BP Sucessfull

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Yes. BP has been quite effective and timely in responding to this spill. They did everything they could, and their stock proves it. When was the last time you willingly invested your hard-earned gains in the governmnet?
I feel sorry for you if you did, because you're not likely to make anything off of bonds.

What does that have to do with anything? Regardless, their stock price does not prove that they've been effective.

Why should they be commended for doing what they're supposed to do, fixing a problem which they themselves created? That's like commending a drunk driver for paying damages after hitting another car. And now it turns out that the top kill didn't work, and the leak is still flowing.

Many of them were sunk within sight of shore, and they were all sunk within a few months of each other. I don't know whether or not they did more damage than this spill, but what I do know is that the Gulf of Mexico is a huge body of water measuring over 600 quadrillion gallons. It'll be fine, trust me. It doesn't need you to look after it.

Obviously the spill isn't going to destroy the entire Gulf. I never said it would. But the spill will affect the area where it is located. That's why the tankers are irrelevant, as they weren't all sunk in the same place and in the same month, and their spills occurred on the surface.

The only things that need you to look after the Gulf are political interests who need public approval before they steal your money and give you exactly nothing in trade, aside from a misbegotten warm-fuzzy feeling.

BP and other oil companies care about the Gulf a lot more than you or anyone else does, simply because it is their business. Where the hell are you, Captain Planet? Are you too busy demanding that other people do things in your stead because someone else told you it was a good idea?

While you're busy sitting on your butt, BP is busy trying to fix their mistake and clean up millions of gallons of seawater, not because anyone forced them to, but because they want to earn your respect and business. I can only imagine how much they must enjoy armchair eco-pundits bashing them for a perfectly understandable mistake.

It's their business to make a profit for their shareholders. It's those wacky eco-crusaders who raised the importance of the environment in the public eye to where it could affect a potential polluter's profit margin, so that they would start caring about it. And I don't count myself among their number, but hey, nice ad hominem. Of course, it seems the environment wasn't important enough to BP et al to ensure that they wouldn't use defective parts and improper procedures.

And are you seriously suggesting that I'm hypocritical for questioning your love-fest for BP if I don't quit my job, move 1,000 miles, get the relevant training and take part in the clean up? If so...wow.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

What does that have to do with anything? Regardless, their stock price does not prove that they've been effective.

What it proves is that this spill is not holding them back, despite the drop in production and the associated costs. They were ready for this scenario.

Why should they be commended for doing what they're supposed to do, fixing a problem which they themselves created? That's like commending a drunk driver for paying damages after hitting another car. And now it turns out that the top kill didn't work, and the leak is still flowing.

Ture, top-kill didn't work, but BP is still working hard to fix this huge mistake. You are very right about it being their own responsibility, but there are lots of corporations and even state agencies that would try to dodge the same responsibility.

Obviously the spill isn't going to destroy the entire Gulf. I never said it would. But the spill will affect the area where it is located. That's why the tankers are irrelevant, as they weren't all sunk in the same place and in the same month, and their spills occurred on the surface.

I know you didn't say that the spill would destroy the Gulf, but I go off on tangets sometimes. Sorry about that.

Even so, the amount of oil leaking into the Gulf from a sub-surface source is not going to do any permanent damage.

Originally Posted by Undersealcpl

The only things that need you to look after the Gulf are political interests who need public approval before they steal your money and give you exactly nothing in trade, aside from a misbegotten warm-fuzzy feeling.

Originally Posted by AngusJS

Okay, let me break it down for you. Have you noticed how the Republicans and the Democrats alike are turning this into a big political issue? The Reps, and even some Dems are using it as a way to bash Obama, as if he were personally responsible or in any way culpable, which he isn't. The reason that politicians are making a big stink about all this comes down two exactly two issues: votes and control. Some just want to look like they're on our side. Others want an excuse to regulate big oil, not because they care about what big oil does, necessarily, but because the oil industry is a very lucrative source of revenue for pushing other agendas.

It's their business to make a profit for their shareholders. It's those wacky eco-crusaders who raised the importance of the environment in the public eye to where it could affect a potential polluter's profit margin, so that they would start caring about it.

Very astute, Angus. I've been saying the same thing for some time now, but there's a point at which environmentalism begins to interfere with the very productivity and prosperity that spawned it. Even worse, it tends to become a vehicle for political and legal agendas. It's something of a catch-22, if you will. People who are prosperous enough to worry about the environment get used by politicians who want their monys and votes. People who are too poor to care about the environment tend to ruin it.

And I don't count myself among their number, but hey, nice ad hominem. Of course, it seems the environment wasn't important enough to BP et al to ensure that they wouldn't use defective parts and improper procedures

.
Who's using the ad hominem argument now?

BP did everything it could to ensure that the rig would be both functional and safe, but oceanic oil rigs are very complex machines, and there are many of them. One is going to fail sooner or later. You seem to be under the impression that there was some kind of neglect on BP's part, which is not the case. You don't have to believe me, but you might want to consider listening to investors who are much smarter and more involved in BP's operation than either of us are. Those guys are rich enough to invest because they're smart.

And are you seriously suggesting that I'm hypocritical for questioning your love-fest for BP if I don't quit my job, move 1,000 miles, get the relevant training and take part in the clean up?

A little bit, yes. BP is spending their money to clean up the spill because they know they should. It isn't as if they're slacking or anything. Volunteer groups are out there helping. Do you care enough about the Gulf to help them, or would you rather just complain because you got it in your head to decry BP's response because you heard on TV that you should be mad?

I don't know what company you work for, but I'd be willing to bet that they would pay for your time off to let you assist in the cleanup effort, you just need to make it happen. They won't do it because they're magnanimous, they'll do it because it's good PR. Even my own company, the giant immoral railroad monopoly that makes a habit of screwing customers over is helping to fund the cleanup effort while the politicians play the blame game. That's what sets private industry aside from the state.

You've been duped by people whose profession is lying, my friend, an understandable but regrettable circumstance. Politicians and spokespeople may tell a good story with a smile on their face, but dollars don't lie, and dollars say BP, the Gulf, and the Deep-Horizon rig are fine.