This BP oil spill/leak.

[BLOCK F]

However the blame is split between the separate parties is debatable. What is clear at this stage is that BP are responsible for some if not all of the blame. What really pisses me off is seeing their chiefs giving interviews wearing suits in air conditioned rooms and NOT on a beach in overalls and carrying spades!
Yes, it would only be a token gesture, but unless they are actively taking part in the scientific studies trying to stop the leak then it would be just what they'd need to be doing if they claim to be doing "all they can".

Naive statement.

 

[BLOCK F]

Of course it's not rediculous. It should have been done in the first place. BP will always be mainly concerned about its profits first and how its image will affect that. They will have set a budget to deal with the clean up. The US Government would, (or should) have set no budget on the clean up; spent first and raised the money later, through fining those responsible. If that meant companies being responsible for this going under, then so be it!

What is needed now for the clean up is all resources being made available; no questions asked, no calculating costs, no spending money on advertising, and no time to be worrying about budgets, or prices of shares.

Another naive statement!

 

[Gary Stevens Neighbour]

I am currently working as a freelancer for BP (Web stuff) and its been an interesting read going through this thread.

Whilst I wont personally comment on some of the discussions, it is fair to say the opinions represent the general public view of the crisis at the moment.

I have not been in the Oil industry long, so dont really have the expertise to comment on the processes etc, but please all rest assured BP are doing everything they can to resolve this. Anyone, who thinks they arent are being influenced by the media spin on everything. The risks involved at such a level of drilling are huge and this company is doing all they can to resolve the matter.

I do question why certain rules and regulations arent in place to have proven/tested methods to resolve such matters, but this isnt to the control of any Oil and Gas company, more regulatory based enforcements.

I often work in central London at BP HQ and have a number of colleagues/friends there working directly with the crisis. All of them are shattered, working stupid hours and doing everything they can to help contain the matter.

I am not writing this to try to justify the situaton as I dont believe you can, merely wanted to ensure people that BP are doing all they can.

I am sure I will get abuse for this, but felt i had to say something.

 

[glasfryn]

the whole thing is just a bit hypocritical to me lets hope when they do ...if they do get some compensation the USA decide to send some of it to Bhopal India or maybe they don't like being reminded about Union Carbide
the animals are the one I feel for.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

If the US was not such an oil obsessed, gas guzzling nation, BP would not have been drilling there in the first place. The US needs to accept it's own share of the responsibility.

Time to end free/alternative energy suppression by the oil companies and the governments they control?

 

[beorhthelm]

Time to end free/alternative energy suppression by the oil companies and the governments they control?

any free or alternative energy sources are either in the public domain and in development, uneconomic or doesnt work. if those in the public domain are not being deployed, you have to wonder if they are also uneconomical. if an oil company could create free energy and charge you to deliver it, dont you think they would do so?

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

any free or alternative energy sources are either in the public domain and in development, uneconomic or doesnt work. if those in the public domain are not being deployed, you have to wonder if they are also uneconomical. if an oil company could create free energy and charge you to deliver it, dont you think they would do so?

At the moment everyone is under the notion that the only choices currently available sources for "free" or alternative energy are bio-fuels, solar, wind, or tidal current. These are merely the only choices currently being allowed by our respective governments.

The reason why these particular sources of energy are being allowed is that they are relatively expensive, especially on a commercial basis. They simply cannot compete against oil and coal.

And there are problems with these alternatives:

- The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. But apart from that there are huge technological barriers to harvesting enough energy from these sources to meet the needs of a power-hungry world.

- Bio-fuels rely on agriculture, and apart from moving the production of crops away from food production towards crops for bio-fuels causing starvation in many underdeveloped areas, bio-fuel crops still rely on fossil fuels for cultivation and fertilizers.

- Tidal power technology is still very much in its infancy and can only be feasible in particular geographic locations.

Nuclear power is often talked about as a potential alternative to oil, coal or gas it also has its own problems:

- Apart from the fact that nuclear power plants are extremely expensive to build, they produces radioactive waste and there are considerable security issues involved as well.

The micro-generation of wind and solar energy becomes more affordable if you construct solar or wind generating systems yourself but then again it does take a bit of effort and time.

Free or cheap energy are considered too "dangerous" for the current social model; a model that is based on energy scarcity. Based on the current principles of capitalism, free energy cannot be allowed. The traditional economic system contains three aspects: capital, goods and services. A new social model needs to be created, a model based on energy abundance. Such a paradigm shift would create endless possibilities for improving our world.

Free or cheap energy would allow us to turn deserts into green fields through desalinization of ocean water.

An abundance of free and clean energy would cause the cost of growing food to drop drastically allowing third-world nations to feed themselves.

Free and cheap energy would ultimately remove the need to fight over energy resources, water or food.

Unfortunately too many powerful people have a vested interest in the industrial/military complex to allow this to happen. They have a vested interest in WAR.

The other problem is the current energy markets. The energy business turns in the region of 4 to 5 trillion dollars a year. This is vastly superior to the drug trade legal or otherwise or the arms trade.

As a commodity the prices of these fuels for the energy market have become artificially controlled by brokers and investors, which is an unfortunate situation for consumers.

Free energy would destroy the majority of oil rich countries and a considerable part of the financial organizations.

Therefore when considering the physically possibility that 'free' energy technologies are being suppressed, the economic arguments holds.

The current energy commodities from oil and coal to natural gas are all in some form of competition in the market place and they will not be able to compete with free or cheap renewable energy methods, something that they will not be willing to relinquish.

A further reason for the suppression of "Free energy" systems it that such systems or technologies would completely eliminate our oil-dependent financial systems. Not a bad thing considering what the 'banksters' have done to us recently.

And then let us not forget the expenses related to environmental pollution from the consumption of these fuels and the 'global warming' scam politicians and their tame scientists have tried to and are using to steal our wealth through carbon taxes. Free, clean and constant energy would stop this scam. Mind you they will try to find something else to try and steal more money from us.

After all in our modern age Energy equals Power and if you control the energy you control the people.

Free energy would transform economies worldwide and while its potential benefits are clear, could spark economic and political upheaval in the short term at least.

A shift to free or cheap energy has the power to cause social disruptions as old industries fade and new ones evolve and any government that is bad at managing that change will also go under.

However, the shift towards 'free energy' could be considered as creative destruction. If free energy was freely available we would find ourselves in the 3rd Industrial Revolution and all kinds of labour saving devices that are currently considered as impractical because of their high-energy use would become viable.

The reason we don't have free energy today is purely down to power and the wish to control people, nothing else.

 

[beorhthelm]

Free or cheap energy would allow us to turn deserts into green fields through desalinization of ocean water.

An abundance of free and clean energy would cause the cost of growing food to drop drastically allowing third-world nations to feed themselves.

thats all very nice, what conspiracy site did you copy+paste that from? theres alot of words there without actually specifiying where this free energy comes from. most economic value in energy is in the distribution infrastructure, theres plenty of money to be made from free sources if the technology existed.

 

[Seagull Stew]

Naive statement.

Easy thing to say without a counter argument, don't you think?

 

[BLOCK F]

Easy thing to say without a counter argument, don't you think?

Stew,yes it is,but I have to confess that after all the political arguments around the time of the Election,I have keyboard weariness and can't be bothered to spout forth.
Idle I know, but I await further inspiration in due course!