logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2023-10-04 18:11:53 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Everyone into the pool! Now online... the VirusWiki.

  Church of Virus BBS
  Serious Business

  Plug the hole, Daddy.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: Plug the hole, Daddy.  (Read 10156 times)

Gender: Male
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.81
Rate Fritz

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Plug the hole, Daddy.
« Reply #15 on: 2010-06-21 11:57:58 »
Reply with quote

Quote from: Blunderov on 2010-06-21 03:45:22   

Quote from: Fritz on 2010-06-20 19:57:11   

So interestingly enough Blunderov you are in agreement with Glen Beck .
I am impressed

[Blunderov] Oh Fritz you are such a tease. I'm being ironic in a GOOD way, Beck on the other hand...

Ayn Rand was a great philosopher. Discuss.

Well Gentlemen ... It would seem to me to rethread this back to BP that the Greek notion of "hubris" is what Rand is so desperately denying. We as a species are not in charge of our destiny, we are a synergy of evolution, instinct, social context, environment. We are bioelectrical/chemical organisms first and foremost; this is I think totally forsaken by Rand. She in the end seems to be a pawn of the Self Lubricating Uncaring Tyrants, the psychopaths that so often take control and chip away at the hope of a future we might have as a species. They have used her as a rationalization in the 50's and 60's and resurrected her again in the last several years.

She made my skin crawl when I read her in the 70's at University and I really like Blunderov's posted quote:
"A modest proposal for finally putting to good use the writings of woman who has aptly been described as "Nietzsche for stupid people."

I would submit; avoid Rand and do dust off Nietzsche" he in the midst of his dementia had a sense of humour and keen eye on the human endeavour that still holds for me today.

BP has happened because of; selfishness and hubris and greed, all things Rand cherished in her version of 'Mankind'.



PS: I just can't disagree with you learned gentleman very long and keep a straight face .... sigh

Posted by: MoEnzyme   Posted on: Today at 04:01:05
When I found out that 1) Ayn Rand rejected biological evolution, and 2) that she claimed to base her morality on "the nature of man", I decided that I would never waste my time reading anything by her. I've never regretted that decision. Some of my friends who have describe her stories as "sociopathic fairy tales".

Source: http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Parille/Ayn_Rand_and_Evolution.shtml
Why Rand’s Hesitation About Evolution?

Rand’s hesitation about evolution calls for an explanation. As Rand must have been aware, many religious conservatives (who were a frequent target of hers) reject evolution. There are a few possibilities for this hesitation.

First, evolution is generally seen as a deterministic and ultimately hostile to free will. (Machan, Ayn Rand, pp. 142-43.) For example, evolutionist Ernest Haeckel (1834-1919) asserted that free will had to be rejected along with other “cherished ideas” such as human immortality and a personal god. (Schwarz, Creation, p. 7.) Even before the advent of Darwinian evolution, materialists from Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) forward often rejected free will.

Second, if biological evolution is true, then many areas of philosophy might need to be reexamined. For example, how can man have a qualitatively different value from animals if is every bit a part of nature as animals? Interestingly, a standard argument of religious conservatives against evolution is similar. God created man as the center of creation and reducing him to a part of the material universe on a similar plane as animals is condescending. The relationship between the brain and thought becomes more problematic in a Darwinian universe. Darwin wrote in his notebooks, “Why is thought, being a secretion of the brain, more wonderful than gravity, a property of matter.” (Jaki, Angels, Apes, and Men, p. 52.) In what sense can human nature be taken as fundamental to morality if man is exclusively part of the material work? One of La Mettrie’s (1709-1751) followers was the Marquis de Sade (1740-1814) who argued that “If human passions are mere physiological itches, man’s proverbial dignity is a fraud, and there is nothing—not even our normal revulsion against rape and torture—to stand in the way of treating other human beings as sex tools. From the materialistic perspective, nothing can be entirely unnatural.” (Fleming, The Morality of Everyday Life, p. 107.)

Third, Rand may have been fearful of creating a biological or secular equivalent to original sin. Rand’s opposition to original sin is well known, but her opposition to original sin would apply to any argument that proposes a biological weakness in man’s will. A full recognition of man’s biological and psychological drives might lead to a pessimistic view of human nature. Indeed, many scholars have see parallels between original sin and Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic doctrines. According to intellectual historian Richard Webster, Freud employed biological evolution in developing a secularized version of original sin:

Freud genuinely believed that, by invoking evolutionary biology in the manner that he did, he was using science to sweep away superstition and introduce a new view of human nature. His real achievement in creating psychoanalysis, however, was to hide superstition beneath the rhetoric of reason, and by doing this succeed in reintroducing a very old view of human nature. By portraying the unconscious or the ‘id’ as a seething mass of unclean impulses, and seeing men and women as driven by dark sexual and sadistic impulses and a secret love of excrement which was associated with a compulsion to hoard money, Freud in effect recreated Swift’s Christian vision of “unregenerate man” as a Yahoo. By casting his intense moral vision in an ostensibly technical form he had, it would seem, succeeded in reinventing for a modern scientific age the traditional Christian doctrine of Original Sin.[7]

Fourth, it is also possible that Rand may have believed that biological evolution did not present any problems for Objectivism, but hoped that followers more knowledgeable in biology would resolve whatever tensions exist.<snip>
Report to moderator   Logged

Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-

Gender: Male
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.81
Rate Fritz

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Plug the hole, Daddy.
« Reply #16 on: 2010-06-21 17:10:14 »
Reply with quote

[Fritz] An Email passed on to me I am posting as is.


