You don't actually have to buy a scientist

Posted by: Lea

You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/20/10 08:03 PM


All you have to do is contaminate their potential testimony.


"It makes me feel like they were more interested in making sure we couldn't testify against them than in having us testify for them," George Crozier, head of the Dauphin Island Sea Lab told the [Alabama] Press-Register.


Includes a video of RM covering this latest wrinkle in the legal fabric comprised of the filthy knickers . . .

In no way do I blame the British people. I don't "hate" all things English. If I were xenophobic, I couldn't possibly bear living in Houston, Texas. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna post this and not mention that "they" and "them" in the above quote refers to British Petroleum. Hope that's not a spoiler for anybody.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 06:06 AM

Can I at least rent a scientist for parties?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 06:47 AM

No 'they' and 'them' refers to BP.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 06:53 AM


No 'they' and 'them' refers to BP.


Pull the oil derrick out of your ears.....
That's what she said.

British Petroleum.

Wiki..

The name "BP" derives from the initials of one of the company's former legal names, British Petroleum.[6][7] A multinational oil company ("oil major"), BP is the United Kingdom's largest corporation, with its head office in St James's, City of Westminster, London.
Posted by: steveg

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 07:03 AM

Quote:
In no way do I blame the British people. I don't "hate" all things English.
I don't even know why you would feel obligated to say that. I'd be very surprised if anyone here feels differently. IMHO, it's a given.

But clearly, there is one among us who won't accept that position because it would leave him without an argument to in his own infected mind "win".

Call the corporation BP; call it British Petroleum; call it BP America; call it the freakin' Easter Bunny of you like. It's the corporation's leadership regardless of where their citizenship lies that sucks.

And it's the Bush/Cheney-nurtured MMS and DOI that suck for enabling the abuses that have led to this disaster. Last time I looked, neither of those two bureaus are British. But they suck just as much.

But *somebody* doesn't want to give up the very position I knew he'd take from the very first headline about the DWH rig. Priggish is as priggish does.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 07:17 AM

No she said "British Petroleum". Whatever BP may be derived from - It's the wrong name now and furthermore it's no longer British.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 07:23 AM

Whatever it "may" be derived from?

Too funny.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 07:28 AM

That's right, it's the wrong name now,
Posted by: steveg

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 07:38 AM

Like it would make any difference at all if no one ever referred to "British Petroleum" in the context of this event. He'd "unmask" some kind of anti-British agenda just so he'd have something to justify the huge wedge in his ass. There's predictable. And then there's km (which I suppose we could argue is no longer "keymaker"?). smirk
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 07:46 AM

Quote:
Like it would make any difference at all if no one ever referred to "British Petroleum" in the context of this event.

That's right we'd move on to some of the other examples then... Megrahi anyone?
Posted by: Lea

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 08:04 AM


The "No, it's not" tactic always evokes the "Yes, it is" response.

I should consider not giving km the ammunition to divert attention away from the topic, which in this case is pretty straightforward ~ Dickhead Petroleum is making a bald faced attempt to taint testimony from US scientists in the Gulf area.

This, and Dickhead Petroleum's obvious attempts, already documented, to minimize chances of an accurate measurement of what the three months of unfettered spill will cost them in terms of fine/barrel spewed in the the Gulf . . .

Everything that this corporation has done, everything it failed to do that allowed this disaster to happen, eleven men dead + the dead and maimed in Texas City five years ago ~ I agree with you, if we call the corporation Yellow Brick Road to Hell Petroleum, it changes nothing.

So, OK. I'm good with Dickhead Petroleum. Maybe now, when I post something about DP, we can eliminate the rabbit circle jerk. I do accept my role in this, being stubborn, but hey. Dickhead Petroleum ~ Works for me.
Posted by: steveg

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 08:31 AM

Hmmm. DP stands for something else, too. I this case, though, it relates to both of km's ears! blush grin laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 08:35 AM

There you go again - we haven't even heard BP's side of the story yet and paying for expert evidence is normal practice. You need to get off this BP ticket now - it's only reinforcing everything you deny.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 08:55 AM

We've heard this side of BP formerly known as British Petroleum's story though.
Thank goodness they had no evil intentions, just misleading ones.

Quote:
BP claims that there were no evil intentions in its Photoshopping an image of a Houston crisis room in the wake of the company's massive Gulf Coast oil spill.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 08:59 AM

BP formerly known as British Petroleum? She said Dickhead Petroleum.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 09:04 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
BP formerly known as British Petroleum? She said Dickhead Petroleum.



BP formerly known as British Petroleum. Their intention was to mislead.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 09:14 AM

km, thank you for not coming to their defence.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 09:17 AM

No well I believe in keeping an open mind when we only have spin and one side of the story.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 09:22 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
No well I believe in keeping an open mind when we only have spin and one side of the story.


Do you think BP formerly known as British Petroleum is spinning this story? They admitted the picture was photoshopped, but with no evil intentions.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 09:38 AM

No the tone of the discussion in this forum is spin. All BP did in Photoshop was put a few of images in on blank vdu monitors.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 11:07 AM

Quote:
All BP did in Photoshop was put a few of images in on blank vdu monitors.

Or, rather than show blank screens at the crisis center, they instead put fake content-filled screens in the photo.


Quote:
The photo contains data suggesting it was taken in 2001, not July of 2010 as claimed on BP's Web site.

BP formally known as British Petroleum has yet to explain this. Hopefully, there were no evil intentions.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 11:09 AM

Were they blank screens or a bunch of BSODs?

laugh

Of course, the BSOD is entirely an appropriate symbol for CQ's (code for BP) reaction to this whole mess.

Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 04:52 PM

Quote:
rather than show blank screens at the crisis center, they instead put fake content-filled screens in the photo.

