Official Simtroplis Gulf Oil Spill Thread

[baller23 2]

Check this out guys. Tells about how this event is another false flag.

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread581151/pg1

[Duke87 1,070]

Yeeaaah.... no.

[astronelson 339]

99% of all conspiracy theories are completely wrong, and the other 1% are merely wildly inaccurate. Assigning motives to things perfectly capable of happening by themselves is senseless and will not get you anywhere.

That being said, there are occasionally actual conspiracies. It's very likely this isn't one of them. They purchase an oil clean-up company, 8 days later an oil spill happens. It's reasonably likely that there would have been an oil spill somewhere in the world within a short enough time for someone to at least wonder if the two were connected.

Of course, people tend to forget that correlation does not imply causation.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: baller23

Check this out guys. Tells about how this event is another false flag.

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread581151/pg1 quote>

Aside from the fact that the theories put forth on the website sound good till you start applying some basic math, there are some facts that are conveniently left out.  This situation is going to cost billions of dollars to remedy, plus likely billions more in lawsuits.  BP, Halliburton, and Transocean all have insurance against this, but activating that insurance is going to make it more expensive in the future.  Furthermore, BP's contract with Transocean states that in the event of an oil spill, Transocean ultimately shoulders all the costs.  If the article is correct that Transocean is owned by Halliburton, that makes it even harder for Halliburton to make money off this.  Finally, there is one other fun fact.  Halliburton may have acquired Boots & Coots only a few days before the disaster, but the Halliburton acquisition of Boots & Coots is not unexpected news; the idea of Halliburton buying Boots & Coots has been around for several years now.

All stuff that is very important that the author conveniently doesn't mention.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Let's shed an (oily) tear for Halliburton.  They are getting a comeuppance that is long overdue.

[Duke87 1,070]

Someday somebody is going to have to actually explain to me what the big deal is with Haliburton. All I've ever heard is rhetorical noise about Dick Cheney and Iraq.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Being the second largest oil services company in the world, they are a legitimate target for everyone who does not support oil. Where is the confusion? They are disliked by many because of what they do. There is far more to it than Cheney and Iraq. They set off nerves because their entire business scheme is catered to profit off of third world countries and oil is their tool. While they may have good "business" incentives, the fact is that they care nothing about their impact on local economics, ecology, societal upheaval, or anything else for that matter. They only look at the Almighty Dollar.

Barbarossa

EDIT:  Also, please note that it is Halliburton, not Haliburton.

quote>

They are certainly an example of what's wrong with corporations today.  Exploit everybody and pretend to be Admiral Farragut ("Damn the torpedoes^§, full speed ahead!").  This might be nice for the shareholders, but running roughshod over everyone means that there are lots of spears waiting sharply for them when they screw up.  They are about to hear a chorus of Fang You!

---

§ In Farragut's day, torpedoes were floating mines.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

They set off nerves because their entire business scheme is catered to profit off of third world countries and oil is their tool. While they may have good "business" incentives, the fact is that they care nothing about their impact on local economics, ecology, societal upheaval, or anything else for that matter. They only look at the Almighty Dollar.quote>

See, this is what I mean. Rhetoric about how they're an evil company that exploits impoverished nations, destroys the environment, and only cares about money is nice and all, but it doesn't answer the question. There are no actual facts in there, just a general claim of malevolance with no evidence to back it up. I want to know what exactly it is that they've done and to whom. If they are as horrible a company as people say they are, coming up with examples should not be difficult.

[saltandsauce 0]

I wonder if the USA government will demand the oil reserves lying in Canada (owned by BP) just over the border as compensation?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

I wonder if the USA government will demand the oil reserves lying in Canada (owned by BP) just over the border as compensation?

quote>

They had better not.  We can make them freeze to death in the dark just be cutting off their access to our electricity grid.  This kind of extreme thinking is the kind of thing that takes great friends and makes them into enemies.

I don't think the Commonwealth of Nations would look kindly on such activity.  It's not our fault that BP goofed in the gulf.