Folks here may be interested that the Tea Party movement was tied to the
Republican's "Drill Here! Drill Now!" campaign. Koch Industries was
running the Tea Party's show. Incidentally, just as the Democrats were
running scared about doing anything to limit corporate privileges, the
Republicans are too gutless to openly espouse white power and so go
along with the phony egalitarianism of so-called liberals.

This link is on http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/BreakingNews.html

It is worth reading the article in full:


Tea Party / June 13, 2010
Teagagged! Born In Offshore Drilling, Tea Party Protest Silenced Over
Organizers' Links To 2008 "Drill Here! Drill Now!" Campaign
By Mark Ames and Yasha Levine
Missing: Tea Party
This article was first published in Alternet.
Why are the hoppin'-mad Teabaggers so oddly quiet these days, ever since
the BP oil disaster? That's what Thomas Frank, author of What's The
Matter With Kansas? asked last week in his column, "Laissez-faire Meets
The Oil Spill." Ideologically, it's painfully obvious why the Teabaggers
are now the Teagaggers: their free-market gospel got mugged by
oil-drenched reality - a reality so horrific that even pollster Frank
Luntz couldn't spin the BP disaster as the government's fault. Best to
just shut up when you're that wrong.
But there's another, more concrete reason why the Tea Party
revolutionaries melted back into their suburbs as soon as the enormity
of the Gulf spill disaster hit: The Tea Party evolved out of the
pro-offshore drilling astroturf movement in 2008. They even share some
of the same organizers and front groups, from PR operative like Eric
Odom, to advocacy groups like FreedomWorks, whose combined efforts on
the "Drill Here! Drill now!" astroturf campaign succeeded in opening up
all of America's coastlines and waters to offshore drilling, overturning
a 27-year ban thanks to threats of "a Boston-style Tea Party," as one
Republican put it in the summer of 2008.
We have been following this movement from the beginning. Back in
February 2009, on the eve of the first Tea Party protest, we published
the first investigative article exposing the hidden relationship between
the fake-"spontaneous" Tea Party protests that month, and the Republican
machine that backed and promoted the campaign. Our research led again
and again to the right-wing Koch brothers, who are worth a combined $32
billion as owners of the largest private oil company in America, Koch
Industries. Koch-linked front groups like FreedomWorks and the Sam Adams
Alliance (named after the leader of the original Boston Tea Party)
played key roles in both the 2008 campaign to deregulate offshore
drilling, and in the Tea Party movement.
Eric Odom, the PR flak who launched the Tea Party in February 2009, is
the same Eric Odom who in August 2008 organized Republican Twitter-mobs
who crashed Capitol Hill chanting "Drill here! Drill now!" to force
Congress to open up American coastlines to unrestricted offshore oil
drilling. Odom used the same Twitter front group, "DontGo Movement," in
both campaigns: Twittering the pro-offshore drilling mobs in 2008 and
Twittering the first anti-Obama teabaggers in early 2009. Odom was
listed as the "New Media Coordinator" for the Sam Adams Alliance until a
few days before the very Tea Party Protest in 2009.
If these organization names get confusing, then just remember this: What
really matters is the money behind them - namely, the billionaire Koch
money. Since we first broke the Koch-Tea Party links, other media and
research outlets have confirmed the Kochs' key funding and organization
role in the Tea Party campaign, as well as defeating climate change
legislation and defeating health care reform. The Kochs are the largest
oil & gas contributors to the last few electoral campaigns, and their
network of fronts and think tanks is daunting.
One Koch-linked front group is The Sam Adams Alliance, led by a longtime
Koch aide named Eric O'Keefe. Back in 1980, when David Koch ran for vice
president on the Libertarian Party ticket, Eric O'Keefe served as the
National Coordinator for Koch's Libertarian Party. O'Keefe has been
sucking on the Koch teat ever since - moving from the Libertarian Party
to the Koch-funded Cato Institute, and finally, to the Sam Adams
Alliance, where O'Keefe is the CEO.
At first the Kochs denied they were behind the Tea Party campaign, but
by the end of 2009, David Koch finally owned up and told an audience how
he had planned and funded the Tea Party movement.
It's important to understand just how close the Tea Party campaign is
tied to the campaign pushing for unlimited offshore drilling, because
the media has consistently misunderstood and misrepresented the Tea
Party movement at every step of the way, treating the Tea Party like a
legitimate political movement, rather than what it really is: a
well-funded and highly-manipulative PR campaign, paid for and led by
right-wing billionaires looking to protect their riches from government
regulators and taxes. The Tea Party only exists as long as the Kochs
need it to run; once the billionaires' needs change, they'll close the
account out and get onto other business, dumping all the suckers who
volunteered their time and Ayn Rand-inspired placards until they're
needed again sometime in the future.
To understand how this works, let's go back again to the summer of 2008,
the last time there were still restrictions on offshore oil drilling in
America. How did it happen that we lifted all offshore drilling
restrictions less than two years ago? Strange to believe now, but two
summers ago, drilling became the "wedge issue" for the presidential
campaign, the way gay marriage was in 2004. In August 2008, for reasons
unclear at the time, nothing got the Republican base more quickly worked
up for a fight than the fight to open up all of America's coasts and
waters to all the drilling that Big Oil wanted.
Before it turned Tea Party, the pro-offshore drilling campaign was led
by the disgraced Newt Gingrich, via his billionaire-sponsored
foundation, American Solutions. It was a pretty typical lobbying effort
until August 1, when the Republicans seemed to go off the handle, and a
bunch of DC Beltway foundation trolls took to the streets threatening
tea party revolt.
By mid-August 2008, the Wall Street Journal asked, "Why Does Offshore
Drilling Dominate the Debate?":
How on earth, in the middle of a war and an economic slowdown, did a
handful of offshore oil rigs come to be the wedge issue of American
And make no mistake-new oil drilling is the wedge. Republicans have
shown 80-90% support for any drilling proposal; Democrats are equally
opposed. Bob Herbert in the NYT compares drilling's wool-over-the-eyes
allure to the persistent belief in Iraqi involvement in Sept. 11.
