So what do u all think of this mess, where in cause of BP Oil

[marshac]

I don't call it slumber. I call it, it's there, so why not use it? When it's not there anymore, then we adapt.

When oil prices went from $1.25/gallon to $4.00/gallon, everybody whined and moaned and, of course, blamed the President for it, but they continue to pay $4.00/gallon and continued to drive their cars. $4.00/gallon is not bad enough to cause famine.

When resources are depleted, petroleum will cost $10.00/gallon. At this stage, it would be viable for hybrids/alternative energy to be produced because alternative energy with the equivalent price of $8.00/gallon becomes cheaper than petroleum. It will not cause famine or war, all it means is that we adapt.

I couldn't disagree with you more. In fact, i'm shaking my head in so much disagreement, I'm not even sure where to begin...

The problem you're ignoring is time and ability. First, lets talk ability. ONE barrel of oil (42 gal) has 1.7MWh of energy- in comparison, a large nuclear power plant can produce around 600MWh- when I fill up my car at Costco, I usually see about 10 SUVs filling up their tanks- with a capacity of around 30 gallons, that's 12MWh of power being dispensed over a 5 minute period.... which means that you would need a power source generating at least 144MWh of power (or about 1/4th of the total nuclear plant output) just for this ONE Costco gas station. The amount of energy consumed daily is staggering- there simply isn't a replacement for petroleum in terms of energy density, current availability, or transportability... in terms of our current lifestyle, that's the crux of the problem- there is NOT a replacement for millions of year's worth of stored solar energy that can sustain us.

The next factor is time- assuming we HAD an energy source, you would need an entirely new transportation, delivery, and consumption infrastructure with which to utilize it- this doesn't spring up overnight, or even over the period of a few decades.... which brings us back to ability again. In an era of $10/gal fuel, it simply wouldn't be economically possible to undertake such a massive effort- when oil was $140/bbl, many municipalities canceled or deferred road paving projects due to the increase in asphalt cost. OK, so lets say you could 'acquire' enough fuel to run the machinery- what about the workers? How are they traveling to/from work? Is anyone living in the suburbs even able to afford to travel to work?

So how about that famine. The petrochemicals that enabled the green revolution are produced from natural gas and petroleum- there simply isn't any substitute for carbon chemistry. Without these chemicals available at affordable prices, the food produced from farming becomes incredibly expensive and cost prohibitive. You cited high energy prices from a few summers ago- fertilizer prices were also skyrocketing during that time, and many farmers were unable to buy it. This doesn't even take into account the increased transportation costs in getting the food to market.

The bottom line is that the planet has an estimated carrying capacity of around a billion people- our overshoot of this has only been enabled by tapping fossilized energy, and when it's gone, so too is our ability to support our current population- in short, that alone is a recipe for war and famine. There is no peaceable reversion to the pastoral buggy whip scenario you mention.

Just as an addendum before I click submit- I didn't even go into the fact that there are many other resource constraints (like availability of Lithium, Copper, Platinum, etc) at play, but I would encourage you to research them.

[Guest]

I couldn't disagree with you more. In fact, i'm shaking my head in so much disagreement, I'm not even sure where to begin...

The problem you're ignoring is time and ability. First, lets talk ability. ONE barrel of oil (42 gal) has 1.7MWh of energy- in comparison, a large nuclear power plant can produce around 600MWh- when I fill up my car at Costco, I usually see about 10 SUVs filling up their tanks- with a capacity of around 30 gallons, that's 12MWh of power being dispensed over a 5 minute period.... which means that you would need a power source generating at least 144MWh of power (or about 1/4th of the total nuclear plant output) just for this ONE Costco gas station. The amount of energy consumed daily is staggering- there simply isn't a replacement for petroleum in terms of energy density, current availability, or transportability... in terms of our current lifestyle, that's the crux of the problem- there is NOT a replacement for millions of year's worth of stored solar energy that can sustain us.

The next factor is time- assuming we HAD an energy source, you would need an entirely new transportation, delivery, and consumption infrastructure with which to utilize it- this doesn't spring up overnight, or even over the period of a few decades.... which brings us back to ability again. In an era of $10/gal fuel, it simply wouldn't be economically possible to undertake such a massive effort- when oil was $140/bbl, many municipalities canceled or deferred road paving projects due to the increase in asphalt cost. OK, so lets say you could 'acquire' enough fuel to run the machinery- what about the workers? How are they traveling to/from work? Is anyone living in the suburbs even able to afford to travel to work?

