentally safe forms of energy we will continue to ruin our planet. Usually a recession is good for sparking new technologies and conservation. I hope we get cars that run on water and self maintained homes.

 

[Komakino]

Regardless of who's "fault" it is, it's disgusting regardless.

"Whose". Sorry, I wouldn't normally but I've seen that mistake three times today (not on TB) and it's finally gotten to me.

 

[mike_v_s]

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.

I'm not saying a tar and feathering isn't a good thing. My message has been consistent: those who only want to torch BP for this are uninformed. There are other parties. Reading doesn't hurt. Read the other thread on this site, very few people have gotten past the "I hate BP now" phase. A simple bankrupcy of BP will satisfy the masses, but might not solve the problem (if and when it is identified).

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 must have missed that (both people who are against government regulations of these sorts of things and people who are trying to divert blame). Are we still talking about participants in this thread or on other TB threads?

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.

Again, I'm not saying it isn't BP's problem, I'm saying don't stop there with the call to responsibility.

They didn't "convince another company to slap their name on the lease", that is not how this works. What industry do you work in? I'll see if I can relate it closer to home.

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).

Sorry. I'm all for holding the companies responsible for their actions and/or inadequacies, but I don't see the need to dress someone down simply becasue their job pays them more than mine. The CEO and CFO make what they make because that is what the job pays. If it's found that they were complacent in any way that led to this disaster, then let's fire and fine them. If not, I'm not going demand their head.

Mike

 

[sloasdaylight]

I'm not saying a tar and feathering isn't a good thing. My message has been consistent: those who only want to torch BP for this are uninformed. There are other parties. Reading doesn't hurt. Read the other thread on this site, very few people have gotten past the "I hate BP now" phase. A simple bankrupcy of BP will satisfy the masses, but might not solve the problem (if and when it is identified).

I must have missed that (both people who are against government regulations of these sorts of things and people who are trying to divert blame). Are we still talking about participants in this thread or on other TB threads?

Again, I'm not saying it isn't BP's problem, I'm saying don't stop there with the call to responsibility.

They didn't "convince another company to slap their name on the lease", that is not how this works. What industry do you work in? I'll see if I can relate it closer to home.

Sorry. I'm all for holding the companies responsible for their actions and/or inadequacies, but I don't see the need to dress someone down simply becasue their job pays them more than mine. The CEO and CFO make what they make because that is what the job pays. If it's found that they were complacent in any way that led to this disaster, then let's fire and fine them. If not, I'm not going demand their head.

Mike

Obviously you should, class warfare is essential donchaknow.

 

[Eric Perry]

"Whose". Sorry, I wouldn't normally but I've seen that mistake three times today (not on TB) and it's finally gotten to me.

D'oh!!!! I'm normally part of the spelling and grammar police around here. Oh the humanity!

 

[EBodious]

bp is the convenient gas station that i have used for years here. i know the guy who runs the place. boycotting them to me is really boycotting him.

unfortunately, crude oil is a dirty business. extracting enough resource from the earth so that modern westerners can live as we do would make any form of energy dirty business. too many people, too much energy consumption. i believe we have surpassed the carrying capacity of our planet. and that is too bad.

even a million hamsters on wheels would require a lot of food processing and extreme waste clean up.

oh, and mcdonald's "fries" aren't made of potatoes.



and, people who vaccinate their kids are idiots.



crap, wrong thread.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

and, people who vaccinate their kids are idiots.

I see what you did there

 

[john_martin_sai]

Just let the Chinese drill off our shores. They don't mind if there is a major spill here and there. They'll still benefit their country.

 

[Turock]

Boycotting BP will do nothing (except hurt the little guy trying to make a living). You will still buy it because they will sell it to the not-boycotted companies.

 

[Mortiis]

Just let the Chinese drill off our shores. They don't mind if there is a major spill here and there. They'll still benefit their country.

Is mentioning the Chinese the new Godwin's Law or something?

 

[hbarcat]

Those of you who are mad at BP for "allowing" this to happen, please tell us just how much you are willing to pay for gasoline and other refined oil products in order to lower the chances of this type of accident happening. Notice I didn't say "prevent" - I said lower the chances. And singling out BP for this accident won't change the industry one little bit. BP isn't doing anything differently from any other oil company. If you don't want to be a hypocrite, then you'll have to boycott all the petroleum companies.

But more to the point: There is NO SUCH THING as an accident free energy source. Every energy technology has a cost/benefit analysis associated with it and where that balance point occurs is entirely up to the consumer and how many dollars they are willing to take out of their wallets and purses. If you want to make oil spills much less likely to occur then you should be willing to pay $5 or $10 for a gallon of gasoline.

Except that when gasoline in the U.S. went over $4 a gallon two years ago, the public had a freaking cow so I guess we see where that price point really is.

Oil is inherently messy and if we use it as an energy source then we must be willing to accept a certain amount of oil spills. To think otherwise is naive. Other sources of energy have their own inherent problems; coal is dangerous to mine, nuclear power creates radioactive waste, alternative fuels are too costly for the public to willingly buy and wind, solar, geothermal and other green technology can't possibly generate enough megawatts to satisfy our needs.

 

[Pilgrim]

If you want the oil, you gotta have the drilling. If you have the drilling, sooner or later you will have a spill. All we can do is ask for appropriate safety measures.

