Personally, I object to calling the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico the "Gulf Oil Spill." BP's PR flacks have spent a lot of time and effort to brand the spill the Gulf Oil Spill so BP would not be forever tarnished with this mega-disaster.
When the Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef and cracked open, spilling all tha oil into Alaska's waters, we didn't call it the "Prince William Sound Spill," we appropriately called it the Exxon Valdez Spill, reminding everyone forever of Exxon's role in that disaster.
I call the current environmental catastrophe the BP Oil Spill, and always will.
As divers, we want to remind the world at every turn it was BP that caused this.
The BP Oil Spill.
Jeff
debersole
June 4th, 2010, 04:05 PM
Good point, Jeff. Also, I had a friend say that "spill" was misleading. He said knocking over your cup of coffee is a "spill". This is a "hemorrhage"!!!!
Doug
scubaflier
June 4th, 2010, 04:10 PM
You are so right about that. That makes alot more sense than a boycot. when you ingrain that into a person they turn away from a BP gas station with out even thinking about it.
it could become an involentary reflex just like a heart beat
Louie
June 4th, 2010, 04:17 PM
Excellent reminder. Thanks Jeff.
Indeed we have to refer to disasters for what they are and not swallow what's spewed out by the corporate PR machines.
From now on, I will always refer to the disaster as the BP Oil Spill.
OldNSalty
June 4th, 2010, 04:24 PM
Boycot against BP gas stations sounds so wrong-I suspect the only persons hurt would be the small business owner. BP has billions in assets-Unless you stop using oil altogether you will not be able to boycot them effectively.
Plumb bob
June 4th, 2010, 04:24 PM
While I have no feelings of fondness toward BP, let's not think that they have behaved in a way much different to how the other big oil players would have. Deny, downplay then dodge and duck the responsibility... Just like any other sociopath.
Surely there's way too much history of this occurring without true punishment to think the real problem is whichever company has had the accident?
What is allowed to occur through slack regulation and governance is the real problem here.
As long as companies are allowed to base decisions solely on monetary rather than moral bottom lines the next example of this is just round the corner.
IMHO...:)
Peter_C
June 4th, 2010, 04:25 PM
This is a "hemorrhage"!!!!
Doug
How about: BP's massacre? Just think of how much life has died and is going to die from this mess.
Rhone Man
June 4th, 2010, 04:42 PM
I actually think BP have done a pretty good job of standing up and being counted. They have unambiguously taken responsibility for the spill, said they will pay all legitimate claims (and stood by it so far), and are working ceaselessly to plug the leak. No one has come up with any sensible criticism of what they have failed to do so far in terms of the disaster. Everyone acknowledges that the technical difficulies are enormous.
There is no such thing as a good oil spill, but evaluate their actions fairly. They have not in any sense tried to duck their responsibilities.
I think that ever since Alan Rickman's performance in Die Hard, the American media love the idea of the Brit as a bad guy. Got to give the paying audience what they want.
(One other small point - I think it most common name used for it is the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill), in keeping with previous naming convention - like the Exxon Valdiz oil spill).
cocoajoe
June 4th, 2010, 04:52 PM
Correct. The blame goes much 'deeper' than BP. Why are these companies being allowed to drill a MILE down? At those depths, what can you do?
nolatom
June 4th, 2010, 05:52 PM
What you call it doesn't make any damn difference.
Too much talk trying to "name" stuff, or cover backsides, all meaningless. This is beyond PR, and beyond spin. I'm tired of press conferences and Cabinet Secretary (rotating, Napolitano, Salazar, Browner) and Presidential visits venting hot air and talking-point sound bites, in an attempt to appear "hands-on" with hands that don't know what to do.
The only decisive action by the Administration has been to shut down all wells deeper than 500 feet (meaning 80 percent of the production in the Gulf). Thanks a lot for that one, it will cost us about 20,000 jobs here. Please don't kill us with any more kindness.
Cave Diver
June 4th, 2010, 06:04 PM
Moved to Non Diving Related
Jeff Toorish
June 4th, 2010, 06:21 PM
I actually think BP have done a pretty good job of standing up and being counted. They have unambiguously taken responsibility for the spill, said they will pay all legitimate claims (and stood by it so far), and are working ceaselessly to plug the leak. No one has come up with any sensible criticism of what they have failed to do so far in terms of the disaster. Everyone acknowledges that the technical difficulies are enormous.