Offshore drilling has resuscitated [sic] Newt Gingrich, and ruined Nancy
Pelosi's summer. It made Sen. Barack Obama, the "agent of change,"
change his mind. And it derailed the Straight Talk Express.
Suddenly, the entire election hinged on offshore drilling, and the
Democrats got it in their heads that if they didn't compromise, they'd
lose the 2008 election. It must have seemed strange to them - the
Republicans dragged America into two military defeats back-to-back, and
left the economy destroyed on a scale not seen in almost a century. But
the Democrats were scared as they usually are, and by the end of
September, both the House and Senate voted to lift the ban on offshore
drilling for gas and oil.
Mike Huckabee jams to "Drill Here Drill Now" with Aaron Tippin
The last part of the campaign happened so fast, it seemed plausibly
spontaneous and grassroots. Before Odom and the Twitter mobs, the push
for offshore drilling was much more traditional: several months of Newt
Gingrich's backroom efforts and mailers and ads pushing for offshore oil
drilling. And then came the surprise: On August 1, 2008, Republicans
staged a publicity stunt to take over the floor of the House just a few
hours after lawmakers had voted to adjourn for their five-week summer
break. The Republicans said they were protesting Speaker Pelosi's
decision to go home without voting on offshore drilling.
According to an AP report from the time:
Republicans occupied the House floor for a rare, and at times bizarre,
protest against Democratic energy policies.
Unlike a normal session where the rules of decorum are strictly
enforced, GOP lawmakers and their aides who filled the chamber clapped,
chanted, gave standing ovations and booed the Democrats.
In a grand finale, lawmakers led a roomful of aides in a rendition of
"God Bless America" and walked off to chants of "USA, USA."
The event, said Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona, one of the organizers with
Reps. Mike Pence of Indiana and Tom Price of Georgia, was "the
equivalent of the Boston Tea Party over the energy issue."
Republicans are angry that Democrats blocked them from a vote on
allowing more offshore oil drilling and increasing domestic oil
This was the launch of the first Tea Party. And a key figure in the
August campaign was Eric Odom, new media coordinator from the
Koch-affiliated Sam Adams Alliance. Odom also used DontGo Movement to
twitter together "grassroots" supporters to back the Republican sit-in
on August 1.
Odom's job was to make it look like a spontaneous outburst of
middle-class support was joining forces with the Republican politicians
in Congress, who fused together in one great oil-drilling movement. This
way it would appear to out-of-touch Democrats that the pro-oil-drilling
movement was really catching on with regular Americans angry at high gas
prices, which they blamed on liberal eco-elitists in Washington, rather
than on Bush's two lost wars, and the trashed American economy.
Twittering was new at the time; and Odom's twitter-campaign worked
better than anyone could have expected. He launched his DontGo Movement
on August 1, and a few days later, it was already on CNN:
Conservative online activists launch 'DontGo' Web site
Posted: August 5th, 2008
(CNN) - A group of conservative online activists launched a new Web site
Tuesday to support a call by House Republicans to reconvene Congress and
vote on an energy bill.
The site, dontgomovement.com, is intended to be a clearinghouse for
information about a protest House Republicans began Friday soon after
Congress adjourned for its August recess. More than 1100 people have
signed up for an e-mail distribution list associated with the site since
a preliminary splash page for it went up on the Internet Monday,
according to Eric Odom, one of the organizers behind dontgomovement.com.
From there, more Koch-connected groups piled in, including FreedomWorks,
the lead Tea Party organizers. In early August, FreedomWorks employees
hit the Washington streets carrying signs reading, "Drill! Drill!
Drill!" telling reporters "that most Americans support expanded domestic
Nan Swift, Campaign Coordinator for FreedomWorks, was so psyched about
protesting for offshore oil drilling that day that she quickly posted a
"stay tuned!" announcement on the FreedomWorks site:
By Nan Swift on Aug 06, 2008
On Tuesday FreedomWorks joined with area allies to counter MoveOn's
demonstration for an "Oil-Free Presidency." Try Economy-Free. At any
rate, the whole write-up will be on up over at FreedomWorks.org soon as
part of our weekly campaign update. In the meantime, I wanted to make
sure you got to see these great links to other people who wrote, took
pictures, and great video. Enjoy.
By late September, the pressure was too much for Pelosi to bear, and
Congress caved to Nan Swift's "Drill! Drill!" protest.
The triumphant story of how the GOP forced Congress to "Drill Here!
Drill Now!"
The campaign was a boon to Eric Odom and to FreedomWorks and gave them
the know-how to run the bigger Tea Party campaign later. Gingrich the
public face of the "Drill Here Drill Now!" campaign, was the only figure
in that campaign who got mugged by reality: on September 23, 2008 - the
same day Gingrich published his pro-offshore drilling manifesto Drill
Here, Drill Now, Pay Less - Republican heavyweights led by Vice
President Dick Cheney were marching around Capitol Hill scaring members
into passing a bill far more urgent than the offshore drilling bill
championed by Newt, FreedomWorks, and the Koch brothers: the $700
billion Bush Bailout bill. Just to refresh your memory, here's a quick
excerpt from the Wall Street Journal that day:
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said top administration officials -
Vice President Dick Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and
National Economic Council Director Keith Hennessey - were lobbying
members of Congress Tuesday, including the House of Representative's
conservative Republican Study Group.
The economic collapse and Bush-Cheney billionaire bailouts put
Gingrich's big comeback on hold. But ironically enough, the Bush-Cheney
bailouts provided Bush-Cheney supporters something new to protest in
2009: the Bush-Cheney bailouts now that President Obama claimed them as
his own, and piled trillions more of his own bailouts on top of it.
For some reason, the story of how the Tea Party began as the
Offshore-Drilling Party has been forgotten or ignored by the media. But
the people inside the movement sure know where the Tea Party started,
and until the BP disaster, they were damn proud. For example, a leader
of the St. Louis Tea Party, Dana Loesch - known as the "female Michael
Savage" by her Tea Party admirers - triumphantly recounted the
