Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Gulf of Mexico Oil Leak (British Petroleum)
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
Confidential



Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 2041
 Reply with quote  

Any chance of criminal negligence charges against bp? probably not eh.

Adam Bomb,

I took an environmental security class that looked at a little bit of disaster planning. The problem I saw was that the investigative logic was so far fetched from the outset. For example, looking into far-fetched scenarios like "the day after tomorrow" - "what would happen if the earth froze over in 48 hours?"

The other problem with disaster planning is that it is usually over-concerned with "keeping order" and falls back on military intervention. Katrina and Haiti are two examples.

The next problem, is that in disaster scenarios that are man made,which are actually more predictable and preventable, very little is done in terms of precautions largely due to the corruption of business and government,and the need to squeeze in profits. Examples of this are Bhopal India, BP Energy, and the current push for nuclear energy policy.

It should be evident by now that the government is entirely self-serving; not to be on some backwoods survivalist bullshit, but when disaster strikes,it will be up to us as communities to see ourselves through.
Post Tue May 11, 2010 7:01 am
 View user's profile Send private message
T-Wrex
p00ny tang


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 6340
Location: Detroit, Michigan
 Reply with quote  

Plum Puddin' wrote:
...and alligators. There should be an alligator plan.




I see what they did there..
That, and the ad in the corner... gave me an idea...

Post Tue May 11, 2010 8:13 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Plum Puddin'



Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 1772
Location: Barter Town
 Reply with quote  



How did you do that Tito Wrex?
Post Tue May 11, 2010 9:03 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
T-Wrex
p00ny tang


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 6340
Location: Detroit, Michigan
 Reply with quote  

I animated two frames with a 1/100th second delay.
First frame was untouched.
Second frame I clicked around a bunch of shit and tweaked it a bit,
Post Tue May 11, 2010 9:11 am
 View user's profile Send private message
benjy compson



Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 1179
Location: cliffs of opal
 Reply with quote  

good work, t dub
Post Tue May 11, 2010 9:12 am
 View user's profile Send private message
T-Wrex
p00ny tang


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 6340
Location: Detroit, Michigan
 Reply with quote  

Post Tue May 11, 2010 9:32 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Eric B



Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 1327
Location: Omaha, Ne
 Reply with quote  

Now they are playing the blame game:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/11/news/companies/BP_hearings/index.htm?hpt=T1

Forget these "hearings on capital hill" at this point. Get the shit fixed, and then we can drop the fucking hammer on BP later.
Post Tue May 11, 2010 9:44 am
 View user's profile Send private message
T-Wrex
p00ny tang


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 6340
Location: Detroit, Michigan
 Reply with quote  

Post Tue May 11, 2010 9:57 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Eric B



Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 1327
Location: Omaha, Ne
 Reply with quote  

Lawyers made the survivors sign statements as soon as they hit shore? Wow, that is 'slimey'

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100511/ap_on_re_us/us_gulf_oil_spill_workers
Post Tue May 11, 2010 12:15 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
T-Wrex
p00ny tang


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 6340
Location: Detroit, Michigan
 Reply with quote  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/05/7-secrets-bp-doesnt-want_n_563102.html#s87796

7 things BP doesn't want you to know.. a slideshow



Post Tue May 11, 2010 3:08 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
AdamBomb



Joined: 05 Mar 2004
Posts: 3174
Location: Louisiana
 Reply with quote  



T. Wrex, can you please get @ me? cajunbeats (at) gmail (dot) com
Post Tue May 11, 2010 6:09 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Eric B



Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 1327
Location: Omaha, Ne
 Reply with quote  

First under water pictures:



http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/first-underwater-images-of-bp-oil-spill-wont-show-video.php
Post Wed May 12, 2010 7:10 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
vex



Joined: 27 Feb 2003
Posts: 68
Location: Serbia
 Reply with quote  

Post Thu May 13, 2010 5:59 am
 View user's profile Send private message
yourREIGNisOVER



Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 515
Location: min-eh-sorta
 Reply with quote  

BP refuses EPA order to switch to less-toxic oil dispersant


Quote:

Reporting from Los Angeles and Elmer’s BP has rebuffed demands from government officials and environmentalists to use a less-toxic dispersant to break up the oil from its massive offshore spill, saying that the chemical product it is now using continues to be "the best option for subsea application."

On Thursday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gave the London-based company 72 hours to replace the dispersant Corexit 9500 or to describe in detail why other dispersants fail to meet environmental standards.

The agency on Saturday released a 12-page document from BP, representing only a portion of the company's full response. Along with several dispersant manufacturers, BP claimed that releasing its full evaluation of alternatives would violate its legal right to keep confidential business information private.


But in a strongly worded retort, the EPA said that it was "evaluating all legal options" to force BP to release the remaining information "so Americans can get a full picture of the potential environmental impact of these alternative dispersants."

So far, 715,000 gallons of dispersant has been applied since the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, mostly on the spill's surface. The chemical has also been released near the leaking pipe on the seafloor.

Government officials have justified both uses, saying that if oil reaches the shore, it would do more environmental harm than if it were dispersed off the coast.

Dispersants break oil into droplets that decompose more quickly. But scientists worry that extensive use of the chemicals in the BP spill is increasing marine life's exposure to the toxins in oil.

"While the dispersant BP has been using is on the agency's approved list, BP is using this dispersant in unprecedented volumes and, last week, began using it underwater at the source of the leak — a procedure that has never been tried before," the EPA noted last week, acknowledging that "much is unknown about the underwater use of dispersants."

In the company's May 20 letter to the EPA and the Coast Guard, responding to the EPA's directive, BP operations chief Doug Suttles wrote that only five products on the EPA's approved list meet the agency's toxicity criteria. And only one, besides Corexit, is available in sufficient quantities in the next 10 to 14 days, it said.

But that alternative product, Sea Brat #4, according to BP, contains a chemical that could degrade into an endocrine disruptor, a substance that creates hormonal changes in living creatures, and could persist in the environment for years.

As the tensions over how to treat the spill escalated, reddish-brown washes of oil, 2 inches thick in places, soiled Louisiana beaches. Hundreds of workers scooped up gooey piles of sand and stuffed them into plastic bags.

"It is worse today than on the past two days," said Darren Smith, 43, sweating from his work raking sand at a wildlife refuge on Elmer's Island. "There's definitely more oil, and it's just going to keep coming."

No booms protected the Elmer's Island beach because the National Guard had focused on building dams to divert oil from the wetlands behind the beach.

A few miles away at Port Fourchon, plastic barriers that looked like pompoms were strung together along the beach but did a poor job of keeping out the oil. More than 50 miles of Louisiana shoreline has been contaminated so far.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-20100523,0,907236.story



Some person from another forum wrote:
What is Halliburton doing in the gulf of mexico? something is up http://youtu.be/JFoZTGV1g9c

Oh thats why... on april 11 2010 Halliburton BUYS boots and coots, the oil spills clean up company.

Haliburton buys Boots and Coots- http://www.thestreet.com/story/10722...ots-coots.html

Here is an article talking about them working on the rig a day before the incident http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_570484.html
Post Sat May 22, 2010 10:54 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
leg.donor



Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 2754
Location: Portland, OR
 Reply with quote  

so they caused this horrific oil spill and then release toxic dispersants that are just as dangerous as the oil itself? AND THEN refuse to switch to a safer dispersant?

how much worse can it get?

how can they get away with this?
Post Sun May 23, 2010 12:07 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Thu Apr 24, 2014 4:47 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon