X Prize To Offer Millions For Gulf Oil Cleanup Solution 171
Jamie noted that X Prize is offering prizes for a solution to the Gulf Coast oil clean up. This is in addition to categories for mapping genomes, making an incredibly fuel efficient car, and exploring the moon's surface with a robotic vehicle.
Prevention is better than cure (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You only prosecute and jail if something illegal was done, not to prove a point. I'm not saying they didn't do anything illegal, they very well might have. If they didn't though, it's purely a civil matter and should not end in jail time.
Re:Prevention is better than cure (Score:5, Insightful)
Their company knowingly violated over 700 safety regulations and they knowingly ignored their own engineers in order to rush the project, Why shouldn't they be held accountable? The 11 deaths that resulted from the explosion alone are a good enough reason to lock these guys in prison let alone the billions of dollars in jobs and the ecosystem they destroyed through negligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Their company knowingly violated over 700 safety regulations and they knowingly ignored their own engineers in order to rush the project
They should be charges with negligent homicide. That's what you're charged with if you break the regulation against driving drunk and someone dies; twelve workers died when it exploded.
But in the US, a rich and powerfull man only goes to prison if a richer and more powerful man wants him there. Prisons are mostly for poor people.
proving where the knowledge stopped (Score:2)
is going to be hard.
Or do we just arbitrarily punish people based on job title? Maybe we can just zing the ones with high salaries!
Get them where it hurts, the pocketbook. Nice large fines to be used to better the safety of the industry as a whole. Set it equal to the costs to clean up the mess plus at least a quarter's or more profit. Stock holders won't take kindly to a board that allows this to go on long.
Jailing executives over decisions underlings performed would be great, but damn why not start wi
Re: (Score:2)
Their company knowingly violated over 700 safety regulations
Did they? Then why was the well allowed in the first place? And how many of those regulations need to be violated in order to run an oil drilling business in the US? My view here is that you can go to any industrial facility in the US and find a few dozen safety regulation violations, if the inspector is willing to be hard-nosed about it. BP would have been subject to a lot of hard-nosed inspections of a lot of facilities in the wake of a media event like Deepwater Horizon. That's just the nature of the bur
The truth is sometimes annoying (Score:3, Insightful)
ahhh yes, (R) bad (D) good .. sock puppet. You're almost as annoying as the Bushbots.
Am I wrong though? You see, you were claiming the government is bad, because they did not regulate. I'm saying, we have one party that is rabidly anti regulation, and has proven it will work underhandedly against regulation. So why blame 'government' in general, when in fact it is the people who hate government and stand in its way that have caused the problem in this particular case.
I would like to make it clear: one party is at least nominally pro regulation, the other is rabidly against it. The party tha
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, the problem isn't (D) vs (R) which is what you're trying make it.
The problem isn't "regulation" of things, as some regulations are needed. And MORE Regulation isn't the answer to fixing a problem of NOT ENFORCING regulations that are on the books.
And since the REGULATIONS on the books would have, or at least SHOULD HAVE helped prevent this mess weren't being enforced, the problem becomes the administration that FAILED to enforce the regulations already on the books.
And as much as you'd like to blame BUS
Re: (Score:2)
It was indirectly Bush's fault, but of course, Obama being the corporate tool he is, he did not move to ferret out the Bush plants. So it is equally his fault.
What I'm saying is this: true or not, one party campaigns on deregulation, while the other party campaigns on more regulation and better enforcement. They may be lying, but I'll go with them over the fools who actually claim deregulation as their stated goal.
I really don't see what is so hard to understand about that. You do realize that Obama is not
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Republicans are bought, lock stock and barrel, by moneyed corporate interests."
And Democrats are bought, lock stock and barrel by Unions, Hollywood, and race baiters. and many others groups.
If you're opposed to being bought(on principle), then I applaud you. If you are just opposed to being bought by people you disagree with, then we have a problem.
Oh, Obama was one of the largest recipients of BP campaign cash [reuters.com]
Again, my point, which you can't seem to admit, is that both sides have the exact same problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Both sides do not have the exact same problems. One side has a chest cold, the other has lung cancer. Yes, they both have a cough, but the underlying problems are not the same.
