Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Earth Science

US Confirms Underwater Oil Plume 353

oxide7 writes "An underwater three-dimensional map of the oil spill is closer to becoming a reality, now that the US has for the first time confirmed the discovery of a subsurface oil plume resulting from the ruptured BP well. The government agency in charge of ocean science has received the first of several expected reports from university investigators aboard research ships detailing specific locations where oil has been found below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. The government, which denied reports of giant underwater oil plumes in mid-May, said researchers at the time had not confirmed the presence of conglomerated oil." The New York Times talked with scientists on a two-week mission in the Gulf and reported them "awed" at the size and density of the underwater plume.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Confirms Underwater Oil Plume

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Disaster (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Yaos ( 804128 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @05:53PM (#32502784)
    BP will be given a reward for cleaning up the spill and free oil drilling rights to whichever body of water they wish.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @05:54PM (#32502806)

    This is the kind of thing conservatives want to bring to every aspect of your life; when Grover Norquist talks about drowning government in a bathtub, the tub is full of crude oil and dead fish.

  • by linzeal ( 197905 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @06:03PM (#32502924) Homepage Journal
    I don't think people quite appreciate how difficult it is to remove oil from the ecosystem when things like cleaning the birds [] is considered futile, the dispersant may be longer acting than the oil and the median time for complete recovery is looking to be in the decades. Any solution that does not prevent future blow outs from happening in the first place is far too expensive to justify, its sort of sad that it is cheaper just to ignore the gulf coast and fish and vacation somewhere else till the pollution dies down. It may make for good TV viewing but I for one would rather see them invest billions to prevent another disaster instead of making largely cosmetic changes to the gulf coast that may lull people into a false sense of security.
  • by sunspot42 ( 455706 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @06:07PM (#32502966)

    Flamebait? Maybe. True? You betcha!

    No corporation should be allowed to grow large enough that it can't be drowned in a bathtub.

  • by catmistake ( 814204 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @06:17PM (#32503046) Journal
    but... Gulf of Mexico... of the Gulf Stream, one of Earth's strongest currents. The oil isn't going to stay there, in the Gulf. Cuba, Jamaica, Bahamas, Florida's east coast, most of the US eastern seaboard, and probably even England and Western Africa will have some of BP's shit in their eyes, eventually.
  • Re:Disaster (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DeadCatX2 ( 950953 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @06:18PM (#32503058) Journal

    I'll never understand arm-chair petroleum engineers. How easy do you think it is to drive a multi-ton robotic submersible a mile underwater using cameras that don't provide good depth perception to plug a hole spewing oil with a pressure exceeding 5,000 PSI? It can take days just to get the necessary materials down to that depth, let alone the many hours it takes to painstakingly navigate the machinery into place, and that's assuming you don't get too close to the ocean floor because the thrusters will stir up the mud and then you'll have to wait for it to settle so that you can see what you're doing...

    Last I checked, Obama doesn't have an engineering degree, and most of the people who do have experience with this kind of thing aren't employed by the Federal government. So I don't understand this desire for a nanny-state government that takes care of everything. If you have a stroke, do you want some Federal bureaucrat doing the brain surgery, or would you rather have a qualified and skilled doctor who has spent his whole life doing brain surgery?

    That's not to say that the Feds should just ignore the problem. But there's little more that they can do aside from telling the doctor that he has to perform the surgery. The Feds could buy the equipment to help out, but everyone is so insistent on BP footing the bill. So tell me, exactly what do you expect Obama to do? Wiggle his nose like he's some Genie?

  • Re:Disaster (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bzipitidoo ( 647217 ) <> on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @06:25PM (#32503112) Journal

    Yeah, we should have elected McCain and "Drill, baby, drill" Palin.

    This whole thing is a plot. BP is trying to make the Democrats lose the next election.

    What brain damaged idiots tagged this story with "democrats" anyway?

  • Re:Disaster (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MozeeToby ( 1163751 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @06:29PM (#32503146)

    Even all that ignores the fact that the livelihood of every single person involved in fixing the situation is on the line. And I do mean everyone; having this leak be as bad as it is will hurt the entire oil industry for years to come. BP's stock is down 40% in the past 2 months, there's a moratorium on offshore drilling permits, and public relations for all the oil companies are in the toilet. You don't think that everyone at BP, from the engineers, to the drillers, to the CEO isn't worried about their job right now?

