Yes, you are right, pipes, in fact, do leak; however, this is not some minor leak. Between 60,000 and 210,000 barrels of oil, 2.52 million gallons (9,539,237.69 million liters)and 8.82 million gallons (33,387,331.90 liters), are leaking into the Gulf of Mexico daily. The catastrophe arose from several dumb mistakes, as well as some "cost cutting measures" which were illegal in a lot of areas, but not in the U.S., where oil isn't as regulated. Superfluous amounts of wildlife, numerous species having recently recovered from near-extinction (brown pelicans, for one), live in that area of Louisiana and are washing up on the beaches covered in so much oil that you can't even identify what they are (they're dead when this happens, by the way).
Maybe you'll start to care when the gulf stream, one of the strongest currents in the world, pulls the oil around Florida and it begins migrating up the coast of North America, swings by Greenland and starts to hit Europe's coast (the UK being closer to us than continental countries).
Or, if you're still not moved, maybe you should post things about the oil spill where you'll not be read-- by this, I mean shut your mouth, because you sound stupid.
I'm nominating you for stupidest post of the week. I'll confer with Ghavrel and get back to you to let you know if you've won.
Maybe you'll start to care when the gulf stream, one of the strongest currents in the world, pulls the oil around Florida and it begins migrating up the coast of North America, swings by Greenland and starts to hit Europe's coast (the UK being closer to us than continental countries).
Or, if you're still not moved, maybe you should post things about the oil spill where you'll not be read-- by this, I mean shut your mouth, because you sound stupid.
I'm nominating you for stupidest post of the week. I'll confer with Ghavrel and get back to you to let you know if you've won.
no way no how.
i'm still not sure how it's BP's fault, not that i have been too interested in the story. pipes leak, it happens. are their pipes somehow inferior to other pipes or is there someway they could have foreseen and prevented it? i would like to know being fairly ignorant on the topic
even if the situation with pensioner's retirement funds become dire, david cameron has made it clear we are going to have to suffer hard times in order to reduce this deficit. it's not in his interest nor is it the party's stance to help people.
clegg will have to do some serious bitching to get him to even consider it and then i'm sure cameron will no doubt distract him with a hollow referendum on some nonsense or other
i'm still not sure how it's BP's fault, not that i have been too interested in the story. pipes leak, it happens. are their pipes somehow inferior to other pipes or is there someway they could have foreseen and prevented it? i would like to know being fairly ignorant on the topic
even if the situation with pensioner's retirement funds become dire, david cameron has made it clear we are going to have to suffer hard times in order to reduce this deficit. it's not in his interest nor is it the party's stance to help people.
clegg will have to do some serious bitching to get him to even consider it and then i'm sure cameron will no doubt distract him with a hollow referendum on some nonsense or other
In another thread below, I was only half-joking about BP getting bailed out, but this article makes it sound like a real possibility, considering how many people are affected by BP getting hammered. Bolded some things I thought were particular interesting
Barack Obama's attacks on BP hurting British pensioners
By Louise Armitstead and Myra Butterworth
Published: 10:12PM BST 09 Jun 2010
Barack Obama has been accused of holding "his boot on the throat" of British pensioners after his attacks on BP were blamed for wiping billions off the company's value.
City investors said the president was jeopardising the pensions of millions with his "excessive" criticism of the energy company following the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Before the accident on April 20, BP was Britain's biggest company, with a stock market value of £122 billion. Since then, £49 billion has been wiped off its value.
On Wednesday, BP's share price fell a further 17.35p to 391.55p – representing a 40 per cent drop on the 655p price of a share two months ago.
Experts have said that the clean-up costs of the oil spill will run to between £10 billion and £20 billion but the biggest cost to the company is from investors dumping stock for fear of BP being further punished by the US Government.
Those fears have been heightened by Mr Obama's increasingly aggressive rhetoric towards BP, which some investors see as an attempt to deflect criticism of his own handling of the crisis. Last month, a White House spokesman said the President's job was to keep his "boot on the throat" of the company.
In the past week, Mr Obama, who insists on referring to BP by its former name British Petroleum, has suggested that its chief executive, Tony Hayward, would have been sacked if he worked for him.