I'm not excusing 'my side' as I don't have a side. I'm explaining that this false equivalency is ridiculous, one side is by far the lesser of two evils. Evil, yes, but much, much less so.
Democrats are bought by 'race baiters?!?' WTF?!? Republicans are shameless race baiters. Look at that lying sack of shit Breitbart. I'm sorry, but th
Re: (Score:2)
How were those tags unfounded? I'd say they were on the nose. And based on the unabashed racism on display at every single Tea Party rally, I'd be willing to believe those CBC members over the racist denialists.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Re: (Score:2)
This has been debunked so many times, cameras were not trained no these guys the whole time. You don't know whether their accusation is based in fact, you are speculating that it is unfounded.
You can claim whatever you like about some small, non racist segment of teabaggers supporting minorities. I never claimed the whole Tea Party was racist, I'm just saying a significant and vocal segment of teabaggers are virulently racist.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are all lovely examples of imaginary racism. Thank you for sharing your inner fantasy life with us.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that a sizable percentage of teabaggers are frothing, virulent racists, based not on fantasy, but what I have witnessed with my own eyes.
Insightful? (Score:2)
You only prosecute and jail if something illegal was done, not to prove a point. I'm not saying they didn't do anything illegal, they very well might have. If they didn't though, it's purely a civil matter and should not end in jail time.
You aren't making any sense. We prosecute to prove the point that someone needs to go to jail. If it looks as though someone, say, willfully violated safety regulations over 760 times in a three year period where the next most egregious offender had all of nine willful violations, I'd say that is enough evidence to warrant a thorough, crawl up their ass with a microscope sort of criminal investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
If I knowingly let my car rot to the point where a wheel falls off on the freeway and kills a bystander, I'm liable for manslaughter. If there are 700 violations of safety regulations that someone approved of, which let an oil platform rot to the point where it exploded killing 10, why are they not liable for manslaughter?
Re: (Score:2)
Because they are rich enough to own an oil platform.
Everyone is equal before the law, but some are more equal than others.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes Executives Must Pay with Jail TIme. Because they Micromanage Everything to such a detail level that they know about Everything that is going on at all times. Usually at the Executive Level for Large Corporations they are just looking at the final set of numbers... Unit Produced Revenue earned... The Real people responsible are the Middle Managers who are trying to fight their way up to the top cut safety just to get the impressive numbers to make the CEO happy. That isn't to say the CEO isn't respons
Re: (Score:2)
If they aren't taking responsibility for having safety-first policies that put profits second, then yes, they are indeed responsible for a failure of management that should land them in jail. Setting a direction is their job. Choosing to go for short term profits at the expense of safety is a direction that they determine. Send them to jail for life. The next guy in the job will be much more likely not to take those chances.
Re: (Score:2)
Mistakes happen, sure, but disregarding 700 safety regulations is a "mistake"? If not outright bribing, encouraging widespread ethics violations by throwing parties with gov't regulators is a mistake? This was policy and corporations don't make policy, people do, specifically those at the top.
The result of those policies is 11 people dead and billions of dollars in damage to people living on the Gulf Coast. That's nice that you think intent is more important than results here. But I wan
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Part of prevention is having a cure. Personally, I think all such activities should be halted until such time that a working and tested plan is in place for every similar disaster such as this. People have already been screaming that it would do this and that to the economy and literally ban offshore drilling forever. But this is pretty normal for lots of other industries. You can't even have a building to work in without loads of fire prevention and contingency devices. We still have buildings. We ha
Re:Prevention is better than cure (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember this post when your car spring a leak and you don't call the EPA and clean it up right away with the kitty litter you keep in your trunk at all times in case it happens. You do keep kitty litter in your trunk, right? I mean, how irresponsible can you be to not be prepared for a disaster!!! You should be forced to spend every remaining cent in your savings to clean up any accidents you have. You should also be lambasted on the evening news so everyone will be aware of how horrible you are.
I can't be the only one sick of the stupid comments people are making? Basically asking for the heads of people.
Because accidentally elbowing someone in the nose is the same as mowing down thousands with machine gun fire to make a few extra dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that what history teaches us about oil spills that get into sensitive wetlands? Funny, I've heard a different story from actual scientists who have studied the problem.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072502620_pf.html [washingtonpost.com]
So we find out next spring how things are going. I'll bet you a fiver that things are going fairly well.