    I wouldn't want to be one of their engineers right now, getting blamed for a problem you didn't create (the people in charge of the operation were the ones cutting corners), being told by every Joe Shmoe on the street that fixing the problem is so easy, all the while working 80+ hour weeks in an effort to save not only your job but quite possibly your entire company. But heh, no pressure right?

  • Re:Disaster (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ari_j ( 90255 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @06:30PM (#32503160)
    I don't think you understand. Many of the people who voted for Obama in fact do expect him not only to be capable of solving this problem but to wiggle his nose while doing it. Most American politics revolve around the question of whether (a) the government should be entrusted and charged with solving all the world's problems or (b) the government should be run by people who know that that's a bad idea but are beholden to big business. You just can't get elected if you don't believe (a) or owe your soul to (b).
  • Re:Disaster (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lorenzo.boccaccia ( 1263310 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @06:31PM (#32503164)
    a whopping $990 million?

    wow, not even the 1% of their revenues. such a beating, indeed.
  • Re:Disaster (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Touvan ( 868256 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @06:34PM (#32503180) Homepage

    This country needs a point at the moon mission statement from Obama, but all he gives are let's all work together and figure this out, return to the past (republican/free market plan for healthcare from 1994? Seriously?), incremental nonsense that makes no one happy, and frustrates everyone. Obama's response to the oil spill is more of the same bland soup - and it's pissing people off. He doesn't have to stop the leak, but for the sake of this country, he needs to be a lot more bold, and take a stand on some principle for a change.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @06:38PM (#32503216)

    what's he supposed to do? throw on some snorkel gear and swim down and close it himself? The military already said they don't have the ability to manage an oil pipe that has the estimated 12,000psi that this thing is pumping out. They have said that the oil companies are far better equipped to deal with something like this. So what the F do you idiots that keep saying this bs want obama to do when the F'n oil companies that caused this problem aren't capable of fixing their own crap? Damn armchair engineers... if it's so easy you come up with a plan to stop a oil geyser at a mile below the ocean surface genius.. lets hear it! And try to use something that won't spread nuclear waste all over the place while you're at it.

    You're a F'n moron. Please STFU. Your bush administration was the group that deregulated everything that allowed this kind of crap to happen in the first place.

  • Re:Disaster (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rakishi ( 759894 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @06:39PM (#32503246)

    And do what? Rave and spit like a spoiled 5 year old? Throw a tantrum? Yell at people? Piss on the grave of some BP founder? Seriously, why do people want him to act like a spoiled angry kid? Are you that insane and irrational as to be incapable of even comprehending what rational responses to situations are?

    And then you bitch about politicians not thinking ahead, caving in to interests and in all other ways acting like short sighted idiots. And when they don't, you're pissed because they're not acting like short sighted idiots. Lovely.

  • Re:Disaster (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bemopolis ( 698691 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @06:41PM (#32503274)

    I'll never understand arm-chair petroleum engineers. How easy do you think it is to drive a multi-ton robotic submersible a mile underwater using cameras that don't provide good depth perception to plug a hole spewing oil with a pressure exceeding 5,000 PSI? It can take days just to get the necessary materials down to that depth, let alone the many hours it takes to painstakingly navigate the machinery into place, and that's assuming you don't get too close to the ocean floor because the thrusters will stir up the mud and then you'll have to wait for it to settle so that you can see what you're doing...

    How about a simple rule then: until you can do it then you don't get to fucking drill offshore?

  • by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @06:43PM (#32503300) Homepage

    Asking "where's the critcism?" means you haven't been paying attention. There's tons of criticism in mainstream press. I see it every day as I track the news on the spill.

    Why's he getting off better than Bush did with Katrina? Well, probably because he sacked the MMS head who screwed up instead of telling her that she did "a heckuva job". Little things like appearing to recognize when somebody has not, in fact, done a heckuva job seems to count for something.

    I want to see more housecleaning at MMS and I'm quite disappointed that there hasn't been signs of it, yet. But then there's the AG's criminal investigation, which if half the things said about what BP did and didn't do before the spill are true is warranted. And then there's that outside of mobilizing the Coast Guard, what can the government do about the spill itself? All the people who can actually do something about it are in private industry. We're not talking about ferrying people out of a flooded area, we're talking about fixing something in an environment where it's never been fixed before.

    And while I would agree with the hypothetical comment that the government should take more direct control over the actions of the oil companies in order to fix it, that's actually not a simple thing to do. We already have plenty of critics even in Congress saying that the regulatory action Obama has taken and has promised to take are going to have a stifling effect on private industry in the gulf. Hey idjits, I want to say to them, if this is what they're going to do then I want to stifle the ever loving fuck out of them.