oil-drilling beginnings of the Tea Party movement last year on Andrew
Breitbart's Big Government site:
The Tea Party Movement: How We Got Here
by Dana Loesch
Something curious happened during the summer of 2008. Democrats, led by
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, shut down the House and C-SPAN cameras with a
resolution that passed by just one vote, smack in the middle of an
energy crisis. Afterwards, Madame Speaker jetted off on a week-long book
tour while gas prices soared.
The Republicans stood in the dark and refused to leave. A few officials,
including John Culberson, took out their phones and began Twittering the
action to America, this spawning the #dontgo movement. It was the first
nudge to the hibernating conservative constituency who were excited
about having something over which to be excited in their party. Netroots
activists seethed at the realization that Democrats left America in
limbo rather than vote against reducing energy costs and drilling
stateside - though the majority of the population approved of such. They
rallied around the legislators that had the brass to stay and urged them
to "Don't go!"
Taxpayer fury over these offenses grew to a shriek in February when Rick
Santelli delivered his famous diatribe on the floor of the Chicago
exchange. The feelings of angry disenfranchisement felt by so many
conservatives coalesced following Santelli's speech.
On February 19, 2009, the DontGo Movement morphed into the Tea Party
thanks to the "Tea Party Rant" by CNBC's Rick Santelli, a self-described
follower of Ayn Rand, who suffered a spaz attack on live television
after hearing that President Obama was proposing bailout funds to
non-billionaire Americans facing foreclosure. Santelli was fine with the
trillions in bailout funds wired to the Wall Street Galts whose shoes he
shines for a living. But when Obama offered a bailout of $75 billion in
mortgage relief to middle-class Americans, Santelli had a freak-out.
Standing in the Chicago exchange floor with all of his
derivatives-trading pals, the CNBC tool shouted that he and his casino
traders were "fed up" and called for a "Chicago Tea Party" to protest
the federal government's bailout of struggling homeowners. "This is
America!" Santelli screamed, pointing to his rich derivatives-trading
broker friends - who trade the same derivatives that brought down the
American economy and pushed millions of Americans into foreclosure.
At the time, we called into question the "spontaneity" of Santelli's
rant, seeing instead a typical "launch event" in a coordinated PR
campaign designed to look spontaneous. We also wrote about all the links
between Santelli's rant, the fan-sites that popped up registered to
various Republican fronts including Eric Odom, and further up the chain,
familiar Republican free-market operatives, from Dick Armey's
FreedomWorks to the Sam Adams Alliance, and Eric Odom's Twittering
DontGo front. Many of the instantly-activated sites promoting Santelli's
rant that we traced were registered in Chicago - where Santelli, Eric
Odom, and the Sam Adams Alliance were all based. Within days of our
expose, Santelli was forced to post an excruciating apology to President
Obama on CNBC's, site, and he canceled his appearance on the Jon Stewart
Show. He's kept his tea to himself ever since.
The money link between the campaign for offshore drilling and the Tea
Party campaign was the billionaire Koch brothers and their private oil
behemoth, Koch Industries, America's second-largest private company and
one of the country's worst oil polluters.
The Kochs had good reason to back both offshore drilling and the Tea
Party movement, and then want to hush it all up after the BP spill:
that's because Koch Industries has a history of horrific oil spills
right here in America.
Greenpeace recently published a list of Koch Industries disasters, which
reads like a crime dossier on deregulation. Last year, for example, a
Koch subsidiary was ordered to pay out half a billion dollars to fix
environmental violations; while a decade ago, in 2000, Koch was fined
for causing 300 spills and charted with releasing 91 tons of a known
carcinogen from a Texas Refinery, leading to a $350 million fine (which
Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft discounted down to $20 million). And
just a few weeks ago, the Dallas Morning News reported that the EPA took
over the licensing process from Texas for a Koch refinery, which is
accused of gross violations of the Clean Air Act.
So let's go over this again: Not only was the Tea Party movement
supported by oil industry money, especially Koch Industries, but it was
organized by the same people who Tea Partied Congress into opening up
America's coastline to unlimited oil drilling. The Tea Party did that -
they manipulated and frightened Washington into giving them all the
pristine American coastline that a billionaire could ever dream of
poisoning, and then some. On top of that, the free-market advocacy
groups at the center of the Tea Party movement are responsible for the
systematic destruction of government regulation, which made a disaster
like the Gulf spill inevitable.
So remember that when you look at the poisoned Gulf of Mexico, and the
ruined beaches of Florida: That's the Tea Party Vision turned into our
reality. The gang running the Tea Party movement has some direct
responsibility for the catastrophe unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico,
maybe more so than BP itself. No wonder the Tea Party crowd is staying
out of sight and hoping everyone's forgotten. They've been talking about
dumping tea, but all along they've been dumping oil, and now we're
finding out just how "maverick" and "anti-establishment" their movement
really is.
Keep this in mind the next time the mainstream media sucks up to the
Teabaggers as some sort of "authentic America" anti-establishment
movement: it was born in offshore oil drilling, and America is now dying
from offshore drilling.
This article was first published in Alternet.
Mark Ames is the author of Going Postal: Rage, Murder and Rebellion from
Reagan's Workplaces to Clinton's Columbine.
Click the cover & buy the book!
Yasha Levine is a mobile home inhabitin' editor of The eXiled. He is
currently stationed in Victorville, CA. You can reach him at levine [at]
Read more: ayn rand, bp, cato institute, dana loesch, david koch, Dick
Cheney, dontgo, dontgo movement, drill here, eric o'keefe, Eric Odom,
freedomworks, john ashcroft, koch, koch industries, libertarian,
libertarian party, michael savage, nan swift, newt Gingrich, offshore
drilling, oil spill, rep john shadegg, Rick Santelli, sam adams
alliance, santelli, Tea Party, wall street journal, Mark Ames and Yasha
Levine, Tea Party
Got something to say to us? Then send us a letter.
Report to moderator   Logged

Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-

Gender: Male
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.81
Rate Fritz

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Plug the hole, Daddy.
« Reply #17 on: 2010-06-22 16:59:06 »
Reply with quote

The media is having way to much fun with this serious issue.



U.S. deepwater drilling ban overturned
White House vows immediate appeal

Source: CBC
Author: The Associated Press
Date: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 | 4:35 PM ET Comments628Recommend163

A U.S. federal judge has blocked a six-month moratorium on new deepwater drilling projects that was imposed in response to the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The White House said immediately it would appeal the decision.

In a briefing, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said President Barack Obama believes that until investigations can determine why the spill happened, continued deepwater drilling could expose workers and the environment to "a danger that the president does not believe we can afford."

Several companies that ferry people and supplies and provide other services to offshore drilling rigs had asked U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans to overturn the moratorium.

Steven Newman, Transocean Ltd. president and CEO, during a break at the World National Oil Companies Congress in London on Tuesday. (Lefteris Pitarakis/Associated Press)
Obama's administration has halted the approval of any new permits for deepwater drilling and suspended drilling at 33 exploratory wells in the Gulf.

But Feldman ruled that the Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium, and accused it of appearing to assume that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger.

Earlier Tuesday, oil industry executives also took aim at the ban, saying the world doesn't have enough other sources of fuel to allow for the moratorium.

In late May, Obama moved to suspend all deepwater drilling in U.S. waters for six months.

That halted exploration off the coast of Virginia, Alaska and throughout the Gulf Coast, and suspended operations at several already operational Gulf of Mexico rigs.

The ban, and the massive oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico, dominated discussions on Tuesday at the World National Oil Companies Congress in London.

Steven Newman, president and CEO of Transocean Ltd., which owned the destroyed Deepwater Horizon rig, called Obama's ban "unnecessary."

"There are things the administration could implement today that would allow the industry to go back to work tomorrow without an arbitrary six-month time limit," Newman told reporters on the sidelines of the meeting.

Obama's ban reflects growing unease about oil companies seeking to drill farther out to sea and in deeper waters than ever before. The process is expensive, risky and largely uncharted, highlighted by the April 20 explosion at the BP-operated rig that killed 11 workers and set off the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

Chevron executive Jay Pryor, also at the London conference, said the U.S. government's move would "constrain supplies for world energy."

BP CEO Tony Hayward leaves a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House in Washington on June 16. (Jim Young/Reuters)
"It would also be a step back for energy security," said Pryor, global vice-president for business development at the American oil company.

BP chief of staff Steve Westwell, who was heckled during a speech in which he stood in for BP CEO Tony Hayward, said, "regulators around the world will obviously want to know what happened" to cause the Gulf well blowout and subsequent undersea gusher, and change their procedures accordingly.

But he said deepwater drilling is needed as supplies of land and shallow-water oil diminish.

The world needs the oil and the energy from deepwater production, Westwell said. "Therefore, the regulatory framework must still enable that to be a viable commercial position."

Hayward pulled out of the conference Monday after facing stinging criticism for spending Saturday at England's Isle of Wight to see his yacht compete in a famous race, an outing that drew outrage on the Gulf Coast and an acerbic response from the White House.

Westwell was interrupted twice during his address by protesters from Greenpeace shouting, "We need to end the oil age!" before the hecklers were bustled out of the central London hotel by security.

Hurricane season arrives

BP said this week it has spent $2 billion fighting the spill, with no end in sight. It has set up a $20 billion fund to compensate victims of the disaster, and the company said Tuesday it is working to distribute those funds faster.

As bad as the Deepwater Horizon disaster has been perceived to be thus far, the crisis took a new turn on Tuesday as the first major storm of the Atlantic hurricane season was poised to move into the Gulf as early as next week.

