Oh the Irony

[GGT]

Whose responsibility was it to have contingency plans and the best equipment?

[CitizenCain]

Whose responsibility was it to have contingency plans and the best equipment?

I'm sure that question will take 8 years, and $50 million in legal fees to sort out.

This question comes up in the IT world a lot, and frankly, it usually comes down to which side paid the better lawyer to craft the contract.

Whose responsibility was it to keep the hardware in a non-obsolescent state, and when it fails, who's got the better techies to blame the hardware or the IT service provided. In an ideal world, IMO, the person who provides the hardware is responsible if the hardware fails (or explodes and kills 11 people and dumps millions of barrels of oil into the sea, for example), and the person who operates it is only responsible if the failure is a result of sloppy operations/lack of maintenance, etc.

In this case, as it looks like "Transocean Ltd." didn't even have the legally mandated equipment on the rig to prevent this type of massive oil spill... my money's on the failure being a result of them cheaping out on hardware, and not on BP somehow "operating" the rig negligently. But who knows for sure? Well figure it out sometime after 2015, after millions of dollars have been wasted tying up the court system examining the finer minutia of contract law. <shudder>

Yippie, democracy, or something.

[Flixy]

Maybe because it might not be?

He said the equipment that failed and led to the spill belonged to owner Transocean Ltd., not BP, which operated the Deepwater Horizon rig.

If Transocean was completely honest about the state of their equipment when they leased it to BP, BP has (at least some of) the blame. If you get crappy equipment, it's also your fault if it breaks. And it's not like BP has a very good track record for safety.. But that would indeed be a fun court battle in the future.

[Being]

Maybe because it might not be?

He said the equipment that failed and led to the spill belonged to owner Transocean Ltd., not BP, which operated the Deepwater Horizon rig.

My point is that even after stating that they will pay they probably won't. From now on we should force the owners of the rigs to carry enough insurance to cover a major screw-up like this. The existing $1.6 billion policy isn't going to come close to covering the costs and since the policy is carried by the US government, guess who is going to pay.

[CitizenCain]

and since the policy is carried by the US government, guess who is going to pay.

No one.

Everyone knows that things paid for with public funds are "free." Like "free" health care, and "free" retirement funds, and "free" unemployment insurance.

Frankly, you should be excited that the US is getting billions of dollars in "free" services out of this disaster.

[Being]

No one.

Everyone knows that things paid for with public funds are "free." Like "free" health care, and "free" retirement funds, and "free" unemployment insurance.

Frankly, you should be excited that the US is getting billions of dollars in "free" services out of this disaster.

Giving not getting.

[']['ear]

Being, what that means is that he doesn't have an answer for the massive bailout of BP that is coming, so it's better just to make fun of the government.

The problem is what choice do governments have? They get nailed for billions in an accident like this, but it's not as if they can just act. The livelihood of multiple states depends on it, so the feds and local states will spend Carl Sagan numbers. They may recuperate some through lawsuits, but probably not full costs. And that won't help the many citizens who lose their livelihoods.


But, you know, drill baby, drill!

[Loki]

What's ironic is that you whine as much about America's dependence on foreign oil.

[Flixy]

What's ironic is that you whine as much about America's dependence on foreign oil.

Obvious solution would be to depend less on oil, in general!

[CitizenCain]

And that won't help the many citizens who lose their livelihoods.

Please. Like the government has ever given half a shit about that.

But, you know, drill baby, drill!

I remember you bitching (at the other place) about how Americans driving SUVs indirectly fund terrorism.

So, pick your poison. "Drill, baby drill," or fund terrorism. As much as you like to have it both ways, you can't.

Obvious solution would be to depend less on oil, in general!

So, you're willing to pay (at least) 5 times more for energy, and do away with plastics?

Right, that's why not depending on oil isn't exactly a feasible solution. Energy rich, versatile substances don't just fall from the sky, you know (well, not since that whole cold fusion thing was discredited, anyway ).

[GGT]

Oh, the Irony.

The Boca Raton meeting first bore fruit when Exxon needed to open a line of credit to cover potential damages of five billion dollars resulting from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. J. P. Morgan was reluctant to turn down Exxon, which was an old client, but the deal would tie up a lot of reserve cash to provide for the risk of the loans going bad. The so-called Basel rules, named for the town in Switzerland where they were formulated, required that the banks hold eight per cent of their capital in reserve against the risk of outstanding loans. That limited the amount of lending bankers could do, the amount of risk they could take on, and therefore the amount of profit they could make. But, if the risk of the loans could be sold, it logically followed that the loans were now risk-free; and, if that were the case, what would have been the reserve cash could now be freely loaned out. No need to suck up useful capital.