BP's position at the top of the London Stock Exchange and its previous reliability have made it a bedrock of almost every pension fund in the country, meaning its value is crucial to millions of workers. The firm's dividend payments, which amount to more than £7 billion a year, account for £1 in every £6 paid out in dividends to British pension pots.
BP is so concerned about Mr Obama's power to affect share value that it has urged David Cameron to appeal to the White House on its behalf. Downing Street, however, has refused to get involved. "We need to ensure that BP is not unfairly treated – it is not some bloodless corporation," said one of Britain's top fund managers. "Hit BP and a lot of people get hit. UK pension money becomes a donation to the US government and the lawyers at the expense of Mrs Jones and other pension funds."
Mark Dampier of the financial services company Hargreaves Lansdown said: "[Mr Obama] is playing to the gallery but is not bringing a solution any closer. Obama has his boot on the throat of British pensioners. There is no point in bashing BP all the time, it's not helpful. It is a terrible situation, but having the American president on your back is not going to get it all cleared up any quicker."
Neil Duncan-Jordan, of the National Pensioners Convention, said: "Most ordinary people would not have thought that BP would have an impact on their retirement but if BP's share price goes down then their pension pot goes down.
"Most of those pension funds are invested in the default option, which is stocks and shares, and so if BP goes down the pan then their pension pot goes down the pan."
Although fund managers accept that BP must pay compensation for the oil spill and the damage it is doing to parts of America's coastline, they argue that the cost to the company's market value from the president's criticism is far outweighing the clean-up costs.
One investment manager said: "Experts have said that the clean-up costs could reach a maximum of £20 billion which means the hit to BP is excessive on any scale."
There is particular anger at US interference in the company's dividend policy. Earlier this week, two senators suggested BP should be banned from paying out to shareholders until the full clean-up costs are known. One fund manager said: "Who is Obama to dictate whether UK pension funds are paid a dividend? Others in a similar position have been able to pay dividends."
Jason Kenney, a oil and gas analyst at ING, said: "When you compare how Britain reacted towards the US company Occidental after its Piper Alpha disaster where 167 people died, they are worlds apart.
“The US reaction is getting towards hysterical. Half of them seem to think the US is knee deep in oil. It’s difficult to underestimate the effect 24-hour TV dinner media coverage of the spill is having over there.”
Tom Watson, the former Labour minister, was planning to table a Commons motion today in support of BP and urging MPs to understand the importance of the company to pensioners in this country.
He said last night: “BP is perhaps the most strategically important company for Britain and for UK pensioners. I want to see the UK government defend the company while it is under this attack.”
He added: “Of course the company must clean up the spill but let’s be under no illusion – all oil companies could have been in this situation whether British, American or any other nationality.
“I am sure there are American oil companies that want BP to fail but it is British pensioners that will badly lose out if they do.”
Ken Salazar, the US interior secretary, said yesterday that the Obama administration would require BP to pay the salaries of any workers who were laid off as a result of the government’s moratorium on offshore drilling, imposed while safety reviews take place.
“BP is responsible for all the damages,” Mr Salazar told the Senate’s energy and natural resources committee, in one of five hearings taking place on Capitol Hill.
BP is due to announce its second quarter dividend and results on July 27.
There is a fear that unless the Government intervenes on BP’s behalf, the company will continue to be hit, particularly in the run-up to the midterm elections in America.
Last week Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, described America’s anti-British rhetoric as “extreme and unhelpful”.
On Monday, The Daily Telegraph disclosed that the Foreign Office was concerned that the criticism of BP was harming Anglo-US relations.
Could it be that the UK govt will have to bail out BP to keep the pension funds afloat? Probably too early to tell, but seems like the door may be opening
Barack Obama's attacks on BP hurting British pensioners
By Louise Armitstead and Myra Butterworth
Published: 10:12PM BST 09 Jun 2010
Barack Obama has been accused of holding "his boot on the throat" of British pensioners after his attacks on BP were blamed for wiping billions off the company's value.