There is no such thing as a good oil spill, but evaluate their actions fairly. They have not in any sense tried to duck their responsibilities.
I think that ever since Alan Rickman's performance in Die Hard, the American media love the idea of the Brit as a bad guy. Got to give the paying audience what they want.
(One other small point - I think it most common name used for it is the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill), in keeping with previous naming convention - like the Exxon Valdiz oil spill).
I disagree passionately.
The very first thing they did was try to pin the blame on Transnational and Halliburton. The consciously and consistently under reported the magnitude of the BP Oil Spill --and have been dramatically opaque about their actions during their attempts to stop the spewing oil. Only massive political and PR pressure has forced them to open up in any way.
They have treated the workers (and volunteers) who have been trying to clean up their mess poorly and you can bet once the well is capped they will try to litigate their way out of this.
Their CEO whined that he wanted his life back while there are 11 dead oil workers and at last count four states with ruined beaches, marshes and wetlands. Tens of thousands of people are suffering financially from the BP Oil Spill and while I have heard vague pledges from BP, they are not actually doing anything to help the vast majority of those folks.
They have made veiled attempts to limit their liability and their engineers should all be named Larry, Daryl and Daryl.
This is on top of BP's worst-in-the-industry safety and environmental record. They are known to fight even the most benign environmental regulations and consistently skirt the edge of what is legally mandated for environmental law.
This oil rig has been problematic from the beginning, and BP intentionally did not add additional safeguards that were available (and recommended) that would have prevented this disaster. This is BP's fault and their actions since the explosion and hemmorage started have been anything but stand-up.
Jeff
spectrum
June 4th, 2010, 06:36 PM
I am surprised that GULF Oil Company is not out there trying to re brand this and that the media so carelessly phrased it. To anyone walking into the movie late it's going to look GULF oil owns it.
I do feel for the folks down there in a huge way. Like them our culture is very linked to the commercial and recreational potential of our coast. Never mind the personal joy I get diving my local waters. To have our area tainted in this manner would be devastating.
Again and again it seems that responses to calamities are too little too late. Worse than that, the expertise we think we have to deal with issues isn't up to the challenge.
You can blame industry or our thirst for whatever we want but some of what we do is simply bonkers. Drill for oil a mile down in the hurricane belt? Build a city below sea level and count on dikes and pumps? Industry responds to demands. There is plenty of blame to pass round.
This is real, there is no undo button. This is not a drill.
Forgive the random thoughts.
Pete
Rhone Man
June 4th, 2010, 06:49 PM
I disagree passionately.
The very first thing they did was try to pin the blame on Transnational and Halliburton. The consciously and consistently under reported the magnitude of the BP Oil Spill --and have been dramatically opaque about their actions during their attempts to stop the spewing oil. Only massive political and PR pressure has forced them to open up in any way.
They have treated the workers (and volunteers) who have been trying to clean up their mess poorly and you can bet once the well is capped they will try to litigate their way out of this.
I respectfully disagree with your disagreement.
The Deepwater Horizon was owned by TransOcean and operated by Halliburton, and leased by BP (strictly as non-operator). BP pointing out the direct operational roles of TransOcean and Halliburton is fair comment, whilst accepting their own overall responsibility and liability. Sadly as American companies they are not such good whipping boys as 'foreigners' like BP.
We'll wait to see how BP deal with this once it is back under control, but I suspect they will go overboard to try and make good (and be seen to be making good). Firstly, the costs of this spill, to them, are not huge. The clean up costs are estimated presently at about $6.1bn. Throw in another billion for fines and environmental lawsuits. That is still a very manageable number compared to their 2009 budget for oil clean ups ($20bn).
What is hurting them is the damage to their stock price. They have had about $36bn (and counting) wiped off their market capitalisation, making them acutely vulnerable to takeover. They have every incentive to try and shore up their stock price by making good with as many people as they can.
I am sure those who are determined to see BP as acutely evil won't be dissuaded, but I feel the need to make the points anyhow.
Peter_C
June 4th, 2010, 07:01 PM
and are working ceaselessly to plug the leak.