[sneakeypete 16]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

I wonder if the USA government will demand the oil reserves lying in Canada (owned by BP) just over the border as compensation?

quote>

They had better not.  We can make them freeze to death in the dark just be cutting off their access to our electricity grid.  This kind of extreme thinking is the kind of thing that takes great friends and makes them into enemies.

I don't think the Commonwealth of Nations would look kindly on such activity.  It's not our fault that BP goofed in the gulf.

quote>

Though i agree its a stupid idea, what bad exactly would it do to your country? odds are the works would get paid the same, taxes would be paid the same, etc?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

One of the things everyone needs to understand is that Canada is the United States' biggest trading partner.  We get all kinds of manufactured stuff, and warm climate produce from the U.S. and they get resource products from us, including a lot of Alberta Beef, Saskatchewan Wheat, B.C. timber, and Electricity from Newfoundland, Quebec and Ontario.  We also supply the lion's share of U.S.'s oil and gas. 

Let us not talk about the International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes, which does its best to keep these freshwater seas fresh as well as a highway to mid-continent for sea traffic.  Nor should be discuss the longest undefended (until recently) border in the world.  I don't suppose it would be good for us to discuss the internatonal joint projects our countries have worked on, like the St. Lawrence Seaway.  And I wouldn't want to discuss the U.S./Canadian Autopact either.  As for defense, there is North American Air Defence Command (NORAD) which is a joint project between the Pentagon and the Canadian Forces.

So, maybe, we won't be having any unreasonable conversations with Washington, at all, at all.  We are all in the same boat, so let's not kick holes in the bottom.

[guystupois 1]

Bad Monkey! BP should be sued the whole world over, while meanwhile, Obama said "I want to know who's a** to kick"

Guy George Bush'd out!

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

We also supply the lion's share of U.S.'s oil and gas. quote>

This is grossly incorrect.  Canada, while the largest supplier of oil to the US in terms of barrels per day, only accounts for 10% of US oil consumption. (Texas, which the oil industry considers to be effectively dead as an oil producing region, has more influence on the US oil market than Canada does.)

The same story is true for US natural gas use.  While Canada controls a huge majority of US natural gas imports, Canada only accounts for 16% of US natural gas consumption.  This number is also set to go down significantly within the next 5-10 years as LNG terminals are built in Texas and Louisiana and the US shifts its natural gas import model to one that much more closely resembles how the US imports its oil.  When that happens, Canada's share of the US natural gas market will plummet.

[guystupois 1]

Great another "spill" at UL, apparently toxic, this is just great.  First the oil spill, now the thing at University Louisiana Lafayette... It's the apocalypse in L.A.   This I just heard, good thing I live a bit away from UL...

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: guystupois

The world is turning against us cajuns, with the oil and a toxic spill at UL, and the fishing profits are gonna plummet...

Oh Hell....quote>

You cajuns (a.k.a. Acadians) are more than welcome to come home to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.  You were originally Canadians, and there is no reason to stay on contaminated soil.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Transocean should cease to exist.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

Transocean should cease to exist.quote>

Why?  They are only as much in this soup as the other corporations involved.  The main punishment will be dealt out to the captain of the ship, who will probably lose his master's certificate.  The corporations will be held relatively harmless because of the limited liability of share companies.  Their insurance companies will take the big fiscal hit and this is limited by the terms of the policies.  Governments will be left with the remainder.

Even if Transocean should "have to disappear" it is a simple matter to kill the corporation by winding it up, then reincarnating with another name.  Remember what it is that floats to the top.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Remember what it is that floats to the top.quote>

In this case, oil.

[baller23 2]

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread582825/pg1

Watch this, more corruption.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

Transocean should cease to exist.quote>

Why?  They are only as much in this soup as the other corporations involved.  The main punishment will be dealt out to the captain of the ship, who will probably lose his master's certificate.  The corporations will be held relatively harmless because of the limited liability of share companies.  Their insurance companies will take the big fiscal hit and this is limited by the terms of the policies.  Governments will be left with the remainder.