No that's what I mean by spin - putting an entirely sinister connotation on a non event just like those who tried to link BP to Megrahi.

Quote:
BP formally known as British Petroleum has yet to explain this

No they've explained that the photographer was showing off his Photoshop skills.

km
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 05:55 PM

Posted by: yoyo52

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 07:15 PM

At first I thought it was a commercial for a republican running for office. I expected the sequence of images to end with Obama.
Posted by: Lea

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 07:43 PM


blush


Never crossed my often dirty mind! But considering that Dickhead Petroleum is trying to screw us coming and going . . .


laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 10:17 PM

They forgot Gen Patraeus, Pol Pot, Houdini, Transocean and Halliburton.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/21/10 10:19 PM

Dickhead Petroleum? Yeah that sounds fair-minded.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/22/10 06:33 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
No they've explained that the photographer was showing off his Photoshop skills.


The photographer didn't have any photoshop skills, otherwise it wouldn't have been noticed.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/22/10 08:44 AM

It's all relative Sarge... he had more skill than some but less than others.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/22/10 09:29 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
rather than show blank screens at the crisis center, they instead put fake content-filled screens in the photo.

No that's what I mean by spin - putting an entirely sinister connotation on a non event just like those who tried to link BP to Megrahi.

Quote:
BP formally known as British Petroleum has yet to explain this

No they've explained that the photographer was showing off his Photoshop skills.

km


They explained that the photographer was showing off his Photoshop skills!!!!!

OMG. THAT is the funniest statement ever.

An ocean is getting filled with oil and BP formally known as British Petroleum is allowing a photographer to show off his lack of photoshop skills with a picture of their command centre.
And you repeat this statement without a laughing smiley. km, you are one funny guy.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/22/10 10:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Leslie

An ocean is getting filled with oil and BP formally known as British Petroleum is allowing a photographer to show off his lack of photoshop skills with a picture of their command centre.
And you repeat this statement without a laughing smiley. km, you are one funny guy.


Have you ever worked in a large organization? Try 80,000 employees. That you think BP has one gigantic evil brain that controls all of the 80,000 to think up evil stuff like photoshopping is some funny stuff.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/22/10 10:33 AM

No, it's just amateurish behavior by a large multinational corporation exposed just so it can try to put some false positive spin on their response to this mess.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/22/10 10:41 AM

As a matter of fact I have worked for a large organization and in that organization there were supervisors and managers in charge of departments. They were accountable for what came out of that department. If the issue was beyond their responsibility it went to their higher up and so on and so on.
This was a picture of BP formally known as British Petroleum's command centre for the whole world to see during one of the worst crises in U.S. history. Sounds pretty important. One would think they might want to avoid any further untoward sentiment by being honest in what they present to the public.

BTW, evil was their word.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/22/10 10:52 AM

Originally Posted By: MacBozo
No, it's just amateurish behavior by a large multinational corporation exposed just so it can try to put some false positive spin on their response to this mess.


No, you still have this problem wherein you think everything that a large corporation does is known by "the large multinational corporation." But I didn't even see the link. They actually photoshopped some stuff onto screens in the situation room so it looked like they were turned on when they were not?

Oh, heavens, the evil. I'm starting to think KM is right that this incessant one way harangue of BP really is anti-British sentiment. But he may be wrong there. It is more just anti-foreign, anti-KM venting. So you all hate KM. Why don't you all start one long thread of why you hate KM and leave the news out of it?

Did anyone notice they capped it a couple days ago? Anyone post kudos to that or is that impossible here because you might think KM wins a point?

You all post the very latest piece of dirt on BP and harp on it no end. In a way you are all like Fox News and BP is your Sherry Sherrod. As long as the impression of the posting is anti BP then it's fine no matter if it is correct or not. Go back and look at the drivel that is posted here. A disgruntled fired employee gets play here and local Louisiana news. Where are the photos of evil that he took?

You all could be right. BP is evil and plans on world domination. My own personal view is that the oil industry along with the oil regulators are evil. But even if BP is the totality of all that is evil in the entire world you all sound like a bunch of one note harpies with pretty stupid evidence of evilness.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/22/10 11:08 AM

You've completely changed my mind. BP is a benevolent all caring corporation who is never, ever at fault for anything that it has done wrong. Defending the way this corporation has handled this from before the explosion and fire and "leak" is the way to go.

No one here has stated anything that would lead me to believe that there is any hatred directed at km or the British people. You're starting to sound like you believe any negative statement amounts to hatred (where have I heard that before?).

Yes, we did applaud the capping of the well, but with a degree of skepticism that it would hold and wonderment that it took so long to achieve considering the bumbling management at BP.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/22/10 11:26 AM

Quote:
You all could be right. BP is evil and plans on world domination.

Now that is just silly. (But, who really knows).

In the meantime I would really appreciate action becoming a huge corporation responsible -partially or wholly - responsible nonetheless, for the devastation caused by this accident. They have not been very impressive to date.
Posted by: Lea

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/22/10 12:58 PM


It's really generous of you to make the time to stop by and adjust the collective moral compass. It has to be a long trip from up there to down here.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/22/10 01:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Leslie
[quote] They have not been very impressive to date.


A company that has been found responsible for absolutely nothing, a company that has not had its day in court, only in the court of public opinion which is fueled by the desire of the oil industry to pin the entire rap on a single company and a few mistakes, a company that has nonetheless paid out over 200 million dollars on claims.

Everyone it seems knows exactly what happened on that oil rig. That the regulators and the other companies out there made no mistakes. It's all BP's fault. Just like we knew Sherley Sherrod is a racist and Saddam has WMD. Because the internet told you so and that you heard what you wanted to hear.