In late 1994, Blythe Masters, a member of the J. P. Morgan swaps team, pitched the idea of selling the credit risk to the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development. So, if Exxon defaulted, the E.B.R.D. would be on the hook for it—and, in return for taking on the risk, would receive a fee from J. P. Morgan. Exxon would get its credit line, and J. P. Morgan would get to honor its client relationship but also to keep its credit lines intact for sexier activities. The deal was so new that it didn’t even have a name: eventually, the one settled on was “credit-default swap.”


Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...#ixzz0mv01E3JD

[Loki]

Obvious solution would be to depend less on oil, in general!

Too bad that regardless of how much we funded alternate sources of energy, we'd be dependent on foreign oil in the short-to-medium term. Should we become even more dependent on it by cutting our own supplies?

[earthJoker]

The so-called Basel rules, named for the town in Switzerland where they were formulated...

Haha, they call it town and not city. I have to show this to some guys from Basel

[agamemnus]

... thereby forcing America, with its sophisticated scientific research abilities, superior economic might and power-hungry populace, into a period of rapid development of alternate energy sources, resulting in the US becoming the first nation to make economic break-through on hydrogen fusion, granting a) almost limitless energy, b) independence from relying on energy sources from dodgy States, c) a vast source of potential wealth in selling the technological know-how to other interested Western nations ...

Or, it doesn't happen and we just get more unemployed people and we pay more for energy.

Trimming a bird's wings (so it can't fly) won't make it evolve and develop a fusion jet pack.

My point is that even after stating that they will pay they probably won't. From now on we should force the owners of the rigs to carry enough insurance to cover a major screw-up like this. The existing $1.6 billion policy isn't going to come close to covering the costs and since the policy is carried by the US government, guess who is going to pay.

Actually, I read an article that BP is on the hook for a majority of it, but the other partner doesn't seem like it will have the cash to pay for its obligation.

There is also the maker of the mechanism that automatically stops the oil if there's an accident (which didn't work).

There are also the insurance companies for all the above companies.

They are all on the line for this and all their stocks have plummeted.

I read that BP has lost 20 billion in stock valuation already, which is higher than even the most radical current estimates on the cost to the entire US economy (according to those estimates that I read...).

[Flixy]

So, you're willing to pay (at least) 5 times more for energy, and do away with plastics?

Right, that's why not depending on oil isn't exactly a feasible solution. Energy rich, versatile substances don't just fall from the sky, you know (well, not since that whole cold fusion thing was discredited, anyway ).

I said less, not independent! But yeah, it's problematic and definitely not short term. Paying more should be expected anyway though. Too bad about the cold fusion. I did some research in a type of actual, working fusion at (very) low temperatures.. The stuff works, but it is fundamentally limited to be about one order of a magnitude less efficient than needed for economic breakthrough. So close, but just out of reach...

Too bad that regardless of how much we funded alternate sources of energy, we'd be dependent on foreign oil in the short-to-medium term. Should we become even more dependent on it by cutting our own supplies?

True, and no you shouldn't. But you should regulate it well to prevent stuff like this, and make sure that they are enforced. And that's not happening right now.

[GGT]

Haha, they call it town and not city. I have to show this to some guys from Basel

It's a story from the New Yawker, written like a novel to be readable. Saying "city in Switzerland" sounds sing-song, silly.

...There are also the insurance companies for all the above companies.

They are all on the line for this and all their stocks have plummeted.

I read that BP has lost 20 billion in stock valuation already, which is higher than even the most radical current estimates on the cost to the entire US economy (according to those estimates that I read...).

Insurance: the great enabler for Risky behavior and monetizing loss as gain.

[Timbuk2]

Latest plan to suck up the leaking oil and stop the spread ...

A 98 ton, 12 metre metal funnel. BP reckons it'll capture around 85% of the leaking oil, but has never deployed a funnel down to a depth of 5,000ft before.




BP aims to have it in place by the end of the week.