The U.S. National Hurricane Center has given a 40 per cent chance of a series of thunderstorms currently forming south of the Haitian coastline of developing into a tropical cyclone and moving northwest into the Gulf.

"Upper-level winds appear to be conducive for gradual development … a tropical depression could form during the next couple of days," the agency warned on its website Tuesday.

The hurricane centre is forecasting this year's Atlantic hurricane season to be among the worst on record.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/06/22/bp-deepwater-horizon-oil.html#ixzz0rcL1lSXV
Report to moderator   Logged

Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.87
Rate Blunderov

"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Plug the hole, Daddy.
« Reply #18 on: 2010-06-23 03:31:44 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] A meme war is raging. BP is reported to be spending a fortune buying up Google hits and there is a competition to redesign the BP logo. There's gold in them thar bumper stickers...


Report to moderator   Logged

Posts: 2845
Reputation: 0.00

I'm a llama!

View Profile E-Mail
Re:Plug the hole, Daddy.
« Reply #19 on: 2010-06-23 17:25:47 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.87
Rate Blunderov

"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Plug the hole, Daddy.
« Reply #20 on: 2010-06-23 19:27:08 »
Reply with quote

Quote from: Salamantis on 2010-06-23 17:25:47   

Regulators Failed to Address Risks in Oil Rig Fail-Safe Device...

[Blunderov] A fascinating post from Joe Dees.(Credit where credit is due.) A post that I recommend Obama's legal department reads.

When the judge who overturned the Obama deep water drilling moratorium reasoned that " If one aeroplane fails it doesn't mean that they all will" (or words to that effect) I recalled that it has happened in the past that aeroplanes have been subject to metal fatigue failure because of shortcomings in the manufacturing process of those metals. I do not now have the time to provide sources but I recall that there were several tragedies and near tragedies due to metal fatigue in various aircraft. In one case the entire tail of a jetliner sheared off and it was only due to some magnificant  flying that that the plane landed safely. Quite shortly, the air industry realised that there was a fundamental fault in the manufacture of aircraft that needed to be corrected. Such would seem to be the case in deep water oil drilling.

The BP oil spill catasrophe is clearly not just a one-off misadventure . A nice post. I hope it gains attention in the right circles..
Report to moderator   Logged

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.87
Rate Blunderov

"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Plug the hole, Daddy.
« Reply #21 on: 2010-06-24 17:17:52 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] Some references to the metal fatigue problems to which I previously referred.


<snip> 1954: 'Metal fatigue' caused Comet crashes
The public inquiry into the Comet airliner disasters has heard that metal fatigue was the most likely cause of two recent crashes.
The first crash happened in January, when 29 passengers and a crew of six lost their lives off the Italian island of Elba.

The Comet's certificate of airworthiness was withdrawn after the second crash, just three months later. Fourteen passengers and seven crew died when the plane went down off the coast near Naples.

The Attorney General, Sir Lionel Heald QC, told the first day of the inquiry that initial suspicions of sabotage were unfounded.

He said the painstaking analysis of thousands of fragments of the Comet involved in the Elba crash had revealed that the damage was caused by a fault in the plane itself.

In what Sir Lionel called "one of the most remarkable pieces of scientific detective work ever done", a team led by Sir Arnold Hall, director of the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, subjected models, full-size aircraft and replicas to the most elaborate and searching tests ever carried out on an airliner.

One fragment collected from the scene of the crash showed that a crack had developed due to metal fatigue near the radio direction finding aerial window, situated in the front of the cabin roof.

The investigators found that a small weakness such as this would quickly deteriorate under pressure, and would rapidly lead to a sudden and general break-up of the fuselage.

In tests on another Comet aircraft, Sir Lionel added, the investigators had found that up to 70% of the aircraft's ultimate stress under pressure was concentrated on the corners of the aircraft's windows.

Sir Lionel said the findings of the investigation would lead to a general improvement in the safety of passenger air travel.

"It will perhaps be some consolation to the relatives of those who lost their lives to feel that good may come out of evil in this way," he added. </snip>


<snip>As part of the design of the 737, stress may be alleviated by controlled area breakaway zones. The intent was to provide controlled depressurization that would maintain the integrity of the fuselage structure. The age of the plane and the condition of the fuselage (that had corroded and was stressing the rivets beyond their designed capacity) appear to have conspired to render the design a part of the problem;[Bl. My bold] when that first controlled area broke away, according to the small rupture theory, the rapid sequence of events resulted in the failure sequence. This has been referred to as a zipper effect.</snip>


<snip>The final investigation report found that the accident was the result of metal fatigue caused by inadequate maintenance after a previous incident. The report finds that on 7 February 1980, the accident aircraft suffered damage from a tailstrike accident while landing in Hong Kong. The aircraft was then ferried back to Taiwan on the same day de-pressurized, and a temporary repair done the day after. A permanent repair was conducted by a team from China Airlines from 23 May through 26 May 1980. However, the permanent repair of the tail strike was not carried out in accordance with the Boeing SRM (Structural Repair Manual).[Bl. relevant to Salamantis post]


<snip>Investigators are looking at the possibility that external speed monitors, known as Pitot tubes, iced over and gave dangerously false readings to cockpit computers in a thunderstorm.

Peter Goelz, a former managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board, said the faulty airspeed readings and the fact the vertical stabilizer was sheared from the jet could be related — though he cautioned it would need to be determined if the stabilizer was torn off in flight or upon impact in the ocean.

The Airbus A330-200 has a "rudder limiter" which constricts how much the rudder can move at high speeds — if it were to move to far while traveling fast, it could shear off, and take the vertical stabilizer with it as they are attached.