I would at least try to fake some skepticism and not be so 100% certain about your beliefs. It either looks like religion or you just don't like someone.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/22/10 01:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Lea

It's really generous of you to make the time to stop by and adjust the collective moral compass. It has to be a long trip from up there to down here.


And this comment makes the horse you are on a manageable size? (Besides not making much sense.)
Posted by: steveg

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/22/10 01:15 PM

Darlin' what works for km works for anyone, if'n you git mah drift.

I just call it Stereo Tranquility. ; )
Posted by: Leslie

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/22/10 01:42 PM

Quote:
100% certain about your beliefs

The only thing I am 100% certain about is my name.

And as for "a company that has not been found responsible for absolutely nothing", then why are they even there? Why did they give $? Why are they in charge of the clean-up? Why are they prohibiting reporters from reporting? etc etc etc
Too many whys for a company that is not responsible for anything.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/22/10 02:13 PM

I guess you haven't seen the firsthand reports that BP purposely circumvented safety procedures on that rig in order to speed things up.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/22/10 02:56 PM

I've seen 'em but we haven't heard BP's response yet.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/22/10 03:11 PM

That's because BP refuses to respond. BP's response has been denial at every turn.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/22/10 03:14 PM

That's on legal advice.
Posted by: carp

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/22/10 10:50 PM

Originally Posted By: polymerase
[quote=Leslie]
Quote:
They have not been very impressive to date.


A company that has been found responsible for absolutely nothing, a company that has not had its day in court, only in the court of public opinion which is fueled by the desire of the oil industry to pin the entire rap on a single company and a few mistakes, a company that has nonetheless paid out over 200 million dollars on claims.

Everyone it seems knows exactly what happened on that oil rig. That the regulators and the other companies out there made no mistakes. It's all BP's fault. Just like we knew Sherley Sherrod is a racist and Saddam has WMD. Because the internet told you so and that you heard what you wanted to hear.

I would at least try to fake some skepticism and not be so 100% certain about your beliefs. It either looks like religion or you just don't like someone.


This is were your wrong.

BP is the general contractor for that drill - that makes them 100% responsible, with no questions asked. Don't need to even go to court - Did you even see BP waving their arms (like its not my fault)? NOPE because it is their fault.

Now BP is holding their subcontractors to their contracts and they are paying (BP) for some of the clean up directly. Well except one that decided that BP grossly miss manage the drilling operations and they should not pay BP for their mistakes. <-- BP can take them to court, if they wanted to but would drag out more dirt on BP management culture.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/23/10 04:40 AM

Yes, BP is the owner so it is their responsibility for cleanup. But no questions asked? Do you not want to find out why the incident occurred so that it does not occur again? There sure seems to be a ton of speculation as to the cause. If other companies or the regulatory agencies screwed up or if the very act of drilling in one mile deep water cannot be done safely I want to know. They are libel for the damages but were they 100% responsible? That is what I am talking about. In the court of the internet forum they are also 100% responsible ignoring any culpability by the rest of the oil industry or regulatory agencies.

That attitude is going to allow drilling to resume once BP is punished. While a tropical storm comes in to turn the gulf into a toxic waste dump we should consider that following that line of thinking is not all that smart.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/23/10 10:28 AM

Yes, multiple companies and government agencies had failures concerning this (and probably other wells/operations), but this one is BP's responsibility since it is the owner of this operation. BP was calling the shots on this, so they are the primary target. They screwed up, had no viable response plan other than the cut and paste plan that was approved and, at first, denied that anything was their responsibility. Of course, they are going to try to make themselves look better than what is being charged, but their dismal handling of the actual explosion, collapse, and "spill" along with their amateurish attempts at shoring up their image simply makes BP all that much more vulnerable and culpable. They have behaved as if they believe that they are too big to fail and are somewhat above the law. If anything, BP should learn from this that they should be a bit more humble.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/23/10 11:00 AM

Quote:
his one is BP's responsibility since it is the owner of this operation.

Overall responsibility for a project doesn't imply overall responsibility for everyone's else's negligence or prisoner releases.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/23/10 11:08 AM

BP was calling the shots here, therefore they are responsible.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/23/10 12:12 PM

Not for the negligence of others.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/23/10 12:40 PM

When that "negligence" was directed by BP, it becomes BP's responsibility.

If you owned a truck that you knew had faulty brakes and loaned it to someone else, assuring them that it was safe, and they then had an accident due to brake failure, you would be held responsible for the accident.
Posted by: steveg

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/23/10 01:09 PM

It's one thing when one truly can't understand a principle such as the role of responsibility within a given production hierarchy and another thing altogether when one refuses to accept said principle because of inherent prejudices.

The irony here is that km has indicted most of the forum of "anti-British" sentiments (which simply do not exist), based on his prejudice that no entity associated with Britain (past or present) can ever do or be accused of doing wrong. crazy

It's been stated over and over again that TransOcean, Haliburton, no doubt other subcontractors, and especially a U.S. Gov't. bureau are all responsible in varying degrees. Yet we are consistently and irrationally scolded for not acknowledging the culpability of those other players.

It's like watching a dog that barks at everything real or imagined.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/23/10 01:50 PM

Quote:
If you owned a truck that you knew had faulty brakes and loaned it to someone else, assuring them that it was safe, and they then had an accident due to brake failure, you would be held responsible for the accident.

You mean like Transocean?
Posted by: polymerase

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/23/10 02:38 PM

and the brakes were made by Haliburton. Snap!
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/23/10 03:30 PM

Except, BP was directing its contractors to circumvent safety procedures. Chances are pretty good that had BP allowed time for the placement of the third plug, the well would have had a much better chance of holding. BP was calling the shots. BP is responsible.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/23/10 03:39 PM

So if I loaned the truck to someone saying it was safe, when it wasn't, and he started directing his wife to drive it in excess of the speed limit I'd be alright then on the defective Halliburton brakes and the ensuing smash?