  • Re:Disaster (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @06:45PM (#32503320) Journal

    Which is likely to be but a drop in the bucket of the real costs of cleanup.

  • Re:Disaster (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NeutronCowboy ( 896098 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @06:53PM (#32503414)

    Which doesn't do squat to begin with. Do you really think that the booms are some impervious, permanent barrier to the oil? Even if we assume that we're just trying to stop the oil on top, you do understand that there are waves on the ocean? Current? Wind? All of which conspire to move the booms, and to move oil over and under the booms?

    It's like all the people who pointed at the school buses after Katrina and said "Why didn't they just put people in buses and drove them out?" Where exactly would they have been put? Out in a pasture somewhere?

    Jindal is a grade-A politician who knows everything about looking busy and nothing about actually solving a problem. Granted, I'm also blaming BP and the Feds for not properly employing booms to corral the oil into an area where it is removed from the water/beach, but still - booms alone aren't the answer.

    And yes, this suggestion for booms alone is just Monday-Morning Engineering at its finest: people with no clue, no insight and no information pontificating and assigning blame for a situation in which they have no skin and no responsibility. Even Jindal has no skin in the game, because he can always blame someone else for his hare-brained ideas going wrong.

  • by DragonWriter ( 970822 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @06:53PM (#32503416)

    During and after Katrina everyone attacked Bush, often very personal attacks for the Federal and even state responses to that event.

    True, and for good reason.

    Yet here we are nearly two months after this started and there has been very little vitriolic attacking on the current President.

    In the real world, actually, there have been very frequent, very vitriolic attacks on the current President, and a widespread labelling in the media of the spill as his Katrina, beginning very shortly after the spill began.

    The Justice Department could have been turned on to BP and people could be in jail right now, but nothing was done.

    Actually, the Justice Departmen has been turned on BP. Unfortunately -- from your apparent perspective -- the US Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to arbitrarily detain people for potential crimes. You have to investigate and have evidence first.

  • Re:Disaster (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Spoonman ( 634311 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @06:54PM (#32503428) Homepage
    I'll never understand arm-chair petroleum engineers.

    You think that's bad! You should try explaining the macroeconomics, sociology, city planning, legal issues, trade issues, foreign relations issues, etc, etc, necessary for them to understand the issues facing the country to increase their chances of making intelligent choices when it comes time to vote for their elected officials! Phew!
  • Re:Disaster (Score:4, Insightful)

    by c++0xFF ( 1758032 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @07:03PM (#32503574)

    Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if McCain/Palin wouldn't have been better. After all, they'd be more on the hook for the consequences than Obama because of the whole "Drill, baby, drill" campaign.

    Every time I hear democrats, they make sure the blame lies squarely on BP (and not on themselves). Had the republicans won the presidency, there's no way they could have avoided blame.

    I'm not trying to say that either side holds guilt in this matter (although there's plenty of blame to go around the government and industry), only that public perception of blame might be completely different. And that, in turn, might make a politician act completely different.

  • Re:Disaster (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hawkfish ( 8978 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @07:07PM (#32503636) Homepage

    That's not to say that the Feds should just ignore the problem. But there's little more that they can do aside from telling the doctor that he has to perform the surgery.

    How about not distorting the market by putting liability caps on dangerous/destructive activities? How about taking over BP because its assets exceed the damage and selling said assets off to fund national oil independence? How about dragging these people off in chains so that the rest of their greedhead friends have the fear of God carved into their foreheads?

  • by lotho brandybuck ( 720697 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @07:08PM (#32503650) Homepage Journal
    If we had Carter for a second term, we'd have been running more efficient, certainly energy wise and probably financially as well.

    This country started going to hell in a handbasket when we replaced a trained nuclear engineer/sub driver with an actor that made people feel good.

  • Re:Disaster (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @07:10PM (#32503698)
    Simple, I want Obama to push for a law that would require all offshore wells to have relief wells drilled PRIOR to striking oil. If there's a blowout, the solution is already in place.
  • Re:Disaster (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Requiem18th ( 742389 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @07:16PM (#32503800)

    Honestly, if fixing an eventuality is that impossible maybe they shouldn't have been allowed to drill in the first place.