How come they didn't try the "Top Kill" immediately after the BP massacre started? Oh yeah they didn't want to plug up their gold mine! :cussing:
They failed in safety before the massacre, during the initial flow of oil into the ocean, and now during the massacre are not doing enough.
Doubler
June 4th, 2010, 08:38 PM
Top Kill was a PR event designed to appear that they were trying to stem the flow. Do the math and figure out the pressures at that depth. For the oil to be spewing out of that pipe the way it is, it has got to be at least 3000 psi. Try throwing mud and golf balls at a full on fire hose to plug it up and you get the same effect - nada.
BP is losing billions due to this tragedy and every other scheme they came up with was designed to get that oil to a refinery. There are a whole list of companies, governments and persons responsible for this mess: BP, Haliburton, U.S. Government, the state of Louisiana. This whole show about criminal liability will come to a real nasty head as soon as Bush and Cheney are some how dragged into this via Haliburton. Obama has no idea how to proceed with this so he has got to have the former administration to blame. BP will lawyer up as soon as that oil starts flowing up... in a pipe. The US government will be too busy crucifying BP/Bush via endless congressional hearings. People will have lost everything, the Gulf will be a big death pool and we will be getting inundated nightly by holier than thou do nothing political sound bites.... and nothing will be getting cleaned up the way it should.
BTravlin
June 4th, 2010, 10:30 PM
I respectfully disagree with your disagreement.
The Deepwater Horizon was owned by TransOcean and operated by Halliburton, and leased by BP (strictly as non-operator). BP pointing out the direct operational roles of TransOcean and Halliburton is fair comment, whilst accepting their own overall responsibility and liability. Sadly as American companies they are not such good whipping boys as 'foreigners' like BP.
We'll wait to see how BP deal with this once it is back under control, but I suspect they will go overboard to try and make good (and be seen to be making good). Firstly, the costs of this spill, to them, are not huge. The clean up costs are estimated presently at about $6.1bn. Throw in another billion for fines and environmental lawsuits. That is still a very manageable number compared to their 2009 budget for oil clean ups ($20bn).
What is hurting them is the damage to their stock price. They have had about $36bn (and counting) wiped off their market capitalisation, making them acutely vulnerable to takeover. They have every incentive to try and shore up their stock price by making good with as many people as they can.
I am sure those who are determined to see BP as acutely evil won't be dissuaded, but I feel the need to make the points anyhow.
It's clear from everything I've read that they took shortcuts and were careless. Had they treated this deep water well with the respect it deserved we might not be dealing with this catastrophe.
OldNSalty
June 5th, 2010, 03:25 PM
They have every incentive to try and shore up their stock price by making good with as many people as they can.
You would think so but as someone who lives in the area I disagree that they are doing enough.
There was a meeting earlier this week where BP was suppose to talk to us locals-specifically the fishermen who had been promised jobs as to when/if they would be hired on to help. BP did not show up.
My brother was told that when the oil started washing up on shore he would be hired on to clean up at ~$18 an hour. He agreed-did their training, etc. The oil has hit, he hasn't been called- The sheriff brought out about 200 prisoners to help with the clean up. According to my brother they are being paid to do the work but I can't confirm it.
Regardless, somewhere there is a disconnect between what BP says they want to do and what we see them doing. The general perception is that BP/Uncle Sam aren't being effective in handling the economic crisis or the environmental crisis.
ROBIBLER
June 5th, 2010, 08:21 PM
Well...they haven't "ceaselessly" been trying to plug the leak, at least not from the get-go. If they were trying to plug the then they would have started drilling relief wells from the start and not trying to contain the spill and collect the spillage. Obviously there they should have been trying to tackle both angles simultaneously. If they had initially began drilling relief wells then perhaps this could have been remedied by now. But then again perhaps not. BP's predictions have been pretty hazy.
R
d_lafleur
June 7th, 2010, 03:02 PM
Well...they haven't "ceaselessly" been trying to plug the leak, at least not from the get-go. If they were trying to plug the then they would have started drilling relief wells from the start and not trying to contain the spill and collect the spillage. Obviously there they should have been trying to tackle both angles simultaneously. If they had initially began drilling relief wells then perhaps this could have been remedied by now. But then again perhaps not. BP's predictions have been pretty hazy.