City investors said the president was jeopardising the pensions of millions with his "excessive" criticism of the energy company following the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Before the accident on April 20, BP was Britain's biggest company, with a stock market value of £122 billion. Since then, £49 billion has been wiped off its value.
On Wednesday, BP's share price fell a further 17.35p to 391.55p – representing a 40 per cent drop on the 655p price of a share two months ago.
Experts have said that the clean-up costs of the oil spill will run to between £10 billion and £20 billion but the biggest cost to the company is from investors dumping stock for fear of BP being further punished by the US Government.
Those fears have been heightened by Mr Obama's increasingly aggressive rhetoric towards BP, which some investors see as an attempt to deflect criticism of his own handling of the crisis. Last month, a White House spokesman said the President's job was to keep his "boot on the throat" of the company.
In the past week, Mr Obama, who insists on referring to BP by its former name British Petroleum, has suggested that its chief executive, Tony Hayward, would have been sacked if he worked for him.
BP's position at the top of the London Stock Exchange and its previous reliability have made it a bedrock of almost every pension fund in the country, meaning its value is crucial to millions of workers. The firm's dividend payments, which amount to more than £7 billion a year, account for £1 in every £6 paid out in dividends to British pension pots.
BP is so concerned about Mr Obama's power to affect share value that it has urged David Cameron to appeal to the White House on its behalf. Downing Street, however, has refused to get involved. "We need to ensure that BP is not unfairly treated – it is not some bloodless corporation," said one of Britain's top fund managers. "Hit BP and a lot of people get hit. UK pension money becomes a donation to the US government and the lawyers at the expense of Mrs Jones and other pension funds."
Mark Dampier of the financial services company Hargreaves Lansdown said: "[Mr Obama] is playing to the gallery but is not bringing a solution any closer. Obama has his boot on the throat of British pensioners. There is no point in bashing BP all the time, it's not helpful. It is a terrible situation, but having the American president on your back is not going to get it all cleared up any quicker."
Neil Duncan-Jordan, of the National Pensioners Convention, said: "Most ordinary people would not have thought that BP would have an impact on their retirement but if BP's share price goes down then their pension pot goes down.
"Most of those pension funds are invested in the default option, which is stocks and shares, and so if BP goes down the pan then their pension pot goes down the pan."
Although fund managers accept that BP must pay compensation for the oil spill and the damage it is doing to parts of America's coastline, they argue that the cost to the company's market value from the president's criticism is far outweighing the clean-up costs.
One investment manager said: "Experts have said that the clean-up costs could reach a maximum of £20 billion which means the hit to BP is excessive on any scale."
There is particular anger at US interference in the company's dividend policy. Earlier this week, two senators suggested BP should be banned from paying out to shareholders until the full clean-up costs are known. One fund manager said: "Who is Obama to dictate whether UK pension funds are paid a dividend? Others in a similar position have been able to pay dividends."
Jason Kenney, a oil and gas analyst at ING, said: "When you compare how Britain reacted towards the US company Occidental after its Piper Alpha disaster where 167 people died, they are worlds apart.
“The US reaction is getting towards hysterical. Half of them seem to think the US is knee deep in oil. It’s difficult to underestimate the effect 24-hour TV dinner media coverage of the spill is having over there.”
Tom Watson, the former Labour minister, was planning to table a Commons motion today in support of BP and urging MPs to understand the importance of the company to pensioners in this country.
He said last night: “BP is perhaps the most strategically important company for Britain and for UK pensioners. I want to see the UK government defend the company while it is under this attack.”
He added: “Of course the company must clean up the spill but let’s be under no illusion – all oil companies could have been in this situation whether British, American or any other nationality.
“I am sure there are American oil companies that want BP to fail but it is British pensioners that will badly lose out if they do.”
Ken Salazar, the US interior secretary, said yesterday that the Obama administration would require BP to pay the salaries of any workers who were laid off as a result of the government’s moratorium on offshore drilling, imposed while safety reviews take place.
“BP is responsible for all the damages,” Mr Salazar told the Senate’s energy and natural resources committee, in one of five hearings taking place on Capitol Hill.
