Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

BP Oil Mess

Oh. That is Dork's board. I used to really like Dork. Then he told me he was only nice to me because Jack told him to be. I like that Jack looks out for me like that but if he is going to pick my friends, I'd like for him to pick me some rich, generous ones. I can make poor friends all by myself.

That's a pretty poor translation of what actually took place, don't you think? He was a fucking asshole to you forever, and then he tried criticizing my friendship with you, which is where I told him to start being nice to you or deal with the consequences of his negative bullshit behavior. Didn't mean shit in the end, he's completely fucking worthless. Make sure you post this at Badlands Kitty, that's what you do, I know. Then you can come back with retardo's grunting "could care less" ennui. Fuck that shit.

He hasn't changed a bit, he's still the same shallow retard he's always been. I don't care what Kitty likes or where Kitty posts, the fact that Lox, me, wheezie and several others dont post there at all should speak VOLUMES.
 
There are some parody accounts over on Twitter. This one http://twitter.com/BPGlobalPR and this one http://twitter.com/BPcleanupCrew are my favorites.

From BPGlobalPR:
Tropical Storms = 1/2 days. #booyah #bpcares about 1 hour ago via web

Anyone accusing us of tarring and feathering pelicans is ignorant. They feathered themselves. #bpcares about 16 hours ago via TweetDeck

Next time we establish a "safe word" with an oil rig, it won't be "More Oil Please!" Things got confusing. #bpcares 2:40 PM Jun 27th via web

Keep in mind, the more your interest in the oil spill wanes, the less damage the oil does. #outofsightoutofmind #day67 12:55 PM Jun 25th via web

From BPcleanupCrew:
We are grilling on the beach tonight. Using Tar Balls as charcoal. Makes for great smoked Pelican for dinner. 3:38 PM Jun 27th via web

Governor Haley Barbour has us doing lines of oil each night to illustrate how safe snorting oil can be because he says oil is 100% safe. 5:54 PM Jun 26th via web

Alright! Just heard more offshore drilling to occur. Hopefully there is another spill. I need some more Overtime. 5:17 PM Jun 22nd via web

Gov. Haley Barbour is walking around the beach in a speedo like there is nothing wrong. The 5 birds we were cleaning committed suicide. 12:09 PM Jun 19th via web
 
All I know for sure is there are odd looking bubbles in the puddles generated by the storm that passed through here yesterday and the one that came through here today. They say that the oil dispersing chemicals they are using don't rise high enough to become part of the planet's respiratory system but I would remind these same genuises that the moisture in the wetlands doesn't rise either but it becomes part of the planet's respiratory system. Plus I've not seen any data on how these "dispersing" chemicals are dispersing in the wind.
 
You could be seeing oil and dispersants in the rain, eloisel. :rwmad: Maybe they should change the name of the EPA to the BPA.

http://a11news.com/3325/oil-rain-in-louisiana/

Oil Rain In Louisiana – Just when Louisiana thought it couldn’t get any worse, now they are getting rain with oil mixed in due to the use of chemical dispersants on the BP Gulf of Mexico spill.

The video below shows the oily rain on a Louisiana road 45 miles from the Gulf of Mexico and other areas of the hard-hit state are reporting similarly contaminated rainfall.

An unknown variable on the evaporation-rainfall cycle is BP’s dispersant of choice, Corexit 9500, which may be helping the degree of oil contained in water surface evaporation.

Dispersants break up the natural surface tension in oil, sending small droplets into the water column and reducing the surface area which may evaporate, by changing the chemistry of the oil which remains on the surface.

In the worst case scenario this sheen is actually oil mixed Corexit, which is associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems as sides effects at high doses to clean-up workers.

Corexit has also been documented to cause the breakdown of red blood cells, leading to blood in urine and feces, and can damage the kidneys, liver, spleen and bone marrow of humans – effects not included on the warning information sheet for workers.

Of course, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says, “EPA has no data, information or scientific basis that suggests that oil mixed with dispersant could possibly evaporate from the Gulf into the water cycle.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un8co1d4zb4
[YOUTUBE]un8co1d4zb4[/YOUTUBE]

I don't know about the video, because I've seen an oily sheen on water that runs off pavement plenty of times, but not with brown bubbles in it!
 
You righties will have to forgive me for using Mother Jones as a source, but if this shit is true it shouldn't matter which side you're on.

http://motherjones.com/rights-stuff/2010/06/BP-private-police-force-louisiana

Uniformed Cops on BP Payroll? Enter the ACLU

— By Mac McClelland
| Tue Jun. 29, 2010 3:03 AM PDT

Some updates on the incident I reported on last week, in which an off-duty Louisiana sheriff's deputy working for BP's private security detail harassed an environmental activist who was neither on BP's property nor breaking any laws. (Watch the video at the end of this post.)