Tough problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Oil on the surface is just a sheen. Oil below is mixed with water and dispersants. Oil on the beaches is mixed into marshes and sand.
That's a lot of stuff to churn and in doing so, greatly affects everything living in it.
Perhaps we could keep in mind that "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
Re: (Score:2)
Ayup. Either that horse is making its way past Jupiter or jumped into an alternate equine dimension and became the ruler of that hooved place, but it is gone.
That said, there's other wells. I try to imagine that operators and owners of said wells have a renewed interest in at least not having a $20 billion disaster bill and maybe a shred of conscience and understand of what their actions can reap. I keep waiting for some news on the fucking dipshits at MMS who were literally fucking those who they were s
Re: (Score:2)
Or in this case...
$3.12 billion over 76 days ($3.12 b as of July 5th) comes out to $41,052,631 a day. And remember, the Deepwater Horizon was being leased for $500,000 a day.
The cost for every day of cleanup could have 82 days leasing a drilling rig. Total time (ignoring maintenance, payroll, etc.) for that $3.12 billion? 17 years.
SpongeZilla (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Mopping gnomes (Score:4, Funny)
When I first glanced at "mapping genomes" I thought it said "mopping gnomes" and had this RPG inspired vision of gnomes on boats (clockwork/steampunk) using these special oil-soaking mops.
You have become better at Oil Mopping! (28)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Collect underpants
2. Mop up oil spill
3. Profit !
Yes, finally, a working business plan for Underpants Gnomes
OIl is dissapating on its own (Score:2)
according to some reports. If by chance it does dissipate to a degree that a gulf oil cleanup solution beyond what is already being done isn't necessary, I hereby claim that idea as mine and will await X Prize's communications requesting a destination US bank account.
Re: (Score:2)
Sa-weet! I'm rich!! It even has a bit of Nigerenglish in it!
My solution: Time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You can get it directly at their headquarters, in the year 2735.
It would be a lot easier, but EPA says NO! (Score:4, Informative)
If you suck dirty water out of the gulf, and put back not-so-dirty water, isn't that better than leaving ALL the dirty water there? Hello, EPA? How long did it take them to waive this STUPID regulation?
Re:It would be a lot easier, but EPA says NO! (Score:5, Informative)
it's called a waiver. the EPA gives them out all the time.
in fact, remember the "whale" boat, the oil tanker that was going to be the gulf's salvation, but was being held up by all that red tape? They got their waiver (took about a day) and, well, it doesn't work [nola.com].
But, if it makes you feel better, go ahead and keep railing against the EPA.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't work because of the chemical dispersants that BP added to the spill. Now what good did these dispersants do?
Re: (Score:2)
Informative, my ass...
This is not the first oil spill in the world
No, but it's by far the biggest, and affects the lives and livlihoods of hundreds of thousands of people. EPA regs have nothing to do with it.
To those who modded you "informative" and "underrated", I'd like to quote Nobel Prize winning cosmologist George Smoot: "With all due respects, Doctor Cooper, are you on crack?" (Citation: The Terminator Decoupling) [wikipedia.org]
Does the winner... (Score:4, Interesting)
WHY? (Score:4, Insightful)
They wanted the profit, they can accept the consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Pragmatism. While BP absolutely should be shouldering the full cost of this cleanup--and no doubt the gov't will seek recompense for the public money spent--in the time it takes for BP to comply, destruction of the environment and the livelihoods of those who work and live there continues. That needs to be fixed first before you worry too much exactly who is paying for it.
There's a blind intersection in a strip mall parking lot near my house that has a stop sign going in one direction, but not the other.
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, am glad that there are at l
Re: (Score:2)
To clean this up the BP board should be hauled in (with a gun to their head if needed) and forced to clean it up with their own fucking money and their own hands.
Whoa, we have achieved Internet Tough Guy. Last I checked BP is already spending a considerable bit of its money cleaning up the mess and probably will end spending more. This also doesn't address the issue of why BP was allowed to get away with a seriously off-regulation well. In other words, BP is already being punished, while other parties (the ones that should have been regulating BP) are not. So at the least, your rant seems terribly misguided.