Posted by: MacBozo

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/23/10 03:56 PM

BP began withdrawing the drilling mud before the third Halliburton plug was placed. BP failed.

Since hidden brake condition was never revealed, you are still responsible.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/23/10 04:13 PM

No I'm trying to square it with your analogy... you said I'd be liable for the defective brakes so if you're right about that Transocean would be liable for a defective rig... or maybe you don't like it now because it lets BP off the hook?
Posted by: polymerase

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/23/10 05:53 PM

Originally Posted By: MacBozo
BP was calling the shots. BP is responsible.


Except that isn't how it ever works these days does it? The Captain on the Exxon Valdez was calling the shots so he was responsible. No wait shouldn't Exxon who was calling the shots, as you say be responsible? No, just the captain.

Abu Ghraib, it was George W. Bush who was calling the shots and he was ultimately responsible, oh no wait that would be inconvenient, I guess we have to blame Lynndie England and send her to prison.

You don't have a tinge of confusion here wherein you are now this time blaming the "corporation" and this time it will stick?

You are following a mantra, a meme, that fits American expectations. It could not have been Exxon, or George Bush, but this time it definitely is BP. You have to ask yourself why you are like a pack of lemmings. Is the information you seeing so irrefutable? Who do you think is generating this information? I'll give you one guess. Someone who wants to blame a foreign corporation so they can get back to business ASAP.

This is identical to WMD. It was obvious if you thought about it and removed the vengeance for one second. But the lemmings drove the nation over the cliff. In this case it is big oil driving you to believe with righteous indignation that it is BP alone that did this.

It could not have possibly been the American consumer who wants to keep on drinking oil at the highest per capita rate in the world that is at fault. Americans love to find blame and have to find blame, so long as it isn't them.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/23/10 10:25 PM

That's more or less it then to end all BP threads... what shall we talk about now then?
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/24/10 06:33 AM

No, it doesn't let BP off the hook. The rig was fine. The BOP was known to be damaged, safety procedures were ignored or bypassed at BP's behest. BP was calling the shots which led to the failure of the well and the collapse of the rig. It still is BP's responsibility.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/24/10 06:42 AM

I think it's you who has become delusional. I never, ever bought into the WMD argument. They never existed - except in GW's tiny mind. Yes! GW was responsible and the whole rotten minded crew advising him. That group fostered an attitude of abuse of nearly everything. I've never stated that BP is the lone party responsible for this, but they are ultimately the primary party. I have stated several times that it was the failure of multiple parties both government agencies and private companies involved. What you are implying is that if a corporation does something wrong, causing great harm, the CEO of that company is not responsible. Really?
Posted by: polymerase

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/24/10 07:36 AM

Originally Posted By: MacBozo
I think it's you who has become delusional. I never, ever bought into the WMD argument.

I never said you did. I am just using it as an example of mob mentality and lemmings being deluded by majority opinion. The same attitude is prevalent in these BP threads. "You are the only one who thinks that ..." Sometimes the single voice is the correct voice as it was back with the WMD discussions.

Quote:
I've never stated that BP is the lone party responsible for this, but they are ultimately the primary party. I have stated several times that it was the failure of multiple parties both government agencies and private companies involved.
Sorry if it looks like I am blaming you and only you for the mob mentality BP is the only evil here. You're not leading the bandwagon but you are on board.

Quote:
What you are implying is that if a corporation does something wrong, causing great harm, the CEO of that company is not responsible. Really?
I've said no such thing. I've said that BP could be found 100% culpable. Or not. Transocean made the rig, Haliburton made the parts that failed. But I draw no conclusions what so ever as to who is responsible.

BP is primary so is taking primary responsibility for the spill and the clean up. Assigning blaim comes later. That is not the job of a mob with pitchforks.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/24/10 08:41 AM

IMHO there's plenty of blame to go around for our oil addiction. The whole of western culture, whatever that is, bathes in the stuff like the Romans bathed in olive oil and milk. It's disgusting and if Darwin is right (which he is, despite the fact that mourning doves aren't extinct) then we ain't long for empire. I suspect that no one, at least no one in this forum, would reject that general culpability, although some folks might say that I'm putting it in an excessively negative way.

There's also the culpability of the oil industry generally, in which governments, ours as well as others', are complicit. One reason we bathe in oil is that the industry has done everything in its extensive power to prevent any change at all in our way of life. And, again, government is complicit in that in obvious ways.

But for the particular issue that afflicts the Gulf of Mexico right now, the particular party that is involved is BP and its associates. How the final culpability for the disaster gets apportioned among the parties is a legal issue that will keep lawyers employed for a long long long long long time. But they, collectively and individually, are absolutely culpable for what's taking place right now in the Gulf. I'm not even thinking of capping the well as an index of the failure. Clearly performing that task is a technically very difficult process, and it's not a surprise that it took so long to do it--assuming that in fact it's been done. That the US allows drilling in the ocean with such lackadaisical regulations and safety measures is part of the problem that led to the disaster, but the blow out having occurred, I have no doubt that BP and its colleagues have "fixed" the well as quickly as humanly possible. But report after report--not yet "fact" because a court hasn't passed judgment on what is "fact"--indicates that BP has a woeful safety record, that it and its agents cut corners generally and in regards to this particular well, and that it has primary responsibility for the "accident" (which I put in quotation marks because, if I neglect to fix my car's brakes, then it's not really an accident that they fail as I'm going down a 10% grade).