So how about that famine. The petrochemicals that enabled the green revolution are produced from natural gas and petroleum- there simply isn't any substitute for carbon chemistry. Without these chemicals available at affordable prices, the food produced from farming becomes incredibly expensive and cost prohibitive. You cited high energy prices from a few summers ago- fertilizer prices were also skyrocketing during that time, and many farmers were unable to buy it. This doesn't even take into account the increased transportation costs in getting the food to market.

The bottom line is that the planet has an estimated carrying capacity of around a billion people- our overshoot of this has only been enabled by tapping fossilized energy, and when it's gone, so too is our ability to support our current population- in short, that alone is a recipe for war and famine. There is no peaceable reversion to the pastoral buggy whip scenario you mention.

Just as an addendum before I click submit- I didn't even go into the fact that there are many other resource constraints (like availability of Lithium, Copper, Platinum, etc) at play, but I would encourage you to research them.

Trust me, I have researched them. Far and wide. I'm one of those people who is innately curious about the world around me. Back in 1995, I worked right next to a programmer who used to work for BP and he showed me article after article of the state of the oil reserves and how oil companies and governments are manipulating the media to make it look like oil is in abundance. This was 1995...

You don't just wake up one day and say, "Holy smokes, batman, there's no more oil!". It is a gradual process that has started waaaayyy back in the 70's. Think about it - how many NEW oil reserves did anybody discover from the 50's to the 70's. Now, how many new oil reserves did anybody discover from the 70's to today? Big difference...

But, growing up in the Philippines where you still see tons of people surviving without petroleum, I have a different perspective on things.

You have a good point about oil not being available for much longer especially when you have big populations like China and India becoming industrialized. But, what you don't consider is that people have the capacity to reject a lifestyle that is not viable anymore. Especially in America where the innovative spirit is celebrated.

This is easy to see in the Philippines when the state of the government causes people to fluctuate between the cities and the family farm out in the bundocks. You see engineers wearing suits one day then selling newspapers on the streets the next. All in all having the resilience to weather change.

Here is a completely American example:

Back in the 20's, Americans were living the dream. Prosperity abound and the lifestyle was footlose and fancy free. The Great Depression happened and you would have thought America would go to the dogs. But it did not. People adapted. It was a difficult road to travel, no doubt about it. But the dark years of the Great Depression gave the Americans A LOT of positive things.

To note: the 30's brought Americans leaps in technological advancement such as the electron microscope and the FM radio - in the middle of a Great Depression. TV and movie media bloomed! A lot of professional journals attribute this fact to the Great Depression causing Americans to cultivate their creativity and imagination.

But, beneath all that is the drastic change in the American standard of living.

As an LDS, I refuse to believe that God created an earth that cannot support the number of souls He planned to bring to His glory. More likely, we have been mis-using the earth so that scarcity seems imminent.

So, I look at advances in the human condition in the past 50 years and think to myself, besides the computer and advances in medicine, there's really not much going on. The world can use a little shake down to break lose human creativity and social responsibility again. Then you will see, that maybe, just maybe, when the oil starts to be scarce, Americans would finally find telecommuting a viable work alternative. And maybe, just maybe, Americans will walk the two miles to take the kids to school. Or maybe, just maybe, Americans will ride buses instead of driving a 22mpg car with only one passenger wasting gas sitting idle in traffic. And maybe, just maybe, Americans wouldn't chow down 5 heaping plates of food on the buffet line anymore... etc. etc. etc.

Edited June 18, 2010 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

That's nuts. Of course he would stop it if he or the Government could actually could He's not holding off just to play the hero. If anybody is hoping to use this to a political advantage it's Jendal who first didn't want U.S. stimulus money and now cries - Where's the Government to save us?!!!

Actually, I think Jindal's position right about now is more along the lines of "why is Obama's Coast Guard deliberately shutting down our own state-run clean-up efforts?".

[Moksha]

Now that Obama has emphasized corporate responsibility on the part of British Petroleum, I would imagine conservatives everywhere manning the battlefields and declaring that the Gulf oil leakage was not man-made, but rather part of a global process that has been naturally occurring for time infinitum.

The prophecy of tongue 'n cheek becomes reality:

“I’m ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday,” Representative Barton (R-Texas) said in his apology to British Petroleum. “I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown — in this case a $20 billion shakedown.”

[marshac]

I'm gonna have to disagree with your conclusions anatess, so hopefully that doesn't alter your decision not to remove my head. I've personally come to the conclusion that the belief that science will somehow save us from our shortsightedness will be misplaced this time. On the upshot, since you disagree with me, you can go around and enjoy life while I huddle in my peak-oil underground bunker.

