StarGateWars Forums

O_Altair_O wrote:For centeries America and britain have been allies and now it might collaspe cause of an oil thing.

God western countries are run by idiots these days.

Where are the good old days.


The Bush and blair days they were the best.


America stop being greedy as you have iol in alaska and some people say the real invasion plans of the middle east was to gain more oil.


Ps Im British who ever mocks us are fools for doing so where would america be now if europe didnt find North,central and south america hey?

Just think about that.

Idiot.

i was watching 60 minuets in Australia tonight, it brought up some facts i had not know till tonight.

one thing i found shocking is how it seems BP is taking all the blame, when they only owned the oil coming out of the rig, not the rig itself.

to me i think BP is not the only one at fault, if they can be at all.

people may call me a idiot, but this is how i see it, please dont insult, give reasons why im wrong.

a transoceanic employee damaged a "fail safe" that would of prevented the explosion, it was brought up at a safety meeting, transoceanic wanted to shut the rig down for repairs, BP wanted them to stay going.

now yes i agree, BP in their greed didn't help prevent the accident. but i use this analogy.

im BP, a passenger in a car, the driver is transoceanic, i want the driver to drive 150km's hour, but the legal and safe speed is 60km's a hour.
as the passenger i can argue all i want..but in the end, its transoceanic who is driving the car, and who didn't go against their better judgment and slow down.

transoceanic SHOULD of said "hey this is wrong, go STHU BP, this is our rig, if you dont like it, we will sell the oil to someone else.

it also perplexes me how people cry saying they wont use BP anymore,
its not BP in general i think people should be concerned about, its the fact we rely on oil so much, but have yet to see anyone sell their car and use public transport or buy a bike

i do agree that because the oil is BP's they should be paying the clean-up and paying the cost of the lost incomes, i just think this other company we arnt hearing about should be doing something aswel, and taking the blame

I believe it was actually the vikings who founded America (first Europeans) and established the first settlement....and prior to that it was the Asian's crossing the Bering Strait Land Bridge during the ice age following migratory animals in order to eat...so stop straying off topic it is not germaine to the issue at hand which quite frankly is quite serious.




Mishaps in a company at the smallest level might be employee mistakes, however in EVERY corporation there is a safety officer/executive/agent whose sole job is to go over with a fine toothed comb every possible scenario and come up with detailed plans on how to prevent/fix those scenarios. Failing to do so is a gross dereliction of duty and as such the company is taking a hit for something that could have been contained if not prevented by proper procedure and advance planning for any kind of blowout situation. American and British relations will be sour for a little while, but stuff happens and everyone will eventually move past this, although not without obvious grumbling whining and griping. The best thing for BP to do at the moment would be to put more than a token effort into the clean up, and take full responsibility for the spill. Obama's comments were inflammatory and could quite possibly damage the companies standing, and of course if Mr. Barack had more than one synapse firing at a time he would understand exactly the error he made as a world "leader."

Ra brought some valid facts to it, just as others....

I was paying closer attention to this at the beginning when the oil rig exploded and it wasn`t going very well, at least not with the procedures to prevent the oil stain from spreading further, eventually as expected the stain did make it to the coast

I think that the first fail were the "safety plans" for prevention of the oil stain from spreading, they simply weren`t enough and all was badly coordinated, if they would pay more attention to the safety protocols, the damages would be nowhere near where they are now...
Not even the "wall barrier" was enough to prevent the stain from spreading, not to mention the plan with putting an "iron bell" on the bottom to cover the whole which was unsuccessful several times

I`m sorry but ecological catastrophes such as this can have terrible effects on the enviroment and life as we know ( and seen it) and "safety" should be the main priority to prevent such things to happen...

What bothers me even more is the fact they actually didn`t have a back up plan for this, they were actually thinking about something to cover the whole while thousands of galons of oil were pumping into the open ocean....imho that`s an EPIC FAIL and for that, they have to deal with it now and both BP and America are to blame because BP didn`t pay much attention to the safety plans and the US goverment agreed to the handed "safety plans" which were inadequate and for that have to pay the price

Nitro

To piggy back off of Nitro, right now there seems to be no "good" prevention or protection methods. I mean, the floating "booms" just wash up unto shore and are more or less useless. In some parts of the disaster area there aren't even boats skimming the oil, even though I can't imagine it being effective.

More or less.. from what I've seen clean up is a just a collection of photo ops. Plenty of executives and politicians crying and picking up the oil with their poor manicured hands for the camera. Then they however.. go home and continue to sit on their collective asses.

I'm not sure people even understand how bad it is, its worse than Exxon Valdez.. but that doesn't even sink in with some folks. Its time for the prez to start beating BP to death legally..

Londo Mollari wrote:well, the fact that 40% of BP's shares are owned by americans, means that any action taken by Obama is going to annoy a lot of people, many of them american

also, the world economy as it is, really cannot afford to have BP going under, if the worlds 4th largest company was to become bankrupt, the ramifications would be huge

The problem I have with supporting failing companies is that companies have reasons for failing. It isn't all based on public opinion, despite it being the main factor that determines the company's stocks. BP made a mistake that cost them the money, just like how many of America's banks were making financial mistakes. And what do we do in America? We bail them out and give them government money because we are afraid to see the collapse of the economy along with the collapse of the country. But why should we keep bad businesses afloat? If the company fails, let it fail and let another, stronger, company rise up in its place. It will suck short-term, but the big picture will save a lot more money and hopefully gain a lot more profit than letting bad companies continue to screw things up.

agreed Ra

imho, for cases such as this you need to have at least 3 back up plans to prevent a disaster.
If the 2 of those 3 won`t work, then there is still the last one that could help, I mean from 3 potential plans to prevent a catastrophe from doing more damage, at least one has to be successful.