But BP and its colleagues are responsible for the mess. I know you think that focusing on the particular problem is a way of ignoring the larger problem of our dependence on oil. I disagree. Sure focusing on a villain can allow other rapscallions, the industry itself and our own cultural habits, to get away with murder. But it's also possible that vilifying BP will energize us all to recognize the danger of depending on oil. The long-term result of the mess, enabled by focusing on the shortcomings of BP and its associates as a metonymy for the industry as a whole, may be a comprehensive change in how we all undertake our daily lives.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/24/10 09:04 AM

Quote:
No, it doesn't let BP off the hook. The rig was fine. The BOP was known to be damaged...

Yeah well that was owned by Transocean as well.

Quote:
safety procedures were ignored or bypassed at BP's behest. BP was calling the shots which led to the failure of the well and the collapse of the rig.

That's not a fact but an allegation,

I'm still trying to square your analogy - you're saying that as owner of that truck with defective brakes I and not the user is liable for loss flowing from its condition even if the user starts telling his wife how to drive it... but when something defective is supplied to BP and they start giving orders liability all of a sudden shifts from the owner to the user. How does that work?
Posted by: polymerase

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/24/10 09:43 AM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
But it's also possible that vilifying BP will energize us all to recognize the danger of depending on oil.

I agree with everything but this. How about we make a wager.
1) The Santa Barbara blowout closed anymore off shore off Cailifornia, started the Earth Day movement and put extensive regulations in place.
2) The West Falmouth oil spill resulted in all oil shipping to become double hulled even the small local transports.

My wager would be that the direction this is going, BP is evil, spank them and move on, will change nothing in the Gulf of Mexico. It will eventually be a toxic wasteland.

Why? Because the local government in the gulf all the way up to the federal level wants it that way.

There will be a cute story three years from now about how the shrimping industry has come back. Shrimp are shrimp, they grow fast. Meanwhile the loggerhead turtle, some other turtle species, the bluefin tuna nursery will remain wiped out.

People will rant about photoshopped four color glossy marketing strategies of BP and will allow it all to happen.

This strategy works every time.

Abu Ghraib is not Bush's fault, it's Lindesy England's. throw her in jail.
Vietnam and Mai Lai massacre was not Nixon's fault it was William Calley's throw him in jail.
No WMD was not Bush's fault, it was Saddam's. Hang him and kill his sons while you're at it.
The Exxon Valdez was not the oil industries' fault, it was Captain Hazelwood's fault, throw him in jail.
The Gulf of Mexico as a toxic waste dump is not the oil industries' fault, it's BP's, hang them starting with that CEO.

But all those examples and many more were our fault for being gullible and the most wasteful consumers of oil and energy of anyone on this planet. You say it is western civilization's fault. No, if the US could cut their per capita oil consumption to what the British per capita consumption is we would not have to foul the Gulf of Mexico. But 5 dollar a gallon gas won't cut it here because we are selfish pigs who then whine about the pig sty they live in.

Could this blowout actually do some good the way the SAnta Barbara or West Falmouth spills did? If the response in this forum is any indicator of the rest of the US I would say not a chance.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/24/10 10:18 AM

Guess we'll see. I hope you're wrong!
Posted by: polymerase

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/24/10 10:29 AM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
"fact"--indicates that BP has a woeful safety record, that it and its agents cut corners generally and in regards to this particular well, and that it has primary responsibility for the "accident" (which I put in quotation marks because, if I neglect to fix my car's brakes, then it's not really an accident that they fail as I'm going down a 10% grade).


This factual evidence shrivels in the light of day. The OSHA violations are crap. Of course if you start the day after the BP refinery blows up and start counting they are going to have a ton more violations. I would hope OSHA is in there every day. What occurred on the rig is all being controlled and explained by other than BP. Of course they are going to say it isn't there fault but BP's. The oil execs go to congress. Of course they are going to say they would never had done what BP did.

Question: did you hear one little peep (prior to the need for a scapegoat), of this great and terrible evil which was BP? If they were so evil, why wasn't there some news? Even a little. Oh, right, government oversight was a a wee bit negligent.

Virtually all the "facts" I have seen, heard, read about, remind me so much of the WMD justification. Sorry to bring it up again but it is relevant, (as is Bhopal and other things but I'll leave those out.) The WMD was one lie after another. The remote drones, the nerve gas, the anthrax, the yellow cake. One after another they were trotted out like this OSHA violations or OMG photoshopping of marketing drivel! Wow, as bad as Saddam's balsa wood drones. Both show that the culprit is really really bad even though the evidence is ridiculous.

You're going down a more than a 10% grade because you are really being taken for a ride.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/24/10 10:37 AM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
Guess we'll see. I hope you're wrong!

I hope I am wrong too! We have to rationally look at our energy policies and cut back on oil, gas, and coal. All three are destroying our environment and our lives.

To rationally replace a substantial segment of the 100 quadrillion BTUs that we consume each year. We can cut back, we can cut a few percent with wind and solar. But we need about 30 quadrillion from nuclear with no effect on global warming and we need to open Yucca Mountain nuclear repository.

Or we live with the Gulf of Mexico with a bathtub ring and no bluefin tuna.
Posted by: Lea

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/24/10 11:00 AM



Question: did you hear one little peep (prior to the need for a scapegoat), of this great and terrible evil which was BP?



We've know it down here for a long time. This can't be news to you.

On March 23, 2005, a fire and explosion occurred at BP's Texas City Refinery in Texas City, Texas, killing 15 workers and injuring more than 170 others. BP was charged with criminal violations of federal environmental laws and has been subject to lawsuits from the victim's families. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration slapped BP with a then-record fine for hundreds of safety violations, and subsequently imposed an even larger fine after claiming that BP had failed to implement safety improvements following the disaster.