"If you had a wrong speed being fed to the computer by the Pitot tube, it might allow the rudder to over travel," Goelz said. "The limiter limits the travel of the rudder at high speeds and prevents it from being torn off."

Asked if the rudder or stabilizer being sheared off could have brought the jet down, Goelz said: "Absolutely. You need a rudder. And you need the (rudder) limiter on there to make sure the rudder doesn't get torn off or cause havoc with the plane's aerodynamics."</snip>

[Bl.] Given the magnitude of the possible consequences of deep sea oil well blowouts it seems to me, based on these analogies with aircraft accidents (read together with the Salamatis post) about which Judge  Martin Feldman was so magnificently cavalier, that Obama is entirely justified in erring on the side of caution.


Judge Faces Death Threats After BP Gulf Oil Drilling Moratorium Ruling

<snip>Right after he issued the ruling, Feldman came under attack as a tool of the oil industry. Media outlets reporters noted that the Judge held stock in oil and gas companies and implied that his decision was based on his own personal financial considerations.</snip>

[Bl.] Conflict of interest? It seems clear to me that Judge Feldman should have recused himself. Surely a judge with no connections to the oil industry could have been found to hear the case?

« Last Edit: 2010-06-24 17:37:34 by Blunderov » Report to moderator   Logged

Posts: 2845
Reputation: 0.00

I'm a llama!

View Profile E-Mail
Re:Plug the hole, Daddy.
« Reply #22 on: 2010-06-27 07:56:59 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

« Last Edit: 2010-06-30 07:57:43 by Salamantis » Report to moderator   Logged

Posts: 2845
Reputation: 0.00

I'm a llama!

View Profile E-Mail
Re:Plug the hole, Daddy.
« Reply #23 on: 2010-06-30 07:57:08 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged

Posts: 2845
Reputation: 0.00

I'm a llama!

View Profile E-Mail
Re:Plug the hole, Daddy.
« Reply #24 on: 2010-07-01 13:58:45 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged

Posts: 2845
Reputation: 0.00

I'm a llama!

View Profile E-Mail
Re:Plug the hole, Daddy.
« Reply #25 on: 2010-07-03 22:58:44 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

« Last Edit: 2010-07-12 23:30:45 by Salamantis » Report to moderator   Logged

Gender: Male
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.81
Rate Fritz

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Plug the hole, Daddy.
« Reply #26 on: 2010-07-12 12:07:00 »
Reply with quote

Sorry; I missed that Salamantis had already got this one ... Fritz

[Salamantis]Re:Plug the hole, Daddy.
« Reply #22 on: 2010-06-27 07:56:59 »    Reply with quote Avertible Catastrophe
Lawrence Solomon

Avertible catastrophe

Source: The Financial Post
Author: Lawrence Solomon
Date: Jun. 26, 2010

Some are attuned to the possibility of looming catastrophe and know how to head it off. Others are unprepared for risk and even unable to get their priorities straight when risk turns to reality.

The Dutch fall into the first group. Three days after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico began on April 20, the Netherlands offered the U.S. government ships equipped to handle a major spill, one much larger than the BP spill that then appeared to be underway. "Our system can handle 400 cubic metres per hour," Weird Koops, the chairman of Spill Response Group Holland, told Radio Netherlands Worldwide, giving each Dutch ship more cleanup capacity than all the ships that the U.S. was then employing in the Gulf to combat the spill.

To protect against the possibility that its equipment wouldn't capture all the oil gushing from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch also offered to prepare for the U.S. a contingency plan to protect Louisiana's marshlands with sand barriers. One Dutch research institute specializing in deltas, coastal areas and rivers, in fact, developed a strategy to begin building 60-mile-long sand dikes within three weeks.

The Dutch know how to handle maritime emergencies. In the event of an oil spill, The Netherlands government, which owns its own ships and high-tech skimmers, gives an oil company 12 hours to demonstrate it has the spill in hand. If the company shows signs of unpreparedness, the government dispatches its own ships at the oil company's expense. "If there's a country that's experienced with building dikes and managing water, it's the Netherlands," says Geert Visser, the Dutch consul general in Houston.

In sharp contrast to Dutch preparedness before the fact and the Dutch instinct to dive into action once an emergency becomes apparent, witness the American reaction to the Dutch offer of help. The U.S. government responded with "Thanks but no thanks," remarked Visser, despite BP's desire to bring in the Dutch equipment and despite the no-lose nature of the Dutch offer --the Dutch government offered the use of its equipment at no charge. Even after the U.S. refused, the Dutch kept their vessels on standby, hoping the Americans would come round. By May 5, the U.S. had not come round. To the contrary, the U.S. had also turned down offers of help from 12 other governments, most of them with superior expertise and equipment --unlike the U.S., Europe has robust fleets of Oil Spill Response Vessels that sail circles around their make-shift U.S. counterparts.

Why does neither the U.S. government nor U.S. energy companies have on hand the cleanup technology available in Europe? Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn't good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million -- if water isn't at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico.

When ships in U.S. waters take in oil-contaminated water, they are forced to store it. As U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, the official in charge of the clean-up operation, explained in a press briefing on June 11, "We have skimmed, to date, about 18 million gallons of oily water--the oil has to be decanted from that [and] our yield is usually somewhere around 10% or 15% on that." In other words, U.S. ships have mostly been removing water from the Gulf, requiring them to make up to 10 times as many trips to storage facilities where they off-load their oil-water mixture, an approach Koops calls "crazy."