[LittleFuzzy]

Haha, they call it town and not city. I have to show this to some guys from Basel

That's because you guys don't have cities. You all live in quaint little alpine villages, sipping hot cocoa.

edit: I just checked. Calling Basel a city and not just a large town is questionable. It doesn't even break 200k.

[GGT]

Latest plan to suck up the leaking oil and stop the spread ...

A 98 ton, 12 metre metal funnel. BP reckons it'll capture around 85% of the leaking oil, but has never deployed a funnel down to a depth of 5,000ft before.

BP aims to have it in place by the end of the week.

They've built a couple of these metal and concrete funnels. Gotta wonder how they'll guide it down so deep, and if the pressures of basically an oil volcano won't stymie the effort. Wouldn't the oil just collect faster at the bottom and push its way down or under?

[']['ear]

What's ironic is that you whine as much about America's dependence on foreign oil.

So, we can refer to any argument you formulate as "whining" as well? Yay!

Don't troll, Loki.

Please. Like the government has ever given half a shit about that.

So because of your enending cynicism about governments and their intents, the rest of us need to discuss world events by viewing the world through some sort of "Cain lens?"

Which is beside the point, since I was discussing the results of the accident, not some intent or action of the government. But good red herring!

I remember you bitching (at the other place) about how Americans driving SUVs indirectly fund terrorism.

So, pick your poison. "Drill, baby drill," or fund terrorism. As much as you like to have it both ways, you can't.

And I remember you, Loki and others saying that increasing offshore drilling would hardly alter the oil supply in the US. It's a pittance. So actually I CAN have it both ways. We've known that oil from certain countries was very bad for our foreign policy and economy since at least the late 70s, and politicians have avoided doing anything about it. In fact, we might as well have had the bumper stickers for the winning presidential ticket in 2000 and 2004 be "Exxon/Mobil 2000."

Don't be hypocritical!

So, you're willing to pay (at least) 5 times more for energy, and do away with plastics?

You pooped that out so fast it barely touched your colon! 5x? Really?

Right, that's why not depending on oil isn't exactly a feasible solution. Energy rich, versatile substances don't just fall from the sky, you know (well, not since that whole cold fusion thing was discredited, anyway ).

And how do you justify the GOP blocking most funding of alternative energy sources for decades? I call it campaign financing. Our foreign policy was radically distorted due to political influence.

Though, as usual, it must be said that the Dems have done some too. The Reps being "more of the same," really. But the GOP has been the major block to research positioning ourselves to be at the forefront of future energy technologies, as well as blocking any domestic efforts at fuel economy. We're talking more than 30 years. Clean energy could have been our next internet, had the GOP put some long-range vision ahead of campaign donations.

[GGT]

Hummer got sold off finally, right?

It would have been great if 30 or 40 years ago, we'd had a better public transit plan for more areas. To reduce our oil dependence in general. But that was SSSocialism, or something.

Instead, we had to keep the auto industry pumping out cars, until they failed and needed a bail-out (jeez, remember Chrysler and Iococca?). We had to keep the home building industry pumping out homes and ex-urban sprawl to feed the municipal service kitty; mortgage underwriters, investors in ABSs, pensions and retirements, Wall St needed Main St and the mall.

Until banks / homeowners / builders / school districts and state budgets failed and needed a bail-out. Some came in forms of tax credits, but they're still prop-ups. SSSocialism to save Capitalism.

go go USA #1!

[Being]

Hummer got sold off finally, right?

It would have been great if 30 or 40 years ago, we'd had a better public transit plan for more areas. To reduce our oil dependence in general. But that was SSSocialism, or something.

Instead, we had to keep the auto industry pumping out cars, until they failed and needed a bail-out (jeez, remember Chrysler and Iococca?). We had to keep the home building industry pumping out homes and ex-urban sprawl to feed the municipal service kitty; mortgage underwriters, investors in ABSs, pensions and retirements, Wall St needed Main St and the mall.

Until banks / homeowners / builders / school districts and state budgets failed and needed a bail-out. Some came in forms of tax credits, but they're still prop-ups. SSSocialism to save Capitalism.

go go USA #1!

Sapitalism.

[GGT]

Sapitalism.

You mean Capitali$m?


ooh I get it now. We are all saps!

[CitizenCain]

So because of your enending cynicism about governments and their intents, the rest of us need to discuss world events by viewing the world through some sort of "Cain lens?"

No, just refrain from suggesting the government's actually going to do something we know it won't, based on centuries of history.

And I remember you, Loki and others saying that increasing offshore drilling would hardly alter the oil supply in the US. It's a pittance. So actually I CAN have it both ways. We've known that oil from certain countries was very bad for our foreign policy and economy since at least the late 70s, and politicians have avoided doing anything about it. In fact, we might as well have had the bumper stickers for the winning presidential ticket in 2000 and 2004 be "Exxon/Mobil 2000."

Spoken like a true America-hating, terrorist sympathizer.

Better to give the billions of dollars worth of oil we extract for off shore drilling to the terrorists than drill for any ourselves, huh? And you call that having it both ways. Pffft. Only to a terrorist wanna-be.

You pooped that out so fast it barely touched your colon! 5x? Really?

At least.

And how do you justify the GOP blocking most funding of alternative energy sources for decades?

Because none of it fucking works and it's throwing money down the toilet. Cheaper to burn oil.

Though, as usual, it must be said that the Dems have done some too.

Yeah, they've been blocking the other white whale of an "alternative energy project," nuclear. Which is also throwing money down the toilet on something vastly more expensive than burning oil.

SSSocialism to save Capitalism.

go go USA #1!

Oh, stop being such a twit. There's nothing capitalistic about our system. Even the markets the government doesn't flat out own are regulated to the point of being more "planned" than "free market." Same old shit the progressives have been doing for 80 years - "regulate" an industry into a huge hole, blame "capitalism," and use that as an excuse to take over or regulate it even more.

[Being]

You mean Capitali$m?

I'm thinking more along the lines of what saps we are for allowing the nationalization of failure.

[GGT]

I'm thinking more along the lines of what saps we are for allowing the nationalization of failure.

But if we just call certain things SSSocialism, then we can avoid acting as a united union. Because union is a bad word in America, see? We even like to watch the mess in the european union, and the unions protesting in Greece (Spain, Portugal, etc) and say unification is bad.

But I'm having a crazy day with words, so feel free to ignore most of what I say today. United Air Lines is also a dirty word, and they've merged with Continental.....to create a new behemoth of BIG. A united continent? Contintental + United = Contented? Americans love big and super sized. Forget French Fries, we want Freeeedom Fries?

We name our cars after things like Continental and Suburban. Or after horses, from our wild west past, like Impala and Cherokee. Even our politicians like to be Mavericks.

Saps, yes we are saps. Taken from the maple and its syrup, sugar makes the medicine go down. Tap the tree but not the root.

[Being]

Contintental + United = too big to fail. You see, Sapitalism.

[GGT]

Is that why JetBlue picked that color for their name? Blue is true and loyal, but also sad, bruised. JetRed would be too much like commie pinko red, red china, bloody. JetWhite is too aryan, white as a ghost, white also means surrender. USAir means USA i r and Delta means a flooded valley. Both are kind of stupid as names go, for airlines.

Not sure what VirginAir means....but I always think of the mile high club.

[']['ear]

To be fair, it wasn't solely, or even mostly, the Dems who blocked nuclear. TMI and Chernobyl scared the crap out of everybody, and killed nuclear in the US for 30 years. They provided a couple hundred million ears for the Sierra Club to talk into. They spawned a frenzy of NIMBY. And neither party tried to buck that trend. Fear is the most powerful motivator.

But yeah, the continued opposition to nuclear from some enviros is almost enough to get me to eschew the word. Some have seen the light, but others are acting like it's 1979.


As for alt energy, it is STILL an active issue. The GOP is STILL blocking it. Somebody else (probably China) is going to be king of the mountain on alt energy, and the US is going to lose. In the modern economy, such technologies determine who is biggest and baddest. It may even me a key to the end of the US hegemony.

[CitizenCain]

As for alt energy, it is STILL an active issue. The GOP is STILL blocking it. Somebody else (probably China) is going to be king of the mountain on alt energy, and the US is going to lose. In the modern economy, such technologies determine who is biggest and baddest. It may even me a key to the end of the US hegemony.

Seems unlikely. Until fusion becomes viable, nothing's going be able to beat "marginally better than oil," and we haven't even gotten to that state yet. Oh, and given that the US is one of the leading nations for research on sustainable fusion energy, it seems to me like we'll be in the top part of the heap when it comes time to switch over to an alternative energy source that actually works better than oil.