Oil Spill

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby I did not watch these hearings. While I have not testified like Emeritus, I have prepared witnesses (and their testimony) for Congressional hearings, and I have watched a number of them. As a general rule, nobody ever answers yes or no. And the senators don't really care; they just want to make the witness look bad for not answering. You would have better luck locating the Loch Ness monster than learning the truth about anything as a consequence of Congressional hearings.

Agreed... that was my point... the news media wants sound bites that make Hayward look bad.. they showed them... Congress does not care about an answer... they want to make speeches and look like they are doing something... the truth comes out behind the scenes... this is just for show...

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 Ugh! Yeah! Who do you think invented waterboarding!

I read here somewhere it was Dick Cheney...

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westernskies I read here somewhere it was Dick Cheney...

Well, I have to admit I don't think even Cheney can outdo the Spanish Inquisition!

Audrey

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westernskies That's so 20th (...and 19th, and 18th) century. Embrace the change.

We can always aim for perfection, but the past wasn't always as good (or as bad) as we remember.

[chinaco]

Looks like a judge blocked the drilling ban.

This looks like one of those rulings where a judge could would find a basis for a ruling either way...

Judge blocks Obama move on drilling - Disaster in the Gulf- msnbc.com

Apparently the judge owned oil company and oil drilling stock in 2008. He is being looked at for a potential conflict of interest.

The Obama administration indicates that they will appeal the ruling.

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinaco Looks like a judge blocked the drilling ban. This looks like one of those rulings where a judge could would find a basis for a ruling either way... Judge blocks Obama move on drilling - Disaster in the Gulf- msnbc.com Apparently the judge owned oil company and oil drilling stock in 2008. He is being looked at for a potential conflict of interest. The Obama administration indicates that they will appeal the ruling.

This is a tough decision. If a second problem occurred and no ban was in effect, wouldn't the press and the politicos have a field day?

[Bestwifeever]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover This is a tough decision. If a second problem occurred and no ban was in effect, wouldn't the press and the politicos have a field day?

I wonder too if no ban is in effect and another drilling problem happens with another firm's operation, would that let BP off the hook somewhat?

[chinaco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover This is a tough decision. If a second problem occurred and no ban was in effect, wouldn't the press and the politicos have a field day?

I suspect different states will have different concerns. The judge that overturned the ban is in LA. The governor of LA was agianst the ban because LA gets about $3B in wages and business from drilling. But their tourism is affected somewhat and their fishing industry is affected.

Of course, FL tourism industry is big and it is affected by the spill. I can't imagine FL will be very content with the ruling.... if it presents more risk for the state.

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brat Obviously BP wants to control information about the circumstances that led up to the spill because there will be litigation between the parties and the Feds about who pays how much and possible criminal charges.

Of course they do. And there is a not-so-fine line between "controlling information" and obstructing justice.

It was also my understanding that when someone is subpoenaed to testify before Congress one does not have the right to remain silent or to refuse to answer questions. Hayward was told to have answers to specific questions in advance. He did not. How much more clear can it get?

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westernskies Why wait for the truth? In his world, the verdict is already in.

I'm curious. Do you think there is some defense for dumping millions of gallons of oil in the ocean? It's one thing to argue for due process, which I actually agree is important. But, in my opinion, any practice, legal or not, that results in such horrendous consequences, is wrong.

If this is just one of those things that happens when drilling for oil, then we need to stop drilling.

If this is something that BP did then we need to stop BP and anyone who participated.

So yes, due process is important. We need to decide which of the two choices above applies.

Personally I think we can safely drill for oil and this results from actions taken by BP. But I don't see how finding the other possibility applies helps anyone concerned.

Is there some possibility I have missed? Is there some way for this to have happened and it not be either a systematic risk or resulting from a specific risk or cause?

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kumquat What happened to "due process", "innocent until proven guilty" etc. Isn't any of that part of an "ethics" class?

This is an investigation. It always takes place before a trial. Any witness can say "I refuse to answer on the grounds that the answer might tend to incriminate me" No problem. That's due process. Otherwise you answer the questions. Under oath and witht eh penalties for perjury. That is what "subpoena" means

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework I'm curious. Do you think there is some defense for dumping millions of gallons of oil in the ocean? ... If this is just one of those things that happens when drilling for oil, then we need to stop drilling.

Every activity entails risk. 40,000 people die in auto accidents in the US each year, and many more injuries - yet we don't stop driving. How do you defend that?

Should we switch to coal?