    And yes I'm an armchair underwater mining engineer (but an actual, licensed, systems engineer) and I can't quite believe that BP can't drop a hundred tons of rock over the spill, I'm pretty sure they're trying to find the most "cost effective" way of dealing with it.

    But what I seriously can't believe is that what is stopping is water too muddy to see. Don't we have radars and laser and x-rays, weaponizable grade sonars and of course GPS? And don't tell me GPS doesn't get that low, we can set up repeaters, heck we can tie a million ropes together if that helped. Shouldn't BP know exactly where the spill is? Surely they sent equipment back and forth the drilling site!

    I'm obviously expecting to get my ass whooped by an actual mining engineer but I seriously struggle to believe our technology is that lame,

    Also you seem intent on BP *not* paying the bill,exactly what do you want everybody to do? Giving them money with no strings attached?

  • by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @07:34PM (#32504046) Homepage Journal

    please don't ever link to tree hugger to support your claims. everytime you do i'm forced to club a baby seal to balance out the bullshit they spew.

    Please don't ever link to Fox News to support your claims. Every time you do, I'm forced to throw a capitalist running dog in the gulag ... etc.

    You see how stupid that sounds? If you have a problem with the source (which, BTW, links to a Der Spiegel article; perhaps you consider that to be Eurotrash socialist garbage, but in the real world, it's considered one of the most trustworthy mainstream news sources on the planet) then fine -- give a source you consider more credible, and say why.

    Better yet, don't argue with the source, argue with the data. If you can.

  • Re:Disaster (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @07:35PM (#32504066)

    So tell me, exactly what do you expect Obama to do? Wiggle his nose like he's some Genie?

    He has a gun, a big one. He can make sure BP foots the entire bill. He goddamn well better.. And he should do it fast before they try to go Chapter 11, and leave us with nothing.

  • Re:Disaster (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @07:39PM (#32504122)

    The states of the United States are not comparable to the member states of the EU. No US state has had foreign relations since 1865. No US state has had a standing army since 1865. While US states do have the National Guard, they are units of the US military, paid for and equipped by the US Federal Government but controlled by the states.

    The EU is way less structured than the US federal system.

  • Re:Disaster (Score:5, Insightful)

    by skids ( 119237 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @07:40PM (#32504142) Homepage

    Yes, people want him to rant. So they can say he's being unpresidential. They also wanted him to go to the Gulf again, so they could say he was ignoring the economy. There's no winning.

  • by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @07:44PM (#32504194)

    They do it all the time with terrorists. Someone doesn't blow up a crappy bomb in Times Square and he is in Federal custody in hours, but the CEOs of BP are running around scot-free?

  • Re:Disaster (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Idiomatick ( 976696 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @07:49PM (#32504248)
    We can avoid leaks. BP cut corners A LOT, big ones too and it fucked everything up. Perhaps this is a clear argument for GREATER GOVERNMENT REGULATION.

    This has good parallels to the economy actually. Lowered government regulation led to stupidity which lead to massive failure. And when the democrats tried to pass stuff to stop it from repeating, even basic sensible shit the GOP tried to block it. This would be more of the same. Obama COULD push for fixing this problem as well. But it would hit the news as "Socialist leader dictates overbearing rules on how private corporations run their business". And he wants to be 'bipartisan/centrist' to bridge the divide between left and right ... not really working out but its hard to blame him for that. Repeatedly annoying the right wouldn't help though.
  • Re:Disaster (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lena_10326 ( 1100441 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @07:51PM (#32504276) Homepage
    Yet BP created a situation where the leak could occur and apparently had no decent backup plan. Of course, unless you count scrambling after the catastrophe racing to figure out a plan. I entirely understand why the arm chair engineers are totally pissed off. It doesn't take a petroleum scientist to realize BP fucked up--BIG TIME--and it's those "arm chair engineers" (the citizens) that are paying the price for it.
  • Re:Disaster (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tsotha ( 720379 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @08:25PM (#32504600)

    Who cares? Top line revenue is irrelevant. What is that as a percentage of profit?

  • Awesome density? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bartwol ( 117819 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @09:45PM (#32505314)

    A "scientist was awed by the density" of the plume? At HALF A PART PER MILLION???!!!

    Am I missing something, or am I just a dullard whose panties don't get bunched over TRACE CONCENTRATIONS?