R
So you had 1.5 Million/day dollars worth of drilling rigs standing by at your place on April 20th? You do realize that those 4 vessels were all at work somewhere else at that time. I would be surprised if it didnt cost several million dollars per vessel just to get them mobilized. Dont misunderstand me, I dont feel sorry for BP over this, specifically the people I mention below.
There were some very wrong decisions made that caused this to happen and both BP and Transocean employees were in a position to prevent it. I dont believe Halliburton employees had the same influence.
I dont agree with everything that has been done to date, however getting the government to "fix it" is not going to be the right answer. There are lots of companies, who did nothing to create this incident, that are about to hurt over "knee jerk" decisions and lack of "new procedures".
OldNSalty
June 7th, 2010, 04:01 PM
I dont agree with everything that has been done to date, however getting the government to "fix it" is not going to be the right answer. There are lots of companies, who did nothing to create this incident, that are about to hurt over "knee jerk" decisions and lack of "new procedures".
Yea. Because clearly safety regulations weren't followed anyway so why try? Government regulation is never the answer. They only do crazy crap like try and make food safe which only cuts into our profits. If you remove the controls you can count on the large companies to 'do the right thing' without government involvement.
Jersey
June 8th, 2010, 10:47 AM
Correct. The blame goes much 'deeper' than BP. Why are these companies being allowed to drill a MILE down? At those depths, what can you do?
Where would you like them to drill? They drill there as they suspect there is oil there! (Given the BP Oil Catastrophe, I suspect they were correct, and lots of it.) Would you prefer they drill in your back yard? Prolly not. No one seems to want windmills, oil rigs, coal mines or nuke plants in their back yards, but we all want the by-product. Shall we continue our reliance on unstable geo-political areas of the world?
This is a country that put men on the moon and got them back safely with less technology then I have on my cell phone. While I do not have answers, I believe money needs to be directed to R&D and to American Companies to develop safer methods, better technology and better governance (and not neccesarily by the Government).
Off soapbox. For an interesting and sometimes amusing/sometimes violent and not so amusing take on rig life, read "Don't Tell Mom I Work on the Rigs: She Thinks I'm a Piano Player in a *****house", by Paul Carter (2005) then think about what oil workers go through to keep your car gassed up and lights on.
drbill
June 8th, 2010, 11:26 AM
They have not in any sense tried to duck their responsibilities.
I'd have to respectfully disagree. The statements made by BP CEO Tony Hayward and one of their VPs were pretty outrageous in my mind and the constant downplaying of the problem and the scope of the "spill" was inexcusable since they would initially not allow public access to the video being taken and downplayed reports by independent researchers that suggested their estimates of the amount were way off.
On top of this we have the history of Ixtoc I to evaluate BP's current efforts with.
MMS has proven to be literally "in bed" with the oil companies and therefore ineffective in its mission. The government (mostly under the Bush-Cheney regime, but continuing into the current administration) deserves a good share of the blame as well.
DCBC
June 8th, 2010, 11:39 AM
I wouldn't boycott BP. I'd like them to make a lot of money this year and use all of it to pay those who have a legitimate claim and clean-up the environment. You can't get blood out of a stone and I don't want them having any excuse.
Incidents will always happen and I have little doubt that those that are negligent will be prosecuted. No bankruptcy or cash-flow restrictions BP, just do your best to make it right! Get on it! And Obama, get off your ass!
Peter_C
June 8th, 2010, 03:13 PM
I wouldn't boycott BP. I'd like them to make a lot of money this year and use all of it to pay those who have a legitimate claim and clean-up the environment.
Well BP just happens to build one of the nicer solar panels on the market with the best warranty in the industry with 25 years @ 85%.
If anyone happens to want some BP solar panels and an/some inverter(s) let me know :cool2:
wausman
June 8th, 2010, 03:39 PM
What you call it doesn't make any damn difference.
Too much talk trying to "name" stuff, or cover backsides, all meaningless. This is beyond PR, and beyond spin. I'm tired of press conferences and Cabinet Secretary (rotating, Napolitano, Salazar, Browner) and Presidential visits venting hot air and talking-point sound bites, in an attempt to appear "hands-on" with hands that don't know what to do.