BP is due to announce its second quarter dividend and results on July 27.
There is a fear that unless the Government intervenes on BP’s behalf, the company will continue to be hit, particularly in the run-up to the midterm elections in America.
Last week Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, described America’s anti-British rhetoric as “extreme and unhelpful”.
On Monday, The Daily Telegraph disclosed that the Foreign Office was concerned that the criticism of BP was harming Anglo-US relations.
Could it be that the UK govt will have to bail out BP to keep the pension funds afloat? Probably too early to tell, but seems like the door may be opening
This message last edited by lyringlas on 10/06/2010 at 03:18:11 PM
Bailout for BP?
10/06/2010 08:28:17 AM
- 764 Views
this government won't bail out BP
10/06/2010 08:43:01 AM
- 355 Views
In response to: "pipes leak, it happens"
10/06/2010 02:41:17 PM
- 485 Views
Would it be totally wrong to have such an award?
10/06/2010 03:11:06 PM
- 467 Views

A minor point I realise
10/06/2010 04:34:13 PM
- 418 Views
If other companies were involved, then they certainly share responsibility.
10/06/2010 05:08:19 PM
- 488 Views
100% responsible? Nobody is claiming they're 100% responsible.
10/06/2010 11:46:17 PM
- 276 Views
Ah. I was misled by no one seeming to talk about the other parties involved.
11/06/2010 10:10:06 AM
- 276 Views
I guess it depends on your definition of "proved."
11/06/2010 05:45:58 PM
- 384 Views
I have seen those allegations
12/06/2010 11:14:41 AM
- 297 Views
Mm, yes, we know how troublesome Congressional investigations are.
13/06/2010 06:49:15 AM
- 287 Views
It hasn't had "British" in the name since 2001 *NM*
13/06/2010 07:30:19 AM
- 232 Views
I am aware of that. I am referencing the idiotic claim of Brits that this is a national bias. *NM*
13/06/2010 07:35:25 AM
- 117 Views
You are clearly over emotional about this, not much point in trying to use reason with you *NM*
14/06/2010 10:36:15 AM
- 108 Views
Come take a trip down here and then give me a sanctimonious lecture on emotion. Get stuffed.
15/06/2010 12:05:33 AM
- 386 Views
Ironic
10/06/2010 03:27:12 PM
- 442 Views
Kids deserve to be sold into sex trafficking, but I'm ignorant and not too interested about it
10/06/2010 03:42:05 PM
- 304 Views
The end of that still sounds like "it's the bank fault I robbed them,'cos their security's so bad. "
11/06/2010 01:33:44 PM
- 481 Views
Except it isn't really like that, is it?
11/06/2010 02:27:56 PM
- 375 Views
Honestly? Foxhead was in trouble soon as he said (basically) "I know naught of this, but think... "
11/06/2010 02:54:37 PM
- 359 Views
Seems so, given lyringlas is an idiot. As his replies have shown.
11/06/2010 03:04:28 PM
- 383 Views
*shrugs* If you don't know, don't speak.
11/06/2010 03:57:25 PM
- 437 Views
if you don't know, ask
12/06/2010 02:23:47 PM
- 276 Views
You really are an idiot.
13/06/2010 06:55:21 AM
- 286 Views
you know i went back to my post just to see exactly how it was i pissed you off
10/06/2010 04:40:50 PM
- 424 Views
Also, I'm pretty shocked by this quote
10/06/2010 01:09:09 PM
- 322 Views
Anthony Weiner is anything but a sensible democrat congressman. *NM*
10/06/2010 04:18:21 PM
- 222 Views
Yeah, I was wondering about that - never heard of him before. *NM*
10/06/2010 04:24:10 PM
- 123 Views
Things you might want to consider. Especially Americans
10/06/2010 06:00:06 PM
- 422 Views
Transocean is Swiss, actually. w/ EDIT
10/06/2010 07:09:22 PM
- 301 Views
In name, not in reality
10/06/2010 07:14:26 PM
- 280 Views
True, Switzerland isn't known for its deepwater oil drilling.
*NM*
10/06/2010 07:38:09 PM
- 203 Views