  • Re:Disaster (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ZosX ( 517789 ) <> on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @11:00PM (#32505824) Homepage

    You know, we spent over 80 billion dollars on homeland security during the year of katrina. This includes FEMA, which was the agency responsible for providing disaster relief for disasters. Hurricanes come every year. Sure Katrina was bad, but their total lack of response for DAYS while people DIED is totally unfuckingacceptable. I mean some third world shithole in asia has a tsunami with hundreds of thousands dead and we had fucking air drops mobilized there the very next day (don't know how true that is, but I know it was pretty rapid.....). I mean this is Homeland Security...FEMA.....what would happen if a major US city were to be attacked leaving hundreds of thousands refugees? Is this how they plan on handling future disasters? If so, where the fuck is all our money going? They didn't have any real plan to deal with people stuck in New Orleans. That's somewhat acceptable, but to just leave them there to rot (literally) without fresh food or water for days is just downright criminal. If that was a bunch of white people from the Chicago suburbs, would they have gotten the same treatment?

  • Re:Disaster (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hooya ( 518216 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @11:45PM (#32506136) Homepage

    Bemusingly, people that preach "government should be small" and "let the free-market take care of itself" and "businesses are more efficient at anything compared to government so get the government out" somehow seem to see no disconnect in complaining about how obama is handling the spill. shouldn't they rally for obama to get out of the way and let BP do it's thing? oh yeah, they're busy at another rally chanting "drill baby, drill".

    on one hand, people want the government to act. on the other, they want to let free-enterprise "do it's thing". you can't have both.


    I'm disappointed the oversight agency was in bed (turns out, literally) with whom it was overseeing. Massive failure of government.

    The same company that had the resources and technology to drill that far below the sea level is now citing the fact that the reason it's hard to contain the damage is, well, it's so far below the sea level. If they saw necessary to create the tech to create a hole so far down, it's their responsibility to create the tech to plug that hole - depth perception, great depths etc. certainly didn't stop them when drilling. Massive irresponsibility of "free enterprise".

  • Re:Disaster (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Danse ( 1026 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2010 @01:10AM (#32506566)

    ahem... []

    Boom is not meant to contain or catch oil. Boom is meant to divert oil. Boom must always be at an angle to the prevailing wind-wave action or surface current. Boom, at this angle, must always be layered in a fucking overlapped sort-of way with another string of boom. Boom must always divert oil to a catch basin or other container, from where it can be REMOVED FROM THE FUCKING AREA.

    Different types of shoreline, different shapes, require different configurations. Your numerous anchor points (for this spill those would be 1-yard cement blocks with tie-off buoys) need to be chosen so the boom-tenders (you) can adjust the ropes, slanting the booms this way and that to account for changes in wind and current. Booms are tended 24/7, by the way.

    You divert to a catch basin. You are not building the fucking Great Wall of China. You are diverting oil so you can then drain it out.

    So even if the feds had given them all the boom in the world, they still would have fucked up the deployment and made it all worthless anyway.

  • by weston ( 16146 ) <westonsd&canncentral,org> on Wednesday June 09, 2010 @01:46AM (#32506740) Homepage

    No corporation should be allowed to grow large enough that it can't be drowned in a bathtub.

    This is a great reappropriation of Norquist's infamous line, but I'm inclined to be a bit more long-winded. :)

    Here's the thing: in the U.S., were not only the fortunate heirs of a constitution that's created a government of checks, balances, and somewhat limited powers. We're also the recipient of a national story about how our forbears fought for it and we're therefore generally free of state oppression. And whatever your complaints against the federal/state government (and there are some legit complaints), it's still historically true: if you live here, you have more civil liberties and economic freedoms than most of the people who've ever lived on this world. Doesn't mean we couldn't learn a thing or two from other countries, but here we are.

    The thing is, that heritage handed to us through the efforts of patriots from the revolution through the cold war -- and just as importantly that national story -- has been forged in a time period during which sovereign states (and maybe a church or two) were essentially the only entities around which enough power could amass to systemically entrench itself into tyranny. When we justifiably celebrate the founding of the United States and its achievements, and when we invoke the language of the revolution... we're talking about the resolution of *that* war. The war fought to forge a modern state that safeguards its citizens from itself.

    The world has changed, though. And the modern state isn't the only entity that now has enough power to infringe on your liberties. In fact, many modern states are less powerful than some other entities.

    The reason we need a state in the first place is that private power can and will be abused as surely as government power can be. But if the national conversation over the last two years is any indication, we're still fighting the war against state power in our heads.

  • Re:Disaster (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jandersen ( 462034 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2010 @04:18AM (#32507412)

    You don't think that everyone at BP, from the engineers, to the drillers, to the CEO isn't worried about their job right now?

