This Oil spill in the Gulf sounds like it could be an economic catstrophe

• Writerbuckeye

  

  Mr. 300 wrote: Well, if Obama and his admin have been on top of this thing as he stated this week, that makes him and his admin a complete and utter failure. If he's going to cover his ass by claiming this, then he gets the bad press of not getting it done, not BP.

  If this were any other president (especially a Republican) it would already be over for the administration because of the negative press alone.
  
  Obama has the benefit of a press that simply refuses to hold him accountable for anything -- and will not do so until absolutely, positively forced to by overwhelming public response that becomes negative.
  
  Even then, I'm not sure it happens.
  
  If Obama has been calling the shots on this from the beginning as he claims, I don't know how you can classify this as anything but an unmitigated failure on his part.
  
  Worse than Katrina as far as the federal response goes, and it's not even close.
  
  What I don't understand is why they didn't have those ships scooping the oil and water and separating them, working night and day very early on -- and why aren't they using this technique now?
  
  Again, if the media were truly adversarial, they would be hammering Obama on this issue alone.
• tk421

  

  Writerbuckeye wrote:

  Mr. 300 wrote: Well, if Obama and his admin have been on top of this thing as he stated this week, that makes him and his admin a complete and utter failure. If he's going to cover his ass by claiming this, then he gets the bad press of not getting it done, not BP.

  If this were any other president (especially a Republican) it would already be over for the administration because of the negative press alone.
  
  Obama has the benefit of a press that simply refuses to hold him accountable for anything -- and will not do so until absolutely, positively forced to by overwhelming public response that becomes negative.
  
  Even then, I'm not sure it happens.
  
  If Obama has been calling the shots on this from the beginning as he claims, I don't know how you can classify this as anything but an unmitigated failure on his part.
  
  Worse than Katrina as far as the federal response goes, and it's not even close.
  
  What I don't understand is why they didn't have those ships scooping the oil and water and separating them, working night and day very early on -- and why aren't they using this technique now?
  
  Again, if the media were truly adversarial, they would be hammering Obama on this issue alone.

  Agreed. Obama is getting a huge pass on this issue.
• believer

  

  I'm surprised idiots like Chris Dodd and Nancy Pelosi have taken this long to "Blame Bush."
  
  This on-going incestuous relationship between the BHO administration and the "mainstream" media is borderline criminal in my humble opinion.
  
  If Bush were still in office the media would be crucifying him over the oil spill in the same manner they skewered him on the Katrina aftermath.
  
  Obama is clearly our new Teflon president except for the fact that nothing gets held against him to see if the mess will stick.
  
  November can't get here soon enough.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Pelosi's claim that Bush people still occupy key positions in government and are the ones truly responsible for how poorly this has been handled is ridiculously laughable.
  
  Anyone who works in government knows that ANY position considered to be a patronage slot is filled very quickly, and the people from the previous administration are booted almost immediately. And if they aren't filled as part of the administration's team -- whose fault is that? Oh yeah, the guy making all the decisions.
  
  And if Nancy is trying to say that there are civil service folks in key slots that can override a president's wishes, then let's all have a hearty guffaw at that one. Those folks always answer to at least one political appointee, and probably more than one.
• believer

  

  Writerbuckeye wrote: Pelosi's claim that Bush people still occupy key positions in government and are the ones truly responsible for how poorly this has been handled is ridiculously laughable.
  
  Anyone who works in government knows that ANY position considered to be a patronage slot is filled very quickly, and the people from the previous administration are booted almost immediately. And if they aren't filled as part of the administration's team -- whose fault is that? Oh yeah, the guy making all the decisions.
  
  And if Nancy is trying to say that there are civil service folks in key slots that can override a president's wishes, then let's all have a hearty guffaw at that one. Those folks always answer to at least one political appointee, and probably more than one.

  Facts do not matter when it comes to political blame games. And the media simply refuses to hold leftist politicians accountable for this kind of bullshit. If a conservative and/or Republican had made a similar laughable claim, the media would be all over it....for weeks.
• IggyPride00

  

  As if the situation didn't seem bad enough, " Hurricane Season" officially begins Tuesday.
  