In this case, the "iron bell" didn`t work in the first place but rather than moving on to something else they just got stuck with it and tried to attach it repeatedly although it wasn`t successful while more and more oil was pumping into the ocean

You simply have to have at least something to prevent a catastrophe like this from spreading further until a permanent solution can be found but in this case, they had absolutely nothing...

Nitro

Psyko wrote:

Londo Mollari wrote:well, the fact that 40% of BP's shares are owned by americans, means that any action taken by Obama is going to annoy a lot of people, many of them american

also, the world economy as it is, really cannot afford to have BP going under, if the worlds 4th largest company was to become bankrupt, the ramifications would be huge

The problem I have with supporting failing companies is that companies have reasons for failing. It isn't all based on public opinion, despite it being the main factor that determines the company's stocks. BP made a mistake that cost them the money, just like how many of America's banks were making financial mistakes. And what do we do in America? We bail them out and give them government money because we are afraid to see the collapse of the economy along with the collapse of the country. But why should we keep bad businesses afloat? If the company fails, let it fail and let another, stronger, company rise up in its place. It will suck short-term, but the big picture will save a lot more money and hopefully gain a lot more profit than letting bad companies continue to screw things up.

because, if it does fall, there will be (amongst other things) massive job losses, a massive loss in the value of the global economy (potentially brining down other companies who are unrelated to BP and the whole oil spill, but own shares in BP - not to mention pension funds)


also from the whole "BP should take all the blame" perspective, its interesting to note that transoceanic have an absolutely awful track history in recent years, i think they have been responsible for about 5 accidents in the past decade, so it does seem that it is they who are the negligent ones

I agree with Mollari....I don`t see how it is valid to give all the blame to BP, they just didn`t come to the mexican bay with the:

" hooowdy neighbour, we`re gonna build ourselves an oil rig here, hope ya don`t mind"

It was the lack of interest from the US goverment in the first place that they agreed to the propossed terms without paying more attention to the safety protocols....
and they should be the first to blame for making that mistake, if you don`t know what you are signing or have any concerns about the proposed conditions at all, you shouldn`t sign, period.

Instead of trying to solve the problem, they are just pointing fingers at each other trying to find someone responsible for the disaster to put the blame on
I don`t even see how that even helps given the current conditions.....politicians

BP already payed 1.3 bill euros for the caused damage and to pay the "bills" for cleaning the oil stain and the number will go even higher, significantly

Nitro

Londo Mollari wrote:

Psyko wrote:

Londo Mollari wrote:well, the fact that 40% of BP's shares are owned by americans, means that any action taken by Obama is going to annoy a lot of people, many of them american

also, the world economy as it is, really cannot afford to have BP going under, if the worlds 4th largest company was to become bankrupt, the ramifications would be huge

The problem I have with supporting failing companies is that companies have reasons for failing. It isn't all based on public opinion, despite it being the main factor that determines the company's stocks. BP made a mistake that cost them the money, just like how many of America's banks were making financial mistakes. And what do we do in America? We bail them out and give them government money because we are afraid to see the collapse of the economy along with the collapse of the country. But why should we keep bad businesses afloat? If the company fails, let it fail and let another, stronger, company rise up in its place. It will suck short-term, but the big picture will save a lot more money and hopefully gain a lot more profit than letting bad companies continue to screw things up.

because, if it does fall, there will be (amongst other things) massive job losses, a massive loss in the value of the global economy (potentially brining down other companies who are unrelated to BP and the whole oil spill, but own shares in BP - not to mention pension funds)


also from the whole "BP should take all the blame" perspective, its interesting to note that transoceanic have an absolutely awful track history in recent years, i think they have been responsible for about 5 accidents in the past decade, so it does seem that it is they who are the negligent ones

I did not specify BP in my post. I believe they should determine who was actually at fault and punish the responsible parties accordingly. I sincerely doubt that this was all the fault of BP, so I see no reason for them to take the hit. However, they have already promised to pay for the spill, so that would be their fault for making that promise. I can easily see a legal case in the future, once blame has been determined, for BP to pick up some of the lost money by suing the pants off of those who were, in fact, responsible for this spill. My prediction is that Transoceanic will be no more once this is all over.

Dr. House wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Dr. House wrote:I think it is stupid for the Brits to get buthurt cause the Americans are pissed off at BP. It's not an America versus Britain issue, it's an America versus BP issue.

what you're missing (and is clearly stated in the article you brought), is that Obama's rhetorics might lead to a drop in the company's shares, which will, in turn, adversly affect many of the pensions in Britain.

Ummmm, so their money > our beaches and wild life? Kay

No, their pensions > 3% more support for Obama

I find it funny how everyone is now playing the blame game, who can we scapegoat ?

The oil companies make hundreds of billions every year by exploiting the worlds resources, and damn what it does to the enviroment, Governments take tens of billions in taxes on this and we all use the products even though we know we shouldnt, then when it all goes tits up we blame one person or company, brush it under the rug and keep doing to same.

Im past caring cause really it makes no difference, may as well live for today cause the people who make the big decisions have already sold our tomorrows for a quick buck

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100614/ap_ ... shington_5

It's pretty clear cut who to blame really..

MEZZANINE wrote:
Im past caring cause really it makes no difference, may as well live for today cause the people who make the big decisions have already sold our tomorrows for a quick buck

very well said indeed mate

@Ra very interesting, didn`t get it all because of my crappy english but got the big picture

It is always about the money, they tried to save up few millions, now they will lose billions for the damage caused by their greediness and lack of interest ....screw them

Nitro

Hate the company, not the country.

Hate the system that requires companies... capitalism.