.quote>

That depends  who you belive, and what evidence comes out implicating BP in overriding the onsite personals decisions.

Acording to interviews from the survivors there were decisions made by BP that  violated safety procdures.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

Transocean should cease to exist.quote>

Why?  They are only as much in this soup as the other corporations involved.  The main punishment will be dealt out to the captain of the ship, who will probably lose his master's certificate.  The corporations will be held relatively harmless because of the limited liability of share companies.  Their insurance companies will take the big fiscal hit and this is limited by the terms of the policies.  Governments will be left with the remainder.

.quote>

That depends  who you belive, and what evidence comes out implicating BP in overriding the onsite personals decisions.

Acording to interviews from the survivors there were decisions made by BP that  violated safety procdures.

quote>

It doesn't matter.  The captain is responsible for everything and everyone on the ship.  Decisions made by others and not countermanded by him have his approval.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

Transocean should cease to exist.quote>

Why?  They are only as much in this soup as the other corporations involved.  The main punishment will be dealt out to the captain of the ship, who will probably lose his master's certificate.  The corporations will be held relatively harmless because of the limited liability of share companies.  Their insurance companies will take the big fiscal hit and this is limited by the terms of the policies.  Governments will be left with the remainder.

.quote>

That depends  who you belive, and what evidence comes out implicating BP in overriding the onsite personals decisions.

Acording to interviews from the survivors there were decisions made by BP that  violated safety procdures.

quote>

It doesn't matter.  The captain is responsible for everything and everyone on the ship.  Decisions made by others and not countermanded by him have his approval.

quote>

This isn't the days of aquatic glory where the captain went down with his ship.  Nowadays, the captain is only as responsible as the entity that owns or controls the ship will let them be.  There is no way that the captain could have gone up against BP and said that the safety valve that was supposed to stop oil flow in the event of an accident was broken and that he was going to shut down the rig or else until it was fixed.  BP would have just fired his ass and put someone new in there.

And yes, BP should be in a heap of steaming you know what after this because of what they did.  The main blame falls with them and honestly, I would love to see something drastic happen to them - like being banned from drilling or refining in America or something like that.  The reason why people are so pissed at them is because in only five years, they've had 26 fatalities from explosions resulting from faulty equipment that should have been fixed, but BP said to hell with it and ran the equipment anyway.  You would have thought they might have learned something after they just about blew Texas City off the map.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

This isn't the days of aquatic glory where the captain went down with his ship.  Nowadays, the captain is only as responsible as the entity that owns or controls the ship will let them be.  There is no way that the captain could have gone up against BP and said that the safety valve that was supposed to stop oil flow in the event of an accident was broken and that he was going to shut down the rig or else until it was fixed.  BP would have just fired his ass and put someone new in there.

And yes, BP should be in a heap of steaming you know what after this because of what they did.  The main blame falls with them and honestly, I would love to see something drastic happen to them - like being banned from drilling or refining in America or something like that.  The reason why people are so pissed at them is because in only five years, they've had 26 fatalities from explosions resulting from faulty equipment that should have been fixed, but BP said to hell with it and ran the equipment anyway.  You would have thought they might have learned something after they just about blew Texas City off the map.

quote>

It would have been better for him if they had fired him.  I am speaking as one who has been the master of a vessel, and the law of the sea hasn't changed much since the days of Admiral Nimitz.  I used to teach seamanship, and we always emphasized that:

1. The skipper is the boss, no questions asked.
2. The skipper is responsible for both the vessel and the people on board.
3. When the skipper says jump, you ask "how high" on the way up, especially in matters of safety.
4. The skipper is responsible for knowing the area you are navigating, the rules of the road and the collision regulations.  He had also better be a fine seaman.
5. If the ship sinks, it is the skipper's fault unless shown to be otherwise in a court.