  On May 27, NOAA released their forecast for the season, predicting an "extremely active" season (14 to 23 named storms, 8 to 14 hurricanes, and 3 to 7 major hurricanes of Category 3 or higher). NOAA based its forecast on weaker wind shear, warmer temperatures in the region and the continuance of the "high activity era" which began in 1995. Gerry Bell, lead seasonal hurricane forecaster at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, added the main uncertainty in the outlook was how much above normal the 2010 season will be, and whether the high end of the predicted range is reached "depends partly on whether or not La Niña develops this summer. At present we are in a neutral state, but conditions are becoming increasingly favorable for La Niña to develop.”[5]

  
  This report should make everyone pray extra hard that this hole gets plugged sooner than later, because adding a hurricane to the mix would be such a catastrophic calamity it is not pleasant to think about. The danger isn't so much now, but if it ends up being August we have to wait with the relief well being the only thing that will stop it, then that is prime time for this to potentially happen.
• Glory Days

  

  actually the weather channel did a piece where a hurricane could actually help clean up the mess. it could thin out the oil on the surface causing it to evaporate faster or something. the catch though is the storm surge could push the oil farther inland.
• QuakerOats

  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269204575270950789108846.html
• ts1227

  

  Glory Days;374122 wrote:actually the weather channel did a piece where a hurricane could actually help clean up the mess. it could thin out the oil on the surface causing it to evaporate faster or something. the catch though is the storm surge could push the oil farther inland.

  Here's a little thing the National Hurricane Center put together about it
  http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/hurricanes_oil_factsheet.pdf
• fish82

  

  ts1227;375791 wrote:Here's a little thing the National Hurricane Center put together about it
  http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/hurricanes_oil_factsheet.pdf

  
  Nice find....interesting info there.
• dwccrew

  

  It's not looking too good. My theory is this, Obama is doing nothing so this catastrophe gets worse and worse. That way, he will have a reason to take over another industry. Automotive, banking, healthcare, next up.....the Oil industry!!!!!!
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Our government has an awesome priority list--let's sue BP! Let's try to file criminal charges!
  
  Awesome. Idiots.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I'm hearing a lot of complaining by the R's, but no real solutions.
  Yes, the President should probably do more, but if you are going to say it, at least offer or refer someone who knows that can provide a better alternative.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  ptown_trojans_1;376341 wrote:I'm hearing a lot of complaining by the R's, but no real solutions.
  Yes, the President should probably do more, but if you are going to say it, at least offer or refer someone who knows that can provide a better alternative.

  
  Sounds an awful lot like Katrina, just flip flopped on the sides.
  
  I'm hearing an awful lot of R and D bullshit, period--we're all in this together.
  
  But, I don't feel as if there is a need to explain the complaint I had right above you.
• I Wear Pants

  Maybe the reason people were much more upset at the response to Katrina is because people were dying.
• queencitybuckeye

  I Wear Pants;376404 wrote:Maybe the reason people were much more upset at the response to Katrina is because people were dying.

  
  That and they don't know anything about how disaster agencies work, and what level of government is charged with being the first responders.
• fish82

  

  ptown_trojans_1;376341 wrote:I'm hearing a lot of complaining by the R's, but no real solutions.
  Yes, the President should probably do more, but if you are going to say it, at least offer or refer someone who knows that can provide a better alternative.

  
  The President is limited in what he can do. However, he can act like the President and reign in his ratard minions like Salazar and Holder. They're making the administration look even more incompetent than usual. According to the administration themselves, they've done nothing but stomp their feet and scream in Hayward's ear 24/7 for the past 40 days. Quit acting like BP doesn't care about getting this thing stopped and offer any and all government resources to help. If there is nothing the government can do to help stop the leak, then the administration needs to STFU and let BP do their damn jobs.
  
  Honestly, if I'm Tony Hayward, I'm about 2 days away from telling Obama/Salazar "Y'know what? Fuck you...we're outta here. Plug the hole yourself, daddy."
• derek bomar

  

  Well...why do you think they aren't criminally negligent SQ?
• QuakerOats

  derek bomar;376495 wrote:Well...why do you think they aren't criminally negligent SQ?

  
  Because criminal negligence essentially means you operated knowingly harming or with the intent to harm.
  
  Only radicals like obama and his minions who control epa are warped enough to believe that successful companies operate under those tenets.
  
  This administration needs to stop always making their first move a blame placer and a criminal charge. They need to mobilize more assistance nowto help with the containment and cleanup, and after the situation has been corrected, then they can do their assessments of what went wrong and why etc....
  
  But when you have 35,000 wells in the gulf that have successfully operated and supplied massive amounts of energy that this country needs, you cannot crucify the entire industry just because 1 well had a problem.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  derek bomar;376495 wrote:Well...why do you think they aren't criminally negligent SQ?