Coal seam fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are 155 coal mines burning in the US right now, causing all sorts of environmental damage. And 10-20 million tons of coal gets consumed in coal mine fires in China each year.

Quote:

Personally I think we can safely drill for oil ... Is there some possibility I have missed?

Yes, you missed the possibility that you start your own oil drilling company and show us all how it's done.

-ERD50

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Every activity entails risk. 40,000 people die in auto accidents in the US each year, and many more injuries - yet we don't stop driving. How do you defend that? -ERD50

Don't have too , its the wrong analogy. The risk isnt the same for all operators. Some people and countries and companies and industries have a high level safety culture and some do not. You emulate and encourage the good ones and put your boot on the neck of the cowboys.

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework I'm curious. Do you think there is some defense for dumping millions of gallons of oil in the ocean? It's one thing to argue for due process, which I actually agree is important. But, in my opinion, any practice, legal or not, that results in such horrendous consequences, is wrong.

So your answer is that the Feds, the States and John Q. Public should all be above the law in investigating, prosecuting, and litigating this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework If this is just one of those things that happens when drilling for oil, then we need to stop drilling.

Park your SUV, turn off your computer, discard everything you own made of, produced by, or delivered by petrochemical derivatives (including pharmaceuticals, and food), shut off your furnace, AC, etc. and sit in the dark thinking about what you just said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework Is there some possibility I have missed?

Yes. Quite a few.

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emeritus Don't have too , its the wrong analogy. The risk isnt the same for all operators. Some people and countries and companies and industries have a high level safety culture and some do not. You emulate and encourage the good ones and put your boot on the neck of the cowboys.

Asked once before, never got an answer- what successful companies can you offer as shining examples of your unique perception of corporate responsibility, with perfect product and personnel safety records, perpetual product improvement with lifetime retroactive product upgrades, cradle-to-grave warranties, and minty fresh breath? You know, the folks that don't need the new sheriff in town puttin' his boots on their necks? Surely they can't all be as bad as you would have us believe...

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westernskies Asked once before, never got an answer- what successful companies can you offer as shining examples of your unique perception of corporate responsibility, with perfect product and personnel safety records, perpetual product improvement with lifetime retroactive product upgrades, cradle-to-grave warranties, and minty fresh breath? You know, the folks that don't need the new sheriff in town puttin' his boots on their necks? Surely they can't all be as bad as you would have us believe...

The fact that no students in class get 100% does not mean there is no difference between 92 % and 37% The fact that some drunk drivers are far more drunk than other drunk drivers is also important. You always go hard on the worst criminal first.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emeritus The fact that no students in class get 100% does not mean there is no difference between 92 % and 37% The fact that some drunk drivers are far more drunk than other drunk drivers is also important. You always go hard on the worst criminal first.

OK, but I think this leads us to the point that if BP had such a bad record (as I've heard, I have not analyzed the data and probably am not capable of doing so), then the regulators should have been putting their 'boots on the neck' of BP before a disaster of this magnitude occurred.

And I'm not trying to deflect anything from BP when I say that. It was their operation then they are responsible for cleaning it up. It all falls apart when the regulators aren't doing the job either (whether incompetent, under-funded, lazy, negligent, or whatever). Who puts the boot on their neck?

Likewise with my imperfect traffic analogy - it really bugs me that traffic laws are not enforced more rigorously. I'm tired of seeing people do dangerous stuff around me with no action taken against them. It puts me and my loved ones at risk.

-ERD50

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emeritus The fact that no students in class get 100% does not mean there is no difference between 92 % and 37% The fact that some drunk drivers are far more drunk than other drunk drivers is also important. You always go hard on the worst criminal first.

Sorry, you must have misunderstood the question, although your vague, circuitous answer would probably sound good in a Congressional hearing. Are you saying that there isn't a single company out there that would pass muster with your 20/20 hindsight?

[kumquat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emeritus This is an investigation. It always takes place before a trial. Any witness can say "I refuse to answer on the grounds that the answer might tend to incriminate me" No problem. That's due process. Otherwise you answer the questions. Under oath and witht eh penalties for perjury. That is what "subpoena" means

Uh, no. Your original post to which I replied stated that they were guilty of perjury. Here it is:

Quote:

Since the time of the Titanic Congressional hearings have been used to drag information out of recalcitrant wrongdoers. Its the only way to nail down the facts before the purjurors get together to coordinate the lies.

Hang'em now, we'll get to the trial later.

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kumquat Hang'em now Award damages first, we'll get to the trial later.

Wonder if they teach this at Harvard Law?