The Dutch (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
using it as an opportunity for demagoguery
pot, meet anonymous kettle
Re: (Score:2)
the article mentions two private companies with some suggestions for how they can make money off the oil spill.
first guy says "buy my sweeper arms" and "don't use dispersant". Even the article admits that they are using his sweeper arms now. the EPA must have given them a waiver! who would have thought they could do that? the utility of dispersants a mile below sea level is a huge question mark. it might turn out to be the best thing BP did. it might turn out to be a huge environmental disaster.
the sec
Re:The Dutch (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, if you bother to read the article you linked to - they are using it in the Gulf. But rant away, it's linkage that makes you look cool and informative - not the contents of the link.
Re: (Score:2)
Skimming is only a mitigation strategy, it will never collect all of the oil.
Hey, at least it's a start....If you're on a sinking ship that has 400 passengers, but you only have enough lifeboats for 200 passengers, do you demand that all 400 people stay on board and go down with the ship because saving 200 won't save all of the people, or do you at least try to save 200 and try to come up with ways to save the rest all the while?
my solution (Score:2)
Involves taking chickens... ok, i see i got your attention there, putting them in the gulf. Then selling their remains to kfc. Not only is this totally green but profitable but extremely tasty.
Just go ask.. (Score:2)
Kevin Costner. He has the answer.
Free Market model for cleanup (Score:2)
1 - Design a cheap "cleanup kit" that almost anyone can afford, or a small range of cleanup kits. ...
2 - Design a process for turning the gunk harvested by the above "cleanup kits" into usable oil.
3 - Pay people to bring in barrels of the gunk, sell the oil back into the supply chain.
5a - Profit!!
5b - Cleanup!!
This is a combination jest/serious. Probably the biggest problem would be making step 2 cheap enough that you can pay people for barrels of gunk, yet still sell the oil back into the supply chain.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, to seize all that oil would definitely help. The problem is how to do it. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
We could do it like we did in Iraq, where eight billion dollars (out of nine billion total) in oil revenue has simply disappeared.
Here you go (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq-funds-20100727,0,3856364.story [latimes.com]
You see, when all us crazy liberals were saying we were going to Iraq to steal their oil, we were right. That's what we did.
Re:Here you go (Score:4, Insightful)
It's just a bit overpriced.
http://costofwar.com/ [costofwar.com]
Re:Here you go (Score:5, Insightful)
Did anyone actually think that when we said "we're going to Iraq to steal their oil" what we meant was "So we can have cheap oil?" That's ridiculous. It was so the rich could have cheap oil to sell at a high cost.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Another argument I've heard is that "Why would the US invade Iraq for profit? Look how much it's cost!" Which ignores the fact that the cost is paid by taxpayers, while the profit goes to private businesses. Why should they care that the peasants have to pay?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's almost as if major portions of the US population have developed Stockholm Syndrome and empathize with their oppressors. They think they are in the same class of people as their oppressors. They think of the United States as 'us.' I guarantee that the rich do not think that way.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This whole idea that pensions and 401ks benefit from evil corporatist actions is true, but ultimately meaningless. Do you know what percentage of these stocks are owned by pensions and 401ks? Very, very little. In fact, the bottom fifty percent of Americans own zero point five percent of all stocks. http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4 [businessinsider.com]
Read the whole thing.
Having greedy bastards making money hand over fist for extracting resources from the ground with little
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying you're wrong, but the article you linked to talks about recorded revenues and poorly accounted-for expenditures on reconstruction. It follows that with a statement from CentCom saying that the money can be properly accounted for. Where's the part about us going to Iraq to steal their oil?
The part where nearly 9 billion disappeared. If you believe it will ever be accounted for, I've got a nice bridge to sell you. Companies like Halliburton knew they would be paid in oil that mysteriously fell of the back of a truck.
Of that amount, the military failed to provide any records at all for $2.6 billion in purported reconstruction expenditure, says the report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which is responsible for monitoring U.S. spending in Iraq. The rest of the money was not properly deposited in special accounts as required under Treasury Department rules, making it difficult to trace how it was spent
So, 2.6 billion is completely unaccounted for, with the rest merely missing and poorly accounted for.