  
  I'm not even going to approach this as a serious question..
• BoatShoes

  dwccrew;375988 wrote:It's not looking too good. My theory is this, Obama is doing nothing so this catastrophe gets worse and worse. That way, he will have a reason to take over another industry. Automotive, banking, healthcare, next up.....the Oil industry!!!!!!

  
  Not Sure If Serious
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;376502 wrote:Because criminal negligence essentially means you operated knowingly harming or with the intent to harm.

  
  Your definition of negligence is wrong. You're describing misfeasance or recklessness which aren't necessary state's of mind and certainly an intent or willful harming is not required for negligence. BP can be argued to have committed a crime against the U.S. by Barry O if some act or omission on their part cause a harm against the state, and they had a guilty state of mind while engaging in this act or omission. negligence as a state of mind is simply failing to foresee a reasonably foreseeable and otherwise avoidable harm. If it's a harm against the state, it's a crime. I don't know anything about the EPA or environmental law but I imagine it could be construed to make this oil spill a harm against the state. I imagine the bigger question is whether this could be recklessness constituting a wanton disregard for the environment.
  
  Should BHO bring this charge? That's a different question and I don't know the answer; but I'm sure there might still be some talented lawyers left over from the Bush Administration in the DOJ who could make the case as we know no croney from BHO's administration has the competency to do so.
• FatHobbit

  

  QuakerOats;376502 wrote:Because criminal negligence essentially means you operated knowingly harming or with the intent to harm.
  
  Only radicals like obama and his minions who control epa are warped enough to believe that successful companies operate under those tenets.

  Plenty of succesful companies have only cared about profit and made decisions that put their customers at risk. I don't think it's a bad question.
  

  QuakerOats;376502 wrote:But when you have 35,000 wells in the gulf that have successfully operated and supplied massive amounts of energy that this country needs, you cannot crucify the entire industry just because 1 well had a problem.

  
  I tend to agree with you that you can't crucify the entire industry because 1 well had a problem. But there were plenty of people who are opposed to offshore drilling because they don't want to trash our environment. It seems in retrospect they had a pretty good point. I wonder if the cost to clean this up will exceed the value of oil we will get from the drilling. There were other people involved (from a government perspective) that allowed this to happen and they are just as responsible.
• QuakerOats

  When you have 35,000 wells, of which many thousand are operated by BP with a complete success rate, I think a pattern exists that indicates an excellent safety/operational record. As such the following definitions related to criminal negligence would not fit the situation, generally speaking:
  
  "Criminal negligence is negligence which requires a greater degree of culpability than the civil standard of negligence. The civil standard of negligence is defined according to a failure to follow the standard of conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation as the defendant. To show criminal negligence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mental state involved in criminal negligence. Proof of that mental state requires that the failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur must be a gross deviation from the standard of a reasonable person. Criminal negligence is conduct which is such a departure from what would be that of an ordinary prudent or careful person in the same circumstance as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life or an indifference to consequences. Criminal negligence is negligence that is aggravated, culpable or gross.
  
  The following is an example of one state's statute defining criminal negligence:
  
  ''A person acts with 'criminal negligence' with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.''"
  
  So forgive me for saying that a criminal witchhunt is not warranted, especially at this time.
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;376558 wrote:When you have 35,000 wells, of which many thousand are operated by BP with a complete success rate, I think a pattern exists that indicates an excellent safety/operational record. As such the following definitions related to criminal negligence would not fit the situation, generally speaking:
  
  "Criminal negligence is negligence which requires a greater degree of culpability than the civil standard of negligence. The civil standard of negligence is defined according to a failure to follow the standard of conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation as the defendant. To show criminal negligence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mental state involved in criminal negligence. Proof of that mental state requires that the failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur must be a gross deviation from the standard of a reasonable person. Criminal negligence is conduct which is such a departure from what would be that of an ordinary prudent or careful person in the same circumstance as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life or an indifference to consequences. Criminal negligence is negligence that is aggravated, culpable or gross.
  
  The following is an example of one state's statute defining criminal negligence:
  
  ''A person acts with 'criminal negligence' with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.''"
  
  So forgive me for saying that a criminal witchhunt is not warranted, especially at this time.

  
  So how do you feel about a witchhunt against regulators in the Mineral Management Service that BHO failed to whip in to shape and probably weren't acting like reasonable regulators and were all cozy with BP and others? Call me crazy but I bet you wouldn't be that upset to see them hanged in the streets by the Federalist's Society