[Guest]

I'm gonna have to disagree with your conclusions anatess, so hopefully that doesn't alter your decision not to remove my head. I've personally come to the conclusion that the belief that science will somehow save us from our shortsightedness will be misplaced this time. On the upshot, since you disagree with me, you can go around and enjoy life while I huddle in my peak-oil underground bunker.

Save me some room, marshac! I'm your friend!

[Just_A_Guy]

The prophecy of tongue 'n cheek becomes reality:

“I’m ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday,” Representative Barton (R-Texas) said in his apology to British Petroleum. “I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown — in this case a $20 billion shakedown.”

Moksha, if you really don't think there's a problem with Congress passing an ex-post-facto civil statute allowing it to confiscate one year's profits from any entity that has ticked off a sufficient number of people, then I suggest you contact your local Utah legislator and ask them to push a bill at the next legislative session allowing the Republican state of Utah to confiscate the annual net earnings of every Democrat in the state.

Because really, the principle is the same.

[HoosierGuy]

What Barton (R-Texas) did was absolutely disgusting.

[talisyn]

The prophecy of tongue 'n cheek becomes reality:

“I’m ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday,” Representative Barton (R-Texas) said in his apology to British Petroleum. “I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown — in this case a $20 billion shakedown.”

I about died laughing when I read about what the good senator said. It's one thing to believe some politicians are in bed with big money, but an entirely different thing to see it proven true.

[marshac]

What Barton (R-Texas) did was absolutely disgusting.

I do kinda feel bad for Hayward- being a CEO means that you help steer and strategize for the company and are not involved with specific operations, etc. Congress kept asking specific low-level operational questions that no CEO in any company would have any knowledge of, and then proceeded to become frustrated and angry when he would plead ignorance.

I thought the most telling part was when someone on the committee pointed this fact out, and the chairman was pretty much like "whatever".... to me that just showed that this is a charade (or a witch trial) rather than a serious investigation.

I'm not apologizing for the mess BP has made, but if Congress wants real answers, they need to be asking the right questions from the right people. Having said that however, BP has been reasonably honorable in trying to rectify their mistake- if they really wanted to screw people, they would simply say "$75M, that's the cap" and then spend decades in court fighting that position. Imagine if this spill had been caused by a Chinese company drilling an offshore Cuban oil lease? Do you think they would be acting as well as BP has been?

[talisyn]

I agree with you, to a point, Marshac. The sad fact is the CEO is responsible for everything, and to go into a congressional hearing without researching the info he has to know he would be asked is foolish at best. I think the disconnect between what the CEOs etc. do and the day-to-day operations is a huge part of what is wrong with our current business environment. I have the comfort of knowing the bosses for my company actually know how to grow and process potatoes, and if they ever had to go to a congressional hearing (or whatever the Canadians have) they'd be able to answer intelligently

[marshac]

I agree with you, to a point, Marshac. The sad fact is the CEO is responsible for everything, and to go into a congressional hearing without researching the info he has to know he would be asked is foolish at best. I think the disconnect between what the CEOs etc. do and the day-to-day operations is a huge part of what is wrong with our current business environment. I have the comfort of knowing the bosses for my company actually know how to grow and process potatoes, and if they ever had to go to a congressional hearing (or whatever the Canadians have) they'd be able to answer intelligently

Congress has been aching for their political pound of flesh, and several have even bought up the idea of filing criminal charges. Under those circumstances, would you be more or less forthcoming with information that could be used against you? Personally, I wouldn't bother learning the details, that way I wouldn't be perjuring myself when I say "I don't know"

From a more general business standpoint, how can a CEO of a company as large and diverse as BP, Microsoft, Dow, etc be familiar with the day-to-day operations of all the different groups? This is why you have VPs, etc.

[Just_A_Guy]

What Barton (R-Texas) did was absolutely disgusting.

Yes, mobbers aren't really big on people who stick up for Constitutional due process.

If you're afraid BP isn't going to pay, the proper step is to go to court and get a preliminary injunction demanding the funds be held in a court-supervised escrow account. The Obama Administration is bending over backwards to keep the judicial system out of the loop.

Why?

Maybe because a court would actually require the money be used to help residents of the Gulf, whereas the party in power has plans for that money that have nothing to do with the effects of this oil spill.