No WMDs, no drunken captain, nobody at Justice excusing torture, no rogue lieutenants. The WIKI entry may be beneath your criteria, but the history and the documentation is sound.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/24/10 11:12 AM

Even that was relatively minor compared to Bhopal and the Niger Delta but it was also under different management... little can be drawn from it except that one previous calamity from one of the world's largest companies is a pretty good record - contrary to what you're trying to suggest.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/24/10 12:45 PM

Yes, I did hear about the Texas Oil Refinery disaster. It was labeled BP's fault and it was pretty much off the news a week later. OSHA went in and cited the beejesus out of the place and never stopped. Buried in the middle of the Bush administration I was not surprised. I am surprised that Obama is doing the same thing. Blame BP end of story.

That disaster proves my theory. Oops, filled the Isomerisation tank too full, just a simple mistake. Fire it back of Jeeves. No need to change and regulations, no need to fix anything.
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/24/10 04:44 PM

I have an absolutely wonderful idea. You should be appointed to the commission deciding what the new MMS regulations should be for offshore drilling. No joke, serious as a heart attack. Your scientific background and experience qualifies you, even if as a non oil industry expert. If you put your stamp of approval on new regs, I for one would have more faith in them.

If you remember the quote in another thread I posted from an oil industry expert who admitted no one in the industry or govt. was truly prepared for this scenario. He admitted this was the fault of his industry, not just one company. If they just put a band-aid on it and call it good, that is not good enough and I understand your skepticism that they may do little more than just that. Believe or not, there are good people in the oil industry who really do want to see real reforms in the regs that will work so this does not ever happen again. Most folks who work in the oil patch in the Gulf also live there and do not want to live in a Gulf that is a toxic waste dump.

Chris
Posted by: polymerase

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/24/10 05:30 PM

I will take your suggestion as a compliment but never in a million years will I get near that kind of public policy making.

After Lea posted the Texas oil refinery it got me wondering why that was a five day news cycle, barely, and this disaster is amped to the max.

1) We have oil cam. People can see it so people can stay annoyed. Otherwise they would forget.

2) Oily birds. Nothing like an oily bird or a greased turtle to make people angry.

15 Texans got snuffed in the refinery explosion and that was old news a few days later. Some oily birds and oil cam and now you have a show that requires lot more scapegoating than a few OSHA citations.

Why would any sane person get involved with trying to educate the American people when they are such a bunch of stupid shiits? (See this is why I would not be any good.)


This week the oil got shut off. That is the end of the disaster as far as the news cycle goes. I bet we have no more BP sucks threads in this forum after another week. Pretty amazing really. The Gulf might take ten years or more to recover. Bluefin tuna might be toast. But no one will care because it is just numbers on a graph and there is no oil cam.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/24/10 05:47 PM

Originally Posted By: polymerase
Bluefin tuna might be toast. But no one will care because it is just numbers on a graph and there is no oil cam.
Aren't you the human tuinal. I guess I have more faith in mankind than you do, but you don't subscribe to faith so we definitely look at it differently.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/24/10 05:57 PM

I got plenty of faith in mankind. It is the selfish stupid American species I have my doubts in.

And if you met me you would call me human crystal meth.

If you think faith or belief in mankind's goodness is some way connected to religion and that atheists lack this moral compass you have more screws loose than I thought. ;-O

Posted by: Lea

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/24/10 06:17 PM


Quote:
15 Texans got snuffed in the refinery explosion and that was old news a few days later. Some oily birds and oil cam and now you have a show that requires lot more scapegoating than a few OSHA citations.



The devastation from this spill is considerably more far-reaching than what happened at Texas City, with the exception of the loss of human life. The people, the ecology and the economy of the Gulf Coast will be reeling from this for years to come. You don't think so? Move your ass down there and try to make a blue collar living. Go wade fishing in those salt flats. Try to keep you restaurant/hotel/fishing guide business viable for the next two years.


Quote:
This week the oil got shut off. That is the end of the disaster as far as the news cycle goes. I bet we have no more BP sucks threads in this forum after another week.



And I bet this is just the beginning of the Dickhead Petroleum sucks threads. This awful thing isn't even close to being over. For example ~ The original topic of this thread. You're a fkn' scientist. This story elicits 0 opinion from you? It's the second thread about the contract thing, but all you can do is rave on about how stupid we are and how poor KM is constantly picked on? Really?

Fine. Rant on. The rest of us will continue to follow the developments, post about them and talk about them.

Quote:
But no one will care because it is just numbers on a graph and there is no oil cam.


And you'll be where in six months? Your involvement in all of this will be? Raving on, is all I can guess. But I'll be damned if I'll keep my mouth shut while you sell everybody else so fkn' short.

And while I'm here ~ You need to get over this "poor KM" crap. It's not like there was some secret decoder ring back room meeting, where everybody decided that KM is an arrogant, obnoxious a$$hole. He's managed to generate those feelings from the majority of the posters here all on his own. The two of you make quite a well matched couple.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/24/10 06:26 PM

Originally Posted By: polymerase

If you think faith or belief in mankind's goodness is some way connected to religion and that atheists lack this moral compass you have more screws loose than I thought. ;-O
Don't even start that, besides not caring to debate that crap, it's nowhere near what I meant. You just don't seem to take stock in much of anything except the world and activities you've wrapped yourself in up on that pedestal. Okay, the pedestal part sounded a bit personal, but that's the way it appears since you've re-emerged. I see a Howard Beale sort of thing mixed in too.

You may have some good points, but the condescending tone drowns them out. It's all in the presentation, eh?

You hardly ever joke anymore, what's up, or not, in your life?
Posted by: polymerase

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/24/10 06:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Reboot

You hardly ever joke anymore, what's up, or not, in your life?


Well my life is a conundrum right now. I'm having the time of my life. Everything I touch turns to gold. I make some financial decisions thinking about ten minutes on the matter and they become life changing for me. I'm thinking of retiring early because of those decisions but I love my jobs. I have five of them now but they don't take up enough time in the day so I end up coming here to just piiss you all off. So that is the conundrum. I know, as we all do, plenty of people who have lost their jobs in the past two years. I feel like I need to hide under a basket.