[TheQuiltedLlama 34]

This is worth reading.

The Niger delta: some perspective on the BP oil spill

Posted by Samira Shackle - 14 June 2010 13:04

There is a shocking disparity in the media and political response to oil disasters in different parts of the world.

Water splashes from burst oil pipelines, destroyed with dynamite by separatists. Niger delta, July 2009. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

The response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has, understandably for such a catastrophe, been huge -- from international condemnation of BP, to a narrowly-missed diplomatic row between Britain and the US.

No-one denies that the oil spill is a disaster that is having a devastating effect on ecosystems in the affected areas, as well as on the fishing and tourism industries. But what about a little sense of proportion?

Receiving somewhat less attention in the international press is the environmental outrage that has been inflicted on the Niger delta over the last 50 years.

To give a recent example, on 1 May 2010, a ruptured ExxonMobil pipeline spilled more than a million gallons into the delta over seven days before the leak was stopped. There was not so much reporting about that.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. While exact figures are hard to come by, because oil companies and the Nigerian government are secretive about oil spills, a 2006 report by WWF UK, the World Conservation Union, and Nigerian representatives found that up to 1.5m tons of oil had been spilled in the area over the preceding 50 years. This is 50 times the amount spilled in the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska.

A 2009 report by Amnesty calculated that at least 9m barrels of oil had been spilled. These figures suggest that every year, an equivalent amount to that lost in the Gulf of Mexico is spilled in the delta.

The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation says that an average of 300 individual spills each year equals nearly 2,300 cubic meters. This does not take into account "minor" spills, and the World Bank suggests that the real quantity is as much as ten times higher.

The delta is now one of the most polluted spots in the world. It is estimated that leaking crude oil -- which the oil companies blame on thieves and separatists, and campaigners blame on rusting equipment -- costs Nigeria $10m (£5.3m) daily.

The Niger delta provides 40 per cent of all the crude oil imported by the US. Over two generations, life expectancy in the region's rural communities -- where many people cannot access clean water -- has fallen to just over 40 years.

Obama is right to recognise the scale of the disaster in the gulf (which, he said today, echoes "9/11"), but it is rather sobering to take note of this disparity. Yet again, it seems to be one rule for the west, and one for the rest of the world.

[/Q]

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/06/oil-delta-world-spilled

[Red Lightning 8]

[joshriddle 29]

In my opinion BP outta be SHUT DOWN! There should be no BP to pay for all the damage. Especially after all the citations and law-breaking commited.

Really in my opinion BP doesn't care, and if they even do, they think it is no need to panic. I will find you a picture of something horrible that happened to this one brown pelican. Give me 5 mins...

[joshriddle 29]

In my opinion BP outta be SHUT DOWN! There should be no BP to pay for all the damage. Especially after all the citations and law-breaking commited.

Really in my opinion BP doesn't care, and if they even do, they think it is no need to panic. I will show you a picture of something horrible that happened to this one brown pelican.

Isn't that sad or what? This is a tragic event in American history, and now they are debating whether or not to clean these birds, or put them out of their misery.

[Duke87 1,070]

We can't clean all the birds. And even if we do, well, that isn't really helpful as we can't exactly release them back into the wild. Their habitats have been destroyed; they have no way of getting food, water, or shelter. Any animal coated in oil is a lost cause, plain and simple.

Anyways... did anyone else watch Obama's little speech?

The good points:

- it's nice to see him taking some visible charge of things

- the honesty in acknowledging that this is difficult and we aren't really sure what we're doing is much appreciated

The so-so points:

- concerns about sustainable energy are valid, but it just feels like taking political advantage of the situation to be raising them now

- on that note, it's nice that he wants to move forward with such things, but I don't see a coherent aim here

The bad points:

- all this blaming BP for everything and wanting to "make them pay" is unproductive and needs to stop (for now, at least)

- the rhetoric that we're "at war" with this spill is ridiculous, especially coming from a man who will not use the same terminology about fighting terrorism