In response to the audit findings, the Defense Department concurred with recommendations that it establish better guidelines for managing such funds. But a letter from U.S. Central Command emphasized that failure to establish deposit accounts for the $8.7 billion does not mean it all cannot be accounted for.
CentCom does not claim the money can be accounted for. It is making the laughable (but trivially true) claim that just because the money is unaccounted for now, and not in the prop
Re: (Score:2)
You're not making a good case for your ability to tell the difference between fact and speculation. Dressing speculation up as fact, no matter how convinced *you* are, demonstrates only that you are unable to tell the difference between the two, which means that you are an unstrustworthy, unreliable source of information. If you wish to be taken seriously by learned folk, you may wish to research how the difference between fact and speculation can be expressed. If you don't wish to be taken seriously... suc
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry you suffer from reading comprehension problems, but what can I do? I have not confused fact with speculation. The money, at this point, has disappeared. It is missing. No one can account for it. Perhaps it will be found, perhaps it won't. I've been completely honest and accurate. Trying to twist the meaning of words to throw uncertainty and doubt onto another person's argument won't help you to be taken seriously by learned folk.
Re: (Score:2)
"The money, at this point, has disappeared. It is missing. No one can account for it."
That's the bit that I was taking as the fact. You really can't see anything else in your post that's speculation? I'd say you're "reading comprehension problems" are somewhat more serious if you can't even read what you've written yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
"The money, at this point, has disappeared. It is missing. No one can account for it."
That's the bit that I was taking as the fact. You really can't see anything else in your post that's speculation? I'd say you're "reading comprehension problems" are somewhat more serious if you can't even read what you've written yourself.
Please enlighten me then as to what you mean by speculation. I'm sorry, but that sounds like the words of a guy who has got nothing and is throwing up a desperate smoke screen. I'm something of an ass, but when definitively proved wrong, I admit it. So, you wanna be the first guy this month to do it? Show me where I'm speculating.
Re: (Score:2)
The bit about what Haliburton "knew".
"but when definitively proved wrong, I admit it"
Likewise, so if there is some company memo you can point me to where Haliburton execs say "it's okay, we'll be paid in oil that will mysteriously fall of the back of a truck" I will even go as far as to apologise :-) I do know the whole "they're evil" thing, but that doesn't mean they're prophetic... it doesn't mean that they *didn't* know either, sure, but without evidence that they *did* know, you must admit, that is spec
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, okay, sure. Saying "companies like Halliburtone knew they would be paid in oil that mysteriously fell off the back of a truck" is speculation.
The facts are, huge amounts of oil revenue and reconstruction money are missing and unaccounted for. This sort of thing is common in war. Heck, my grandad was demoted from base commander after World War II for calling out corruption. In the chaos of war, there has always been money to be made under the table. That is not speculation, that is history. Saying that H
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing about speculation that requires it to be false, uneducated, or unprecidented. It's still speculation though, as much as you wish to refuse to call it that, it really is!
"But don't get smug thinking you've proved anything to the contrary"
I'm not the one trying to prove anything. I recognise speculation, I know that it's not proof of anything. I don't need for something to be "proof". I'm completely fine with downgrading a statement to include "I wouldn't be surprised if" or "it seems like" or
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Especially when they can't find it [go.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if we can't find it, it must not be a problem, right? Whew. Glad that's over. I was actually worried for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the link before you spout off.
Re: (Score:2)
I did read the link. What was I supposed to be looking for? The story says what I just said? You don't say. I just thought it was important to preempt the idiots by pointing out the important fact that 'we can't find it' does not mean 'it is gone.'
Re: (Score:2)
"experts say an astonishing amount has disappeared, reabsorbed into the environment. "
While not all of it is gone, apparently a good portion of it is.
Re: (Score:2)
"experts say an astonishing amount has disappeared, reabsorbed into the environment. "
While not all of it is gone, apparently a good portion of it is.
Reabsorbed into the environment. Like ducks, and seaweed, and marsh grass. Fantastic. Why didn't we think of that before? Just let the environment soak it up. That will sure keep the oil out of the... oh wait.
BOOM! Headshot.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to be deliberately misreading that to come to that conclusion.