The only decisive action by the Administration has been to shut down all wells deeper than 500 feet (meaning 80 percent of the production in the Gulf). Thanks a lot for that one, it will cost us about 20,000 jobs here. Please don't kill us with any more kindness.
I agree what you call it does not make a diffrence it does not clean it up it does not help the wildlife. But I have to agree with the OP that calling it the BP oil spill reminds us of who cut corners and caused the whole thing.
And yes BP has had good PR and stood up and took the blame. But the fact is they are to blame because they were trying to cut corners to make more money. I am sure I will be buying BP gas at other stations but I will not be filling up at any BP stations.
LavaSurfer
June 8th, 2010, 04:06 PM
Correct. The blame goes much 'deeper' than BP. Why are these companies being allowed to drill a MILE down? At those depths, what can you do?
Find more oil
Right, wrong or indifferent... they are drilling deep and it won't stop anytime soon.
Not as long as we keep buying for the product.
OldNSalty
June 8th, 2010, 05:37 PM
I am sure I will be buying BP gas at other stations but I will not be filling up at any BP stations.
And that hurts BP how?
That type of knee jerk reaction only hurts your local economy and some small poor Joe who is trying to make a living unless you can identify which (if any) of the local BPs are actually owned by the company. Most of these gas stations are owned/operated as a small family business and there isn't much money to be made in selling gas to the end user. The deal between being a BP gas station or any other is marginal for the franchise buyer-the gas companies all have near identical terms and they all favor the oil company providing the gas. I suspect the main reason that shop owner in your town is a BP station is because Shell and Exxon already had stations on the other corners.
randini
June 8th, 2010, 10:51 PM
I read somewhere that technically it isn't even BP's rig. At the time of the "hemorrhage" they were leasing it from Transocean and, apart from a handfull of BP people, it was mostly Transocean staff on board. So technically, wouldn't you want to be boycotting transocean rather than BP? :dontknow:
LavaSurfer
June 9th, 2010, 11:30 AM
I read somewhere that technically it isn't even BP's rig. At the time of the "hemorrhage" they were leasing it from Transocean and, apart from a handfull of BP people, it was mostly Transocean staff on board. So technically, wouldn't you want to be boycotting transocean rather than BP? :dontknow:
It's a BP Well. Contractors aside, the well owner is responsible for the way the well is run and the resulting consequences. Drilling is a project and the Project Manager would be BP. Maybe only having a small handful of BP employees is a telling fact. If the well was a massive success and reinvented the way we acquire oil in a safer, more ecological and effective way, would you be trying to give Transocean credit, would BP not take credit?
d_lafleur
June 9th, 2010, 12:35 PM
It is rare when the Oil company owns the rig, those days have gone by. The Deepwater Horizon is owned by Transocean, working for BP. BP had people on board the rig. The majority of the basic drilling work is done by Transocean employees, there are some specialized work that is typically done by other contractors, i.e. Halliburton, Schlumberger, Cameron, etc. There is always a BP Supervisor and Transocean supervisor. The "captain of the ship" is a Transocean employee, however there were no less than three people in a "supervisory position" who could have/should have changed the process, 1 BP, 2 TO.
cerich
June 9th, 2010, 12:44 PM
Personally, I object to calling the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico the "Gulf Oil Spill." BP's PR flacks have spent a lot of time and effort to brand the spill the Gulf Oil Spill so BP would not be forever tarnished with this mega-disaster.
When the Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef and cracked open, spilling all tha oil into Alaska's waters, we didn't call it the "Prince William Sound Spill," we appropriately called it the Exxon Valdez Spill, reminding everyone forever of Exxon's role in that disaster.
I call the current environmental catastrophe the BP Oil Spill, and always will.
As divers, we want to remind the world at every turn it was BP that caused this.
The BP Oil Spill.
Jeff
BP may have caused it but the fed gov allowed it by only mandating one BOP when virtually every other country requires multiples.
But I agree, it should be called something other than just Gulf Oil spill, that begs the question of which one....
ScubaSteve
June 9th, 2010, 12:46 PM
Deny, downplay then dodge and duck the responsibility... Just like any other sociopath.