    Their job? The CEO is worried about his job? If there were any justice in this world, they should be fearing for their freedom, not just their jobs. I don't mean the man at the bottom of the pile, but those at the top; at the very least they have shown criminal negligence, and the punishment should be proportional to the damage they have caused. If you get 2 years + inside for selling cannabis, why should you not be locked up for good after having destroyed 100s of thousands of people's livelihoods and causing immeasurable environmental problems for generations to come - all because you were too greedy to be careful?

    A very large part of the problems in this world are caused by this sick idea, that there should be no regulation of business, no matter what; what it means is that companies get to stuff their pockets, and when it goes wrong, the taxpayer gets to pay the bill - it is no more than a convoluted for of theft.

  • Re:Disaster (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xest ( 935314 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2010 @04:35AM (#32507510)

    Yeah good idea, why not seize the assets of a foreign oil company, I'm sure that will go down well.

    Hey, weren't you Americans crying not so long ago when Venezuela did just that to your oil company's assets over there over the past couple of years?

    What about your precious Halliburton for their role in the disaster? or do they get away with it because they're an American company? How would you feel if Europe seized the assets of the likes of Halliburton for their crimes in Iraq? Or the likes of Microsoft and Apple for their market abuse? You'd probably be the first one complaining.

    Seriously, the hypocrisy from Americans over the BP oil disaster is just disgusting.

    This happened because you're an oil mad nation, and you want oil to remain unsustainably cheap on your shores. If you really want a solution look more towards getting yourself off your fucking national oil addiction, or at very least quit with the offshore drilling and accept the inevitable price hike that will cause.

    I'm angry at BP too, but if you think BP is the only entity to be angry at you're mistaken- BP, Halliburton, Transocean, and just as importantly, the American public all equally deserve blame for this incident.

    Why are so many Americans only concerned about the tragic effects your oil hunger can have when it effects you shores? What about the thousands of people who died for America's little oil adventure into Iraq and Halliburton's activities in Iraq that even put your own citizens needlessly in danger for the sake of keeping your oil cheap? Does it not matter when it happens elsewhere?

    The fact is, the gulf oil spill happened too close to home, and Americans don't like to admit they collectively caused this, trying to deflect the blame entirely onto BP for a problem you caused is laughable.

  • Re:Disaster (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, 2010 @07:21AM (#32508374)

    He will never take any stand on important issues just like any politician worth their salt. He got elected on emotions and not substance. "Hope and Change" Its bullshit all around! Just like any politician.

    Why bother voting for the two pre-approved big business, pro warfare, money grubbing candidates when it is no different than voting for pepsi or coke? At the end of the day, you still just voted for sugar water.

  • Re:Disaster (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Utini420 ( 444935 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2010 @09:33AM (#32509480)

    If there has ever been a better case for a corporate death penalty, I can't think of it. They badgered the courts into defining corporations as legal people, fine -- their bed, they can sleep in it.

    BP should be sliced up and sold as scrap.

  • by Benfea ( 1365845 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2010 @12:30PM (#32512122)

    Sure, there is more that the federal government could be doing (e.g. containment booms, sandbars, etc.), but the main question we should be asking is not whether the government is doing enough, but why the government is spending taxpayer resources on things that do more to serve BP's PR problem than to serve the interests of citizens whose livelihoods have been affected by the ecological and economic damage.

    For instance, government resources are being used to keep reporters from taking pictures of wildlife damaged by the oil spill. No democratic government has any business doing such a thing, and it most certainly serves BP's PR needs more than it serves the needs of the public. Why were government/military C-130s being used to distribute dispersants when coagulants would have made removing the oil easier? The only purpose served by dispersants is to reduce the appearance of that oil slick on damning satellite photos. Again: government resources are being used to serve BP's PR needs instead of the citizens' ecological/economic needs.

    Getting angry at Obama for not personally swimming down there and plugging the leak with his thumb is stupid. Getting angry at Obama for not getting angry enough is stupid. People making these complaints are asking the wrong questions and complaining about the wrong things. Government should serve us first, and large multinational corporations only when doing so also serves our interests.

  • by HeckRuler ( 1369601 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2010 @12:49PM (#32512408)
    See East India Company [] for a supporting example of such a private power contending with the state.

The relative importance of files depends on their cost in terms of the human effort needed to regenerate them. -- T.A. Dolotta