Oh the Irony

[CitizenCain]

Yeah, I wonder why they are making certain people understand it's not their fault.

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.

[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.

[EyeKhan]

Hola from the Dominican Republic! Ah! No oil in the sea aqui'!

[EyeKhan]

It's my fualt. kY!

[GGT]

BP also tried to get the fishermen to sign hold-harmless indemnity clauses, in order to work in the oil clean-up. Nice.

[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.

[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!

[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?

[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

[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

[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.

[earthJoker]

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.

That's city proper, the aglomeration has about 830k and reaches into Germany and France.

[Being]

Want to help clean up the spill?

Donate your hair.

Matter of Trust

[earthJoker]

Donate your hair.

I just thought this morning, that I should shave my armpits.

[CitizenCain]

Want to help clean up the spill?

Donate your hair.

Matter of Trust

Don't bother.

[LittleFuzzy]

That's city proper, the aglomeration has about 830k and reaches into Germany and France.

Pfeh, by that criteria I've been living in cities all my life, rather than cow-towns and sleepy college towns.

[Nessus]

Pfeh, by that criteria I've been living in cities all my life, rather than cow-towns and sleepy college towns.

Most Cities with a capital C have more people in than my nation; can't say I envy them, though

[earthJoker]

Pfeh, by that criteria I've been living in cities all my life, rather than cow-towns and sleepy college towns.

Well there is no standard. It's still funny to call Basel a town for me because of the rivalry between our cities.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[Being]

You mean Capitali$m?

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