First, some gratifying news: The ACLU has put Louisiana law enforcement on notice. In a letter (PDF) released yesterday, Marjorie Esman, executive director of the group's Louisiana chapter, reminded the sheriffs of the coastal parishes that "members of the public have the right under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to film, record, photograph, and document anything they observe in a public place. No one—neither law enforcement nor a private corporation—has the legal right to interfere with public access to public places or the recording of activities that occur there. Nor may law enforcement officials cooperate with private companies in denying such access to the public."

Esman told me that the ACLU had discussed the matter due in large part to Mother Jones' reporting. She says it would consider filing a lawsuit if appropriate.

Louisiana police don't have any right to tell you you can't walk onto a public beach (even to, as Esman puts it, "roll around in sticky gunky tar that I'll never be able to get off—if I want to, that's my right"). However, they do have the right to mislead you about who they're really working for. In Louisiana, as in many places, it's legal for police officers to wear their uniforms regardless of whether they're acting in an official capacity or working for a private corporation. Which is why Andrew Wheelan, the environmentalist mentioned above, was unaware that the cop who pressured him to stop filming a BP building and later pulled him over so that a BP official could question him wasn't on duty at the time. The Terrebonne Parish Sheriff's Office told me that the deputy who pulled Wheelan over is just one of 40 in the parish who are working for BP on their own time. And the BP-police collusion goes beyond uniformed deputies moonlighting. In nearby Lafourche Parish, for example, the sheriff's office is filling 57 security positions a week for BP; the shifts are on the clock, and BP reimburses the sheriff's office for them.

There's been a lot of to-do about the federal government being officially in charge of all things oil-spill related, and Mother Jones ruffled some feathers by quoting a BP rep who said the company had a lot of sway over local sheriff's departments. But there you have it, plain as day: Down here, many cops do literally work for BP.

Seem like a conflict of interest, or even sort of scary? Perhaps. But, as Esman points out, it's perfectly legal. "BP doesn't have the right to just decide they're going to take over a public street," she says. "They do not have the authority to tell people they can't document what they see. But they do have the right to hire these deputies. There's nothing we can do about that."
 
BP has options before bankruptcy, lawyers say But oil giant may file to avoid 'perpetual' liability, bankers and lawyers warn

By Alistair Barr, MarketWatch

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- BP PLC has several options to explore in dealing with the worst environment disaster in U.S. history, but the oil giant may file for bankruptcy if it faces a never-ending flow of claims, lawyers and bankers said Tuesday.

"BP has many options besides bankruptcy and is a long way from exhausting those," said Loretta Cross, a national managing partner at Grant Thornton's corporate-advisory and restructuring-services group, during a conference call organized by the American Bankruptcy Institute.

The Deepwater Horizon platform exploded on April 20, killing 11 people. It sank two days later, triggering a massive oil leak that's still spewing oil and gas. BP shares have plummeted on concern that the company could be overwhelmed by tens of billions of dollars in claims and other liabilities. Read about the stock drop.

Cross, who specializes in energy-company reorganizations, estimated Tuesday that BP (NYSE:BP) needs roughly $30 billion in cash outside of what the company can generate from its balance sheet.

"Finding that $30 billion among their assets is a better solution than filing for bankruptcy and the ramifications it would have for BP's business partners as well as its reputation," she remarked during the conference call.

BP could sell up to $30 billion in debt and still be at the industry average for debt to earnings, before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, according to Cross.

The company also has tangible assets with a total value of about $232 billion, giving it "an enormous war chest" to tap if necessary.

What's more, BP could reduce capital expenditures, which totaled about $52 billion over the past two years. However, this would be the least attractive option because it would dent the company's future income, she said.

BP also spent roughly $10 billion a year over the past two years on dividends and those will likely be "curtailed or reduced," Cross added.

The company can also look to "other responsible parties," such as Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (NYSE:APC) , Mitsui, Transocean Ltd. (NYSE:RIG) and Halliburton Co. (NYSE:HAL) , she indicated.

A longer-term solution may be a takeover of BP, Cross said. Read about renewed takeover talk.

'Delay, delay, delay'

But even if BP has such financial flexibility, the company may be considering filing for bankruptcy, according to Peter Kaufman, head of Gordian Group's restructuring and distressed M&A practice.

"Just because BP can afford to pay all claims, that doesn't mean it will or should," Kaufman said during the conference call organized by the American Bankruptcy Institute. "As investment-banking adviser to BP, I would be working on a plan to help them minimize how much they pay.

"My advice to the board would be to delay, delay, delay," he added.

