Just wondering if we have any members from the Gulf region that can give us any info. I just watched (and was horrified by the accounts in) this video:



If it doesn't show up, click here.

I have been to the Gulf Coast region twice since the BP spill.  Even though this post is a bit late, stuff is still going on pertaining to the big old oily mess. Crews [both from the state of FL and the BP joke teams] still inspect the beaches to see if beach life is alive and dig under the beaches to get the remaining oil/tar/etc out from underneath the sand. While it is not reported, there is definately ecologocal impact from this spill and BP is still mighty slow trying to help get this region some help.

I do agree with you on the obvious distance the share holders have to the misanthropic excursions that their cash cow has engaged in. I think it is relevant to understand the nature and history of something so important though. History can teach us who to trust and who not to. As far as the money is concerned, I think the insistence of BP's continued existence by President Obama should very well clear them for the future. I predict that their share holdings will raise dramatically in the next eight months or so. The energy market is the second strongest market in the world and they are quite embedded. Here is a graph comparing the state of shares between BP, Haliburton, and Exxon (immediately after the Valdez) http://www.economist.com/node/16270972. The recent two companies have seen a greater diminishing of share value, but the market is much more volatile than it was in 1989. All in all, they did cap the fucking beast and it has been holding steady for a day or two now. I have a friend down there helping out and she told me that things are getting a bit better. Hope the whole mess of em can pull through though, the Gulf Coast is just too damn big to fail. I appreciate the lively debate.

Alex while drawing a line from the Anglo Iranian Oil Company to BP may be possible it is pointless because none of the CEOs or investors today would have had anything to do with it in the 1950s.

Britain has a chequered past like the USA which it can be as much ashamed of as proud and the Coup d'etat was much more an outcome of Britain's underhanded influence in the dying days of the empire like the Suez Crisis. The oil company sure had a hand in there but I would put more of the blame on the British and American governments at the time than on any multinational today. BP's sins at the moment like any other oil company are enough not to be bothering with the past.

I believe that BP are trying to do what they can as this oil slick is costing them a lot as their share prices have now halved since this mess happened. And sure no one makes money by caring but you have to look after your shareholders otherwise you won't make any money ever.

Here's another good article with Slick Willy Clinton actually advocating the destruction of the well. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20009084-503544.html Alex Patton said:

Okay, first off this is no sort of attempt to bring in any foreign co-conspirators or anything of that nature.

Secondly Mike, in a comprehensively written book on coup's that the U.S. has engaged in during it's very short life entitled "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change/dp/0..., the author does a fantastic job retelling the history of the Mossadegh coup. It is not in the least bit conspiracy theorist, nor am I. He draws the lineage of the Anglo Oil conglomerate from their Iranian oil days directly up to BP.

I also believe you have misunderstood what I was saying about nationalization. Mohammed Mossadegh was actually actively attempting to nationalize the oil fields that were being tapped by the British outfit, not really anything to do with British nationalization.

As for the little bit about Beyond Petroleum, here is a fantastic little article published in 2008 about the name change http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/01/15/beyond-petroleum-pays....
Here's some more stuff if you are interested. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/26/business/bp-plans-name-change.html, http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentI..., this one's a bit funny actually http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentI....

I do agree that people make a big deal about stuff when it happens close to home. No one has really said very much about the Nigerian oil explosion here at all. Out of sight, out of mind I guess. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/world/africa/17nigeria.html

Finally, Russia has been dealing with off-shore oil spills for decades. They simply destroy the well entirely. Sometimes they do so with a nuke, sometimes not. This little diddy is actually from Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/02/russian-scientists-urge-b....


Mike Humsgreen said:

No, BP used to be short for British Petroleum however as it was privatised and no longer British, changed its name to BP so consitently calling it British Petroleum is not only wrong but makes the arguements against it sound just made up.

Sure BP evil oil company, can't do anything right, but you find me an oil company that's any better and I'll find you a cure for cancer.

People only give a shit about oil spills when it directly affects them and that's why we hear so many complaints about this one.

Alex as for you banging on the 1950s coupd d'etat in Iran, that's not right. You are thinking of a different British owned Anglo Iranian oil company. As back in the 1950s there was no giant BP multinational and Britain still had nationalised industries. Falling profits were never a problem for any other British nationalised industry so try another one. It was only when Thatcher came in the 80s that the fat eventually got cut from those industries when they were privatised.

The Coup d'etat is more a national discrace on the British and American governments at underhand play than anything to do with any modern business.

Okay, first off this is no sort of attempt to bring in any foreign co-conspirators or anything of that nature.

Secondly Mike, in a comprehensively written book on coups that the U.S. has engaged in during its very short life entitled "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change/dp/0..., the author does a fantastic job retelling the history of the Mossadegh coup. It is not in the least bit conspiracy theorist, nor am I. He draws the lineage of the Anglo Oil conglomerate from their Iranian oil days directly up to BP.

I also believe you have misunderstood what I was saying about nationalization. Mohammed Mossadegh was actually actively attempting to nationalize the oil fields that were being tapped by the British outfit, not really anything to do with British nationalization.

As for the little bit about Beyond Petroleum, here is a fantastic little article published in 2008 about the name change http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/01/15/beyond-petroleum-pays....
Here's some more stuff if you are interested. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/26/business/bp-plans-name-change.html, http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentI..., this one's a bit funny actually http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentI....

I do agree that people make a big deal about stuff when it happens close to home. No one has really said very much about the Nigerian oil explosion here at all. Out of sight, out of mind I guess. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/world/africa/17nigeria.html

Finally, Russia has been dealing with off-shore oil spills for decades. They simply destroy the well entirely. Sometimes they do so with a nuke, sometimes not. This little diddy is actually from Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/02/russian-scientists-urge-b....


Mike Humsgreen said:

No, BP used to be short for British Petroleum however as it was privatised and no longer British, changed its name to BP so consitently calling it British Petroleum is not only wrong but makes the arguements against it sound just made up.

Sure BP evil oil company, can't do anything right, but you find me an oil company that's any better and I'll find you a cure for cancer.

People only give a shit about oil spills when it directly affects them and that's why we hear so many complaints about this one.

Alex as for you banging on the 1950s coupd d'etat in Iran, that's not right. You are thinking of a different British owned Anglo Iranian oil company. As back in the 1950s there was no giant BP multinational and Britain still had nationalised industries. Falling profits were never a problem for any other British nationalised industry so try another one. It was only when Thatcher came in the 80s that the fat eventually got cut from those industries when they were privatised.

The Coup d'etat is more a national discrace on the British and American governments at underhand play than anything to do with any modern business.

Yep, yer right, BP is just BP and not British Petroleum any more, I can't find a share market entry that states otherwise. And yes, BP is now a global company or a multinational but when yer head office is in the UK: BP's global head office in St James's Square, London (info from their global website) who do you think the press and everyone who believes everything they read are going to point their fingers at? it's going to be where the head honcho sits. And I'm not saying that's right either. And let's not get into the shifting the blame off shore thing that happening as well. And you have to remember that there will be historical memory for lots of people that BP is called British Petroleum; maybe they should have advertised the name change more effectively. "Sure BP evil oil company, can't do anything right, but you find me an oil company that's any better and I'll find you a cure for cancer" Well of course they're evil, you don't make money from caring about shit do you? Just look at all the people topping themselves at Foxcom, the makers of the beloved iphone. The fact that BP is wearing it more than any other oil company at present cause they're the company spraying millions of litres of oil into the gulf. And no I'm not defending the oil companies, they are just as evil, just a little environmentally less destructive at present. Mike Humsgreen said:

No, BP used to be short for British Petroleum however as it was privatised and no longer British, changed its name to BP so consitently calling it British Petroleum is not only wrong but makes the arguements against it sound just made up.
Sure BP evil oil company, can't do anything right, but you find me an oil company that's any better and I'll find you a cure for cancer. People only give a shit about oil spills when it directly affects them and that's why we hear so many complaints about this one. Alex as for you banging on the 1950s coupd d'etat in Iran, that's not right. You are thinking of a different British owned Anglo Iranian oil company. As back in the 1950s there was no giant BP multinational and Britain still had nationalised industries. Falling profits were never a problem for any other British nationalised industry so try another one. It was only when Thatcher came in the 80s that the fat eventually got cut from those industries when they were privatised. The Coup d'etat is more a national discrace on the British and American governments at underhand play than anything to do with any modern business.