Today I went fishing at dawn, then kayaking, went to lunch with my family at a very nice restaurant that has a monkfish in lemon and caper sauce to die for and a mussels in a cream and fennel sauce and I had to get that too. They also know how to make my martini. Tomorrow at 5:30AM I lead a kayaking tour around some islands. In between why would I come here to be all high and mighty? I'm friggin' nuts I guess.

I want to change the direction this country is headed. I don't want to make friends or make jokes. I want to make people understand how important some of these decisions we make are. Like electing George Bush or not just scapegoating BP and letting big oil do business as usual. I suppose it could be said that I am such a pompous ass that anyone who listened to me voted for Bush out of spite. Bryan said as much once when I was arguing with him years ago. But the ashole would have voted for Bush or even worse, a libertarian regardless of what I said.

And so it goes. (Believe it or not but in real life I don't think I am a pompous ass, only my wife calls me an ass. I do act like I am on crystal meth most of the time but I take afternoon naps pretty much every day.)
Posted by: Leslie

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/25/10 09:32 AM

Quote:
Today I went fishing at dawn, then kayaking, went to lunch with my family at a very nice restaurant that has a monkfish in lemon and caper sauce to die for and a mussels in a cream and fennel sauce and I had to get that too. They also know how to make my martini. Tomorrow at 5:30AM I lead a kayaking tour around some islands.

That sounds lovely.
Looks like Tony Hayward is "going to have his life back" pretty soon and will be able to do all those comforting activities also. He is resigning.
Posted by: Lea

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/25/10 09:56 AM




(The above is a "faked surprise" smiley. Subtle, I know . . .)

Whoa! Latest on the google intertube newswire is only one hour old. You are on top of it, Leslie!

If there's anything remarkable about Tony gettin' dumped, it's that the news breaks on a Sunday. Usually, this kind of thing goes down on a Friday. Seriously, can't DP get anything right?

Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/25/10 01:55 PM

If you were working the hours he was putting in for your benefit you'd want your life back as well.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/25/10 04:34 PM

And you are not British keymaker and I am not American lanovami. We are members of the human race first. Get off your little island (figuratively of course, unless you feel like getting away).
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/25/10 04:46 PM

It was meant as a compliment. We need better people in government appointed and elected positions. Too bad it tends to be a sinkhole timesuck that doesn't seem to change much no matter which party is in power. Guess that's where my cynicism kicks in.

Anyways, I think the main reason the GOM oil spill has a longer shelf life than the refinery disaster is because it really does affect so many more people. We've had refinery incidents with deaths in years past here in my locale that barely blip the national MSM radar screen. The BP refinery was forgotten quickly because it did not have a long lasting major effect on the region or nation as a whole. I do believe you are correct about the spill cams and other reporting extending the GOM disaster to certain extent. The Reality TV syndrome has a segment of our nation in a slow and painless death grip. But, I do have friends in the Gulf region in an already depressed economy that have been affected by this. I've even had local oil patch friends here tell me of Gulf oil workers coming here in hopes of work when there is not enough jobs to go around here as it is.

I have seen a few references regarding the bluefin tuna coming from opposite extremes. I would imagine there will be some serious studies and that would be a worthwhile project to come out of this mess. Hopefully any studies will be truly independent even if the funding is paid for out of the BP fund or however that works.

Chris
Posted by: Leslie

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/25/10 05:31 PM

Quote:
If you were working the hours he was putting in for your benefit you'd want your life back as well.

Another good one.
I'm starting to appreciate your sense of humour.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/25/10 09:15 PM

I wasn't making any points about my nationality, only explaining that BP wasn't British.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/25/10 09:20 PM

Oh I see - you thought it he meant it as an insult to the deceased? No I don't think so - he said he was personally devastated by their deaths so that's been taken out of context, twisted and distorted to make him look like a bad person.
Posted by: Ben Dover

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/25/10 09:22 PM

You'll like this. Except it should be updated to include getting mad over an oil slick. Sad bird pictures, marshes, etc.



Ed
Posted by: Leslie

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/25/10 11:27 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Oh I see - you thought it he meant it as an insult to the deceased? No I don't think so - he said he was personally devastated by their deaths so that's been taken out of context, twisted and distorted to make him look like a bad person.


I don't know what you are talking about but you are still making me laugh.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/25/10 11:33 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Oh I see - you thought it he meant it as an insult to the deceased? No I don't think so - he said he was personally devastated by their deaths so that's been taken out of context, twisted and distorted to make him look like a bad person.


This is what I heard

Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 12:13 AM

That was part of it as well - people trying to make out their use of incorrect long names or old redundant ones didn't betray their bigotry.
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 12:57 AM

Bigotry towards whom?

Chris
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 01:13 AM

Tony Hayward and BP for example, Kenny MacAskill, Alex Salmond, Christine Graham and others advancing a sensible interpretation of events.
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 01:36 AM

Well, that would not seem like bigotry. That would usually imply being bigoted or prejudiced against a certain race, ethnicity or nationality. For example, I would think that someone could certainly dislike BP the corporation because of the Gulf disaster or even dislike Tony Hayward without being bigoted against any given race, ethnic group or nationality.

Chris
Posted by: lanovami

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 01:57 AM

"I wasn't making any points about my nationality,"

You don't need to make any points, your entrenched position is already self-evident.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 02:04 AM

There must be a reason why you don't use the term 'British Petroleum' and a reason why others do - but we're still waiting for an explanation and 'convenience' doesn't do it.

Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 02:08 AM

I wouldn't think nationality is an "entrenched position" to be honest - more like an accident of birth... which is why I don't make any points about it.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 02:36 AM

sez you.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 02:39 AM

No, in point of fact.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 03:26 AM

That is very good and in fact I did get mad at every single one of them. I think I know who wrote it as his favorite catch phrase since the day I met him in 1980 was "you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny."
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 07:18 AM

Did ya ever stop to think that somebody might be pushing your buttons? Maybe because sometimes you are so good at pushing other people's buttons? I mean, have you looked at the image you created and now put into nearly every post? Hello?

New saying - Those who push buttons should not live in a push-button house. Or something like that.

Chris
Posted by: Leslie

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 08:50 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
That was part of it as well - people trying to make out their use of incorrect long names or old redundant ones didn't betray their bigotry.


What are you really trying to say?
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 09:11 AM

Maybe we should always state, "BP, formerly known as British Petroleum."
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 09:20 AM

Quote:
somebody might be pushing your buttons?

Yoyo tried that one but the trouble is it started long before I said anything and people have been coming out with it in the States who don't even know me... like President Obama for example, half the media and quite a few senators. What I've noticed is that several Mac users latch onto it as though they haven't got a mind of their own and regurgitate it undiluted like a demented robot - which I find quite surprising... almost as though you think they must be Windows users.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 09:34 AM

Originally Posted By: MacBozo
Maybe we should always state, "BP, formerly known as British Petroleum."


That's what I have been doing. Nothing to dispute there, it is a fact.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 09:38 AM

Yeah, but it's bizarre.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 09:40 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Yeah, but it's bizarre.


Facts are not bizarre, they are facts, you know that.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 09:43 AM

Originally Posted By: MacBozo
Maybe we should always state, "BP, formerly known as British Petroleum."


And we should call this place ApplecCentral, formerly known as MacMinute, home of forum members formerly known as MacCentral. That makes a lot of sense. Uh, not.

No, I think KM is right. People want to identify BP is a foreign owned conglomerate full of Brits. Or else they would not us a name that is the former name not used for ten years.
Posted by: steveg

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 10:11 AM

Mazeltov! You've just called it exactly as it is. Not that he'd ever admit it, but that's the way it absotively posilutely is. Well done!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 10:39 AM

No you're getting confused between exactly as it is and exactly as it's not... but you're not allowed to know exactly as it is because that's in my reply.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 11:50 AM

Quote:
Hayward makes 1.045 million pounds ($1.6 million) a year as the company's head, according to its annual report. In 2009, he received a performance bonus of more than 2 million pounds plus other remuneration, bringing his total pay package to over 4 million pounds.

Going, going, gone in October. But he is not going to starve or have to sell his yacht.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 12:00 PM

You forgot: He gets his life back, too.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 12:24 PM

Right! Forgot about that. He is one lucky guy.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 12:50 PM

That's for consumption over there to take the heat off Bob Pudley... whereas you lot think he's gone he's actually still retained and given his dream job in Russia. That's right, Hayward was allowed to name his terms as a reward for years of service and putting the Senate in its place when dealing with those insipid questions a few weeks ago.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 02:05 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
it started long before I said anything


I know you all, and will awhile uphold
The unyoked humour of your idleness. . . .

The "all" in this context = entirely.
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 06:20 PM

Then my suggestion would be to not seem to take it so personally. There is nothing wrong with the fact that BP was known as British Petroleum for such a long time. You pointed out many times that Exxon and Union Carbide were American companies. While not being proud of everything those companies have done I don't take it personally just because I happen to be an American.

We're all on this planet together and national pride is fine when it does not start wars or cause other problems. A tragedy is a tragedy no matter who owns it. Repair the damage, find out what happened and fix it so it doesn't happen again makes sense to me. There will be plenty of vilification and drama in the courtrooms for years to come. Not much we can do about that.

Just one guy here on the planet,
Chris
Posted by: polymerase

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 07:48 PM

Originally Posted By: ChrisN

We're all on this planet together and national pride is fine when it does not start wars or cause other problems.
Chris


If you follow the threads, KM is only noting that the company is BP, not British Petroleum. He has never said a jingoistic nationalistic flag waving anything. His sticking to the those precepts seem to give some people hives but he hasn't wavered. He is pointing out that Obama and others have non-factually called BP, British Petroleum. There is anti-Brtitish sentiment about and he is expressing his opinion about that sentiment.

Maybe because my mother was born in London and I am half British but the likes of these threads that refuse to not "push the button" and keep on with the "British" British Petroleum is more than annoying. To have it come from Americans who suck at the oil teat until they are blue in the face is comical.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 09:35 PM

Poly is right - I don't know which of my posts you had in mind on taking it personally but that's obviously not the case. I'm not even sure why you would think that when my point has been that BP is no longer British. No, hypocritical and misleading accounts of such events deserve to be exposed for what they are. Maybe no one wants to talk about the other players but when it gets to court they're going to have to face the music. And notwithstanding that we're all on the planet together I've noticed that everyone runs a mile from any discussion about Bhopal or the Niger Delta. It was strange I thought after the passes were printed for Warren Anderson that no one seemed to have a record of where to find them for Tony Hayward.
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: You don't actually have to buy a scientist - 07/26/10 09:52 PM

As far as Obama and other national figures, I try to practice never ascribing to malice that which can be explained by ignorance. At least in the MSM, they can't get much of anything right.

Here, it is my opinion that km has brought some of this on himself because of the way he argues sometimes. I know it has made me tweak back at him a bit at times because he can be so perplexing, but not because he is British.

However, I believe in live and let live. We don't always have to agree, but if we are not going to get along now, when will we?

FWIW, most of the technical articles and sites I read covering the Gulf disaster do not have any anti-British sentiment. In fact the main technical site I read daily on this topic has a truly international group of participants with great knowledge on a variety of topics and I have learned a lot from them all.

Chris