A lot depends on the valuation of BP's North American assets. If this part of the company's business is worth $100 billion and claims from the Gulf of Mexico spill end up totaling $150 billion, "I would be seeking to wall off BP North America so that no one can get to BP's other assets," Kaufman commented. "Bankruptcy would be a powerful tool."

'Horror'

On June 9, speculation about a possible bankruptcy filing by BP pushed the company's stock down 16% and hammered the company's bonds.

BP spokesman John Pack said at the time that the company remains on solid financial footing, with 18 billion barrels of proven reserves. "I have no idea where that rumor is coming from," he replied, when asked if BP was talking to bankruptcy lawyers.

Kenneth Feinberg, who is overseeing a $20 billion fund set up by BP to pay spill victims, said bankruptcy would be "a horror" and a "disaster" for the Gulf region, during a June 22 interview on Fox News. See early transcript of interview with Neil Cavuto.

However, BP shares have continued to fall. On Monday, the stock hit $26.75 in the United States, the lowest level in at least a decade, according to FactSet.

'Golden goose'

A bankruptcy filing would stymie efforts to recoup losses for victims of the spill, said Dillon Jackson, a personal injury lawyer at Foster Pepper in Seattle, during Tuesday's conference call.

Jackson expressed concern following Kaufman's comment about protecting BP assets.

"This makes it clear we are up against a huge army of experts and lawyers," he remarked. "Bankruptcy is a place where deals are done. This is a golden goose and it lays nice eggs and makes an incredible amount of money."

Any fund or trust set up by BP to pay claims from the spill should be continuously replenished "in perpetuity," so future claimants are treated the same as current victims, Jackson suggested. "I don't think we would favor a closed-end trust where BP places a certain amount of money in and then escapes."

Gordian Group's Kaufman countered that BP has to look out for the interests of shareholders and other investors first.

"BP is not a golden goose for you and your claimants," he said. "If it is pushed too far, absent an overall solution, BP is assuredly going to explore insolvency proceedings. That would cause a huge delay in claimants getting recoveries."

Kaufman continued: "The government may have to front money for claimants and then go after BP itself. That's why Feinberg said it would be a horror if BP filed."

If the company files for bankruptcy, it could do it in the United Kingdom rather than the United States, according to Robert Keach, a shareholder at law firm Bernstein Shur who represents debtors, creditors, lessors and other parties in bankruptcy proceedings.

"The concern is that claimants are likely to see BP as funding some type of claimant trust virtually in perpetuity," he said during the conference call. "That's the problem we are trying to avoid. No company wants to be tethered to that type of liability forever."
 
A company with $232 billion in assets shouldn't be allowed to file for bankruptcy. That is fucking ridiculous. Although, I don't think they should have to pay endless claims as long as they do everything in their power to get this shit cleaned up.
 
You could be seeing oil and dispersants in the rain, eloisel. :rwmad: Maybe they should change the name of the EPA to the BPA.



I don't know about the video, because I've seen an oily sheen on water that runs off pavement plenty of times, but not with brown bubbles in it!

Yeah, I've seen rainbows on tarmac and runoff from pollutants and contaminants before, usually on a high traffic roadway though. With the erosion on the side, that road looked a little country and not as widely used as some. Of course, there could be other sources for contaminants nearby. Looks like an investigation is called for.

The bubbles we are seeing is more like a white foam - like from detergent.

We're still getting lots of rain and more is in the forecast. Not much we can do at this point but gripe and complain.
 
You righties will have to forgive me for using Mother Jones as a source, but if this shit is true it shouldn't matter which side you're on.

Well, now, this is the problem with partisan reporting. Facts are reported that are unsupported and may or may not be accurate or may be twisted in a manner to support someone's agenda.

I don't know Louisiana law. I do know that my city's police officers are allowed to have part time jobs as security but they are not allowed to wear their City police uniform if they are in fact employed by someone other than the City when they are performing the part time job as security personnel. Some may wear a paramilitary uniform very similar to their police uniform in the security capacity. That is something concerned citizens should take up with police unions.

Sometimes police are supplied to an entity for special situations - such as a major sporting event or this disaster caused by BP - and the entity is required to reimburse the police. The thinking on that is the taxpayer - and it is taxpayer money that pays police wages and benefits - should not be responsible for paying for police that would not be required if it weren't for the special event or situation.

The government has the responsibility to limit access to an unsafe public area and therefore has the right to do so. If the government does not do what it can to stop citizens from entering into an unsafe public area and a citizen is injured, then that citizen can sue the government for premises liability. And believe me, they do.

That isn't being left or right, that is just how it is.
 
A company with $232 billion in assets shouldn't be allowed to file for bankruptcy. That is fucking ridiculous. Although, I don't think they should have to pay endless claims as long as they do everything in their power to get this shit cleaned up.