No, BP used to be short for British Petroleum however as it was privatised and no longer British, changed its name to BP so consitently calling it British Petroleum is not only wrong but makes the arguements against it sound just made up.

Sure BP evil oil company, can't do anything right, but you find me an oil company that's any better and I'll find you a cure for cancer.

People only give a shit about oil spills when it directly affects them and that's why we hear so many complaints about this one.

Alex as for you banging on the 1950s coupd d'etat in Iran, that's not right. You are thinking of a different British owned Anglo Iranian oil company. As back in the 1950s there was no giant BP multinational and Britain still had nationalised industries. Falling profits were never a problem for any other British nationalised industry so try another one. It was only when Thatcher came in the 80s that the fat eventually got cut from those industries when they were privatised.

The Coup d'etat is more a national discrace on the British and American governments at underhand play than anything to do with any modern business.

First, British Petroleum is the major player in this debacle. Haliburton was contracted by B.P. to drill the well and it was ultimately B.P.'s decision to go with cheaper blow off valves and cut as many other corners as possible. I think that it is extremely important to keep the handle British Petroleum alive, despite their attempts to assuage the public by assuming the much more wholesome, albeit transparent, name Beyond Petroleum. This is the very same oil conglomerate that willingly hired American agents to oust the democratically elected president of Iran in the 1950's because they were afraid of falling profits. While there is more than enough blame to go around, the corporation that would have been profiting the most from this faulty rig would have been BP, and there fore the blame is custom fit for their monetarily cushioned shoulders. Haliburton heads did in fact testify in a public senate hearing and admitted, to the extent that bureaucrats will, that they were responsible for certain faults. The clean up will be extensive and the extent of the damage will not be understood for many years. The idea that they hit an asphalt volcano seems highly implausible. The sheer fact that they have been going to great lengths not to compromise the availability of the oil in the well shows that it is not mere asphalt they are dealing with. They could have destroyed the well months ago, but were wholeheartedly set on sucking every last bit of oil they could out of Deep Water Horizon.

I believe that "BP" is the brand of the British Petroleum company. Has anyone seen the conspiracy theory thing doing the rounds on other forums that it's not an oil well that's gone sour but that BP drilled into the side of an asphalt volcano? I haven't found any articles about it just conspiracy nuts raving about it. Mike Humsgreen said:

I don't know why so many Americans insist on calling BP British Petroleum when it is a multinational that hasn't been called that in over 10 years. And the Obama administration and media has been careful not to let much blame fall on any of the home grown US contractors despite it being Haliburton Energy Services who should be taking a large preportion of the blame for leasing out faulty rigs.

But either way looking at the destruction of marine life, it's heart breaking to think how long it will take again for the fishing industry there to pick up. I mean does anyone know how long the contamination might last?

I don't know why so many Americans insist on calling BP British Petroleum when it is a multinational that hasn't been called that in over 10 years. And the Obama administration and media has been careful not to let much blame fall on any of the home grown US contractors despite it being Haliburton Energy Services who should be taking a large preportion of the blame for leasing out faulty rigs.

But either way looking at the destruction of marine life, it's heart breaking to think how long it will take again for the fishing industry there to pick up. I mean does anyone know how long the contamination might last?

The reason that the word disaster has not been used that often when dealing with the "Gulf Crisis" is that by applying such a moniker to the ordeal FEMA would be implementing British Petroleum even more so than they already are. Despite the numerous speeches by President Obama demanding BP take responsibility the company itself is going to get off relatively easily. This is going to be our Bhopal. India is still demanding the extradition of the head of Dow Chemical's India division for prosecution in reference to his involvement with the 1980's explosion that leveled a village and polluted the surrounding area at an unprecedented rate. That is where we will be in twenty years. The children of the cleanup workers will be deformed and BP will be still be airing commercials on PBS. Fuck it. I give us twenty more years as a planet.

Can anyone tell me why this hasn't been designated a national disaster by FEMA?

I saw yer tweet about the turtles getting burned alive during the controlled burns, made me feel sick. The lack of any sort solution is well beyond a joke now and everyone else who should be involved seems to be sitting around with their collective thumbs up their collective arses. I hate to think whats gonna happen when hurricane season really gets going.