As in eaten by microbes, evaporated, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm deliberately misreading that?!? Please. You've got one quote, from one guy, about one small part of the spill being eaten by microbes, evaporated, etc. Toxins in the oil eaten by microbes bio-accumulate, as the microbes are in turn eaten by other organisms. And evaporation means that the volatile part of the oil evaporates into the atmosphere (bad) while the other parts sink (also bad).
But the reality is, this article talks about the oil slick, not the deep water plumes. BP was using dispersant underwat
Re: (Score:2)
You can argue it with ABC News and their expert.
Since they didn't cite you, I'll presume you are not an "expert".
Re: (Score:2)
What's to argue? An unbiased reading of that article would lead anyone to my conclusion. I'm satisfied with my debunking work here, so unless you have further information to add, I'll bid you good day.
Re:U.S. Cleanup Solution: Step 2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh boo hoo! BP screwed up so I'm going to jump on the hate bandwagon and pretend that everyone involved needs to be brutally skinned, murdered, and have their genitals flown to all parts of the world...
Because you blame yourself.
How dare we demand accountability, right? I mean, BP is a big corporation, with lots of power, and might makes right, so BP must be right. It is quite unnatural for the weak to attack the strong. The meek will inherit the Earth? Like that's going to happen. The meek will sit down, shut up, and not bother their betters, like they always have.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny that Goldman Sachs' stock actually went UP after the the financial reform bill passed, no? That bill is widely viewed as a gift to GS wrapped in consumerist rhetoric.
Widely and falsely touted by conservatives who actually want even less regulation. It's not as though they were advocating for more oversight. The stock went up because the uncertainty was gone. The reform bill isn't perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.
Obviously, you must agree that we need more regulation of the financial industry. You wouldn't be lying about wanting more as a ruse to convince people to do away with the reform because you actually want less regulation. Nope. No one would be th
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I see the problem. You've mistaken me for an Obama disciple. I don't support right wing corporate tools.
Re: (Score:2)
You've mistaken me for an Obama disciple. I don't support right wing corporate tools.
Obama is a Left Wing corporate tool.
Remember, there were rich people in the USSR, it's just that the peasant couldn't buy bread or blue jeans.
They're trying to do away with the problem in America.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama's favorite president is Ronald Reagan, so said his law school adviser on The Daily Show election night coverage. Obama is about as far from socialist as it is possible to get.
You are basically saying that the rich are engaging in class warfare against the poor, using any tool they can manipulate? Color me shocked. There is a simple solution, though: take money out of politics, and then tax the hell out of the rich so they don't have the resources to engage in class warfare and steal our money using th
Re: (Score:2)
I see you are unfamiliar with sarcasm. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
You are flat out wrong about this.
http://www.fastcompany.com/1658137/infographic-of-the-day-bps-horrifying-safety-record [fastcompany.com]
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bps-dismal-safety-record/story?id=10763042 [go.com]
http://www.businessinsider.com/bp-has-been-fined-by-osha-760-times-has-an-awful-track-record-for-safety-2010-6 [businessinsider.com]
There is every point in singling out BP for this. No one else even comes close to being as cheap about safety as BP. They had 760 willful, egregious safety violations in a three year period where the next worst oil
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
While the thought of Superman cockpunching Tony Hayward is certainly satisfying, would that really have stopped the leak? Perhaps if Superman lined up the punch he could will have (is that the correct time travel tense?) performed a 'junk shot' using Tony Hayward's actual junk.
Re: (Score:2)
Too many steps. With Superman, the solution starts at spinning and it ends at spinning.
Re:Jones Act? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/30/96831/gops-false-talking-point-jones.html
Better lies, please.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he lives near the Gulf?
I'd imagine US is not very popular within its southern neighbourhood right now...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hehe, I read this as "I can't stand it when the hippies are right, and I have no argument against them, so as usual, I shall punch the hippies." You meant it as a joke, but it comes out as a statement of defeat.
Re: (Score:2)
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-crude-mother-nature-breaks-slick/story?id=11254252 [go.com]
Sorry to preempt your Two Minutes of Hate like that...
Oh thank God! All the oil has simply disappeared. If we can't find it, it can't hurt the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
When can I expect my check?
It would have been funnier if you'd left that part out. After all, they're offering a bounty for the cleanup.
Re: (Score:2)
last I smelled, cigarette addictions haven't been solved. Addicts are just poorer.