Yeah, I know - $232 billion in assets sounds pretty good. However, what are their liabilities? And, further, what are their prospects of bridging the gap between their assets and their liabilities? I imagine right now theirs is a pretty pitiful prospectus. They may have to do what they can to protect what assets they can so they can clean up this mess. No matter how it turns out, nobody is going to come out good on this. We'll be lucky if we survive it. What if they never stop the oil from gushing out of the earth? How long will it take before the whole earth is poisoned, everything dies, and we become like the dinosaurs?
 
I'm not right or left anymore, I think both parties are filled with criminals. I used to think of myself as a Republican, though.

Did you watch the video on the original Mother Jones page? It's embedded there. Also the Terrebonne Parish Sheriff's Office has admitted that there are 40 officers working for BP now, and that it was perfectly legal for the sheriff to pull the activist over after making him leave the property outside the BP building (public property) so that a BP security officer could interrogate him for 20 minutes. They're not keeping citizens safe from the disaster, they're being paid by BP to protect BP's image. BP has also hired a security company and some of them have been deputized, meaning they now wear official clothing (Jefferson Parish shirts with the sheriff's logo), and carry guns. They're not just blocking the crazy activists, they're blocking legitimate reporters from filming the clean up on the beaches.

I have tried to get a variety of sources, because I realize how someone telling a story can make it seem worse or better than it really is. I'm not so gullible that I believe everything I read, or see on the news (or YouTube!)... but I know how these big companies will spend their money to protect themselves from scrutiny.

Here's the video, I admit that it's not really hard evidence of anything since the officer was off camera the entire time. You can hear the officer (who was off duty, and working for BP), calling the guy's information in. I understand they needed to make sure he wasn't a terrorist but the guy was correct, he wasn't on BP property, so BP has no say in what he was doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=344em_5hwcQ

[YOUTUBE]344em_5hwcQ[/YOUTUBE]
 
Well, at least the whole clusterfuck became somebody's muse:

98215779674800638408.jpg
 
Here's the video, I admit that it's not really hard evidence of anything since the officer was off camera the entire time. You can hear the officer (who was off duty, and working for BP), calling the guy's information in. I understand they needed to make sure he wasn't a terrorist but the guy was correct, he wasn't on BP property, so BP has no say in what he was doing.

Yeah, there is some suspiciousness about that clip.

Mr. Wheelan, the reporter, says at the beginning that he was trying to get into BP's building to get an interview with a safety or security offical. There is no footage of Mr. Wheelan's attempts to get into the building. That may be what got the security/police officer involved.

Mr. Wheelan also said that he was set up on private property. While I agree that BP has no authority to tell him what he can or can not photograph or film, Mr. Wheelan might not have had permission to be on that private property. Mr. Wheelan didn't say he had permission and surprisingly the off-camera officer didn't ask him either.

I think I would question Mr. Wheelan setting up his equipment on what might be a public right of way running alongside that very busy road. It is possible there were no loitering signs or he might have been causing an obstruction in the public right of way or creating some other dangerous situation for the motorists on that freeway - which he doesn't have the right to do even on public property or private property he has permission to be on.

I can see why an officer would do a Terry Stop on Mr. Wheelan because there's got to be a lot of hostility against BP right now and Mr. Wheelan could have been viewed as a person positioning himself to take harmful actions against BP's property and/or BP's employees. Honestly, what was the purpose of filming at a distance the entrance to that building? How was that doing an indepth, fact finding report?

In the video, the officer did not make Mr. Wheelan leave or cease his activity. To me that means the officer did not conclude there was anything further required besides the cursory questioning.

I also find it convenient that the officer is never shown on camera. Doesn't mean it isn't genuine.

I think the purpose of the video - genuine or staged - was to appeal to that faction of the population that always believes there is injustice and corruption no matter what and will only believe what supports that point of view. However, a Terry Stop of suspicious people is a standard law enforcement act. If somebody suspicious was hanging around your house or place of employment, wouldn't you want the police to go up and find out what the heck is going on? That's just prudent.

I agree with you on the left and right thing. I've always been pretty much in the middle leaning to the right. These days, though, there is no good place to be.
 
I've copied and pasted a response from a person who is a BP employee to a post made by someone whose posts show up on my Facebook:

Ok, time to spout off.... BP actually is a good company to work for, I should know as I do.... In the refinery and other places safety has been of utmost importance as learned from past experiences.... The well in the news was a leased well that was not a BP owned well as stated in the news.... Having all of BP employees thrown into a catagory... See More of name calling and accusations is really not fair to us all.... We do not come to work intent on harming ourselves, others, or the environment, this is our home....

Anyways, that's my spin on it and my 2 cents, what ever it's worth....

I can relate.
 
I think I am finally experiencing BP oil slick fatigue! I'm sure that is what they're hoping we all do.
 
Top