I like nuclear power myself...for a number of reasons. Personally, I see no reason to deplete our own supply of oil and then be COMPLETELY at the mercy of the countries that still have it.

 

[sleepytime]

Just for the record, it isn't the accident itself that I am so peeved at. It's the complete lack of any effective response or contingency plan. I would have assumed that they would have a plan to deal with this. Since they don't, and "accidents WILL happen", maybe they need to halt offshore drilling until they can demonstrate the ability to deal with this type of situation.

 

[DerHoggz]

From our friends at Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: con·spire
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈspī(-&#601r\
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!

I agree with your post, I was just surprised how much the last few paragraphs read like standard conspiracy theorist crap. But you supported it well.

 

[bassrique]

Those of you who are mad at BP for "allowing" this to happen, please tell us just how much you are willing to pay for gasoline and other refined oil products in order to lower the chances of this type of accident happening. Notice I didn't say "prevent" - I said lower the chances. And singling out BP for this accident won't change the industry one little bit. BP isn't doing anything differently from any other oil company. If you don't want to be a hypocrite, then you'll have to boycott all the petroleum companies.

But more to the point: There is NO SUCH THING as an accident free energy source. Every energy technology has a cost/benefit analysis associated with it and where that balance point occurs is entirely up to the consumer and how many dollars they are willing to take out of their wallets and purses. If you want to make oil spills much less likely to occur then you should be willing to pay $5 or $10 for a gallon of gasoline.

Except that when gasoline in the U.S. went over $4 a gallon two years ago, the public had a freaking cow so I guess we see where that price point really is.

Oil is inherently messy and if we use it as an energy source then we must be willing to accept a certain amount of oil spills. To think otherwise is naive. Other sources of energy have their own inherent problems; coal is dangerous to mine, nuclear power creates radioactive waste, alternative fuels are too costly for the public to willingly buy and wind, solar, geothermal and other green technology can't possibly generate enough megawatts to satisfy our needs.

Another good post, but I'd like to offer an opinion that may differ a little bit. How much would it be per gallon to have an "acoustic shut-off"? How much more would it cost to have a dozen "boom ships" ready to go w/in 48 hours at gulf ports?

I'm learning about this topic more every day. The acoustic shut-off [layman's term i suspect] would be a third or fourth backup to shut the well at the source. IIRC, Brazil and Norway require this. A boom ship is designed to set fire to oil slicks and are effective. These ships are part of US Government contingency plans, but it seems we don't have many.

 

[mike_v_s]

Another good post, but I'd like to offer an opinion that may differ a little bit. How much would it be per gallon to have an "acoustic shut-off"? How much more would it cost to have a dozen "boom ships" ready to go w/in 48 hours at gulf ports?

I'm learning about this topic more every day. The acoustic shut-off [layman's term i suspect] would be a third or fourth backup to shut the well at the source. IIRC, Brazil and Norway require this. A boom ship is designed to set fire to oil slicks and are effective. These ships are part of US Government contingency plans, but it seems we don't have many.

Good points. One of the estimates I read had the acoustic shut off at about a half million per. I don't know about the additional ships, perhaps another could chime in. The other issue is that you'd have to build each of these backup plans into each hole drilled, not just the producing ones. The oil business is still very much prospecting. More "dry holes" are drilled than producing ones. All those costs are built into the price, as well. In the other thread, a few had wondered why the relief well currently being considered (or drilled?) wasn't a standard for every rig. Well, because that would double a major cost of the operation and, as hbarcat pointed out, our country has a national shitfit whenever our gas prices approach world standards. You can't have both, people.

Mike

 

[mike_v_s]

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.

Good idea.

Mike

 

[bassrique]

Good points. One of the estimates I read had the acoustic shut off at about a half million per. I don't know about the additional ships, perhaps another could chime in. The other issue is that you'd have to build each of these backup plans into each hole drilled, not just the producing ones. The oil business is still very much prospecting. More "dry holes" are drilled than producing ones. All those costs are built into the price, as well. In the other thread, a few had wondered why the relief well currently being considered (or drilled?) wasn't a standard for every rig. Well, because that would double a major cost of the operation and, as hbarcat pointed out, our country has a national shitfit whenever our gas prices approach world standards. You can't have both, people.

Mike

Interesting. I need to learn more about relief wells. Would the idea behind such a thing be that a second well could pump at a high rate to lower the pressure on the malfunctioning well?

 

[mike_v_s]

Interesting. I need to learn more about relief wells. Would the idea behind such a thing be that a second well could pump at a high rate to lower the pressure on the malfunctioning well?

It was my understanding (I'm very open to correction) that the idea is to to able to extract the oil via the relief well in case of a blow out like we have now. Instead of the oil pouring out from the now-unclosable well, it is safely drawn from the relief well. I honestly think this would be prohibitively expensive, though. The public just doesn't tolerate gas over $3 -3.50 per gallon.

I really just find it a shame that people are so willing to grab the nearest name and bury it. If there are individuals who really feel strongly about oil drilling regulations, NOW is the time to learn about the process and hold everyone involved accountable to the degree that they are. Cheering BP's stock as it plummets is a spectator sport, not real concern.

Mike