Restitution, heck! We have entitlement programs with bottom lines that need fudging. We have an upcoming election that needs to be bought. BP filled Obama's campaign coffers once, and by gum--they'll do it again! Justice will only get in the way.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[john doe]

The hearings are pure politics, have nothing to do with solving this or finding solutions. It is about people beating their chests acting all tough when they think their constituents want to hear it.

[marshac]

Well that didn't take long- now the BP escrow account is being eyed to fund pet projects like healthcare-

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.): I think we had to have someone say this is where you can go without limiting your criminal liability or civil liability.For instance, the question is brought up, pay for all of the health care for the people in the Gulf. No, but I think those who lost their job, then lost their health care would be legitimate.

How does one differentiate the cause for job loss when your job is two or three degrees removed from industries directly affected by the spill (like fishing)? The economy is poor, unemployment is nearly 10%, and although the rate has 'dropped' it's only because folks are falling off the unemployment insurance rolls (and are no longer counted). To me this seems like a 'small' idea that could be wedged open to accommodate all sorts of unemployed folks. Maybe we can sue BP to reimburse the US for the loss in GDP too?

[Moksha]

We have an upcoming election that needs to be bought. BP filled Obama's campaign coffers once, and by gum--they'll do it again! Justice will only get in the way.

Are you saying oil money has been influential in past elections and candidacies?

[talisyn]

Are you saying oil money has been influential in past elections and candidacies?

Heresy!

[Just_A_Guy]

Are you saying oil money has been influential in past elections and candidacies?

Amazingly, it has happened even before those right-wing nutjobs on the Supreme Court handed down Citizens United last January.

[marshac]

Amazingly, it has happened even before those right-wing nutjobs on the Supreme Court handed down Citizens United last January.

No no, citizens united happens this fall

[talisyn]

Apparently I'm not the only person less than impressed by Mr. Tony Hayward's answers to Congress British press turns on Hayward, with plenty of anti-Obama rage thrown in for good measure - Yahoo! News

This part stood out for me

The Times' Giles Whittell wrote that Hayward "had a chance to save his career and the good name of his company by giving forthright, detailed answers to highly specific questions submitted in advance by two of the most astute and enlightened men in Congress." Instead, Hayward, he wrote, "seemed to have prepared by taking beta blockers."

I do feel for the guy. It's never fun to be point when something goes bad. Especially if you have no idea what the whys are. But then, that's why he was paid the big bucks, wasn't it?

[marshac]

I do feel for the guy. It's never fun to be point when something goes bad. Especially if you have no idea what the whys are. But then, that's why he was paid the big bucks, wasn't it?

I cut a deal with him- for the equivalent of one month of his salary, i'll attend and testify at all the hearings, and say whatever they want me to- heck, i'll even say that I spilled the oil on purpose because I hate the south after the way they treated my peeps from the British show 'Top Gear'.

[talisyn]

I couldn't believe people would fall for such an obvious poke lol. Maybe that's why there was so much hostility, because the Southerners were insulted the Brits would think they were dumb enough to act like they were expected to act? lol my brain hurts now.

[Moksha]

I cut a deal with him- for the equivalent of one month of his salary, i'll attend and testify at all the hearings, and say whatever they want me to- heck, i'll even say that I spilled the oil on purpose because I hate the south after the way they treated my peeps from the British show 'Top Gear'.

Wonder if the Alabama Tourist Bureau has this on their website. Those good old boys were really quick in getting there in the back of that pick-up truck. Probably hopped up on tea.

[bytor2112]

I wonder if those fishermen who are crying down there about their livelihood have actually sat down and told themselves - "Hey, I voted conservative all my life. I voted for those who support deregulation and less and less Government oversight. I supported the Bush administration and their attack on big government. Look what has happened! Less oversight means more disasters! It's my fault! It's my fault! It's my fault for supporting those who want companies to have free rule over everything and everybody!"

Yeah fishermen, it is your fault too. You are getting what you have voted for. Enjoy. Factories are closing down all the time in the mid-west. They are told - get retrained! Ok, fishermen - stop your sobbing and go get retrained!

Your comments reflect nearly everything that is wrong in America and explains how the likes of Obama made it all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue. Are you twelve or just really really removed from reality or both???

[Just_A_Guy]

Actually, Hoosier may have (inadvertently) stumbled on the rationale for the administration's lackadaisical response to the spill.

Isn't it interesting that the White House response was lackadaisical while only Republican states were threatened, but suddenly sprung into Doing Something™ mode as soon as the oil looked like it would make it to the swing state of Florida?

Kinda like Bush let New Orleans flood because it was full of Democrats--right, HoosierGuy?

Edited June 20, 2010 by Just_A_Guy