The Americans, overwhelmed by the catastrophic consequences of the BP spill, finally relented and took the Dutch up on their offer -- but only partly. Because the U.S. didn't want Dutch ships working the Gulf, the U.S. airlifted the Dutch equipment to the Gulf and then retrofitted it to U.S. vessels. And rather than have experienced Dutch crews immediately operate the oil-skimming equipment, to appease labour unions the U.S. postponed the clean-up operation to allow U.S. crews to be trained.

A catastrophe that could have been averted is now playing out. With oil increasingly reaching the Gulf coast, the emergency construction of sand berns to minimize the damage is imperative. Again, the U.S. government priority is on U.S. jobs, with the Dutch asked to train American workers rather than to build the berns. According to Floris Van Hovell, a spokesman for the Dutch embassy in Washington, Dutch dredging ships could complete the berms in Louisiana twice as fast as the U.S. companies awarded the work. "Given the fact that there is so much oil on a daily basis coming in, you do not have that much time to protect the marshlands," he says, perplexed that the U.S. government could be so focussed on side issues with the entire Gulf Coast hanging in the balance.

Then again, perhaps he should not be all that perplexed at the American tolerance for turning an accident into a catastrophe. When the Exxon Valdez oil tanker accident occurred off the coast of Alaska in 1989, a Dutch team with clean-up equipment flew in to Anchorage airport to offer their help. To their amazement, they were rebuffed and told to go home with their equipment. The Exxon Valdez became the biggest oil spill disaster in U.S. history--until the BP Gulf spill.

- Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers.

Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/Avertible+catastrophe/3203808/story.html#ixzz0tU6aW3MC
« Last Edit: 2010-07-12 15:17:20 by Fritz » Report to moderator   Logged

Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-

Gender: Female
Posts: 267
Reputation: 8.73
Rate letheomaniac

View Profile E-Mail
Re:Plug the hole, Daddy.
« Reply #27 on: 2010-07-13 13:32:06 »
Reply with quote

[letheomaniac] Worth a thousand words... Source

Report to moderator   Logged

"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Gender: Male
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.81
Rate Fritz

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Plug the hole, Daddy.
« Reply #28 on: 2010-07-13 14:38:39 »
Reply with quote

So who exactly is going to pay for this cock-up ?



Spill costs to cut BP tax bill by $10-billion

That will hit the revenues of Britain and the U.S., which receive hundreds of millions of dollars from the company each year

Source: The Globe and Mail
Author: Ed Crooks Energy Editor
Date: Tuesday, Jul. 13, 2010

BP is forecast to pay about $10-billion (£6.7-billion) less tax over the next four years as it meets the costs of its huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, hitting the revenues of Britain and the U.S. that receive hundreds of millions of dollars from the company each year.

The shortfall, representing a drop of more than a quarter in BP’s tax payments, is a particular concern for the British government attempting to cut the country’s budget deficit.

Of its principal expected liabilities, only the fines that might be imposed by the U.S. authorities would definitely not be tax-deductible.

BP on Monday reiterated the possibility that by the end of the week its leaking Macondo well could be shut off, or all the oil could be captured, using the new cap now being fitted to the well head. The suggestion sent BP’s shares surging, closing 9.11 per cent higher in London, but the company still faces huge and uncertain liabilities, estimated by analysts at about $50-billion.

BP said it had installed the 40-ton containment device on the sea floor a mile beneath the ocean surface at 7 p.m. local time Monday and “the stack completes the installation of the new sealing cap.’’

Shares in BP rose 4 per cent to £4.14 in early London trading on Tuesday, adding to the 9-per-cent gain registered in the previous session, but the company still faces huge and uncertain liabilities, estimated by analysts at about $50-billion.

If BP manages to seal the leaking well as planned by August, analysts have estimated that its total spending in the Gulf region could be about $30-billion. That would represent about $10bn of clean-up costs and $20-billion compensation for losses suffered by fishing, tourist and other industries, covered by the fund agreed with the U.S. administration last month.

With a tax rate on profits of 33 per cent in a typical year, that would cut BP’s tax bill by about $10-billion.

BP paid $8.4-billion in worldwide tax on profit last year, down from $12.6-billion in 2008 because of the fall in oil and gas prices.

Of that 2009 payment, £930-million went to the British government: about as much as is paid by the U.K.’s entire transport and communications industries.

The company does not give a full geographic breakdown of its taxes, but its payments to the U.S. are likely to have been of a similar size.

Irene Himona, an analyst at Exane BNP Paribas, estimated that before the Deepwater Horizon accident, BP was set to pay about $37.5-billion in tax during 2010-13, but the costs of the disaster would cut that to $27-billion.

Doug Suttles, BP’s chief operating officer for exploration and production, said on Monday that the company’s “confidence is growing” in the new cap, which is expected to allow all the oil from the leaking well to be captured.

He added that the relief wells drilled to allow the Macondo well to be sealed would be effective at the “very end of this month” at the earliest. 
Report to moderator   Logged

Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-

Gender: Female
Posts: 267
Reputation: 8.73
Rate letheomaniac

View Profile E-Mail
Re:Plug the hole, Daddy.
« Reply #29 on: 2010-07-13 16:29:36 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] A meme war is raging. BP is reported to be spending a fortune buying up Google hits and there is a competition to redesign the BP logo. There's gold in them thar bumper stickers...
[letheomaniac] Here's a good one...
Report to moderator   Logged

"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed