Why are the Americans and media blaming BP for oil spill?

[cressida]

I dont drive for a living. Americans drive great distances for pleasure as much as for a living. If I want to take a trip to Colorado or New Mexico or up north to Oregon, Washington or British Columbia them it's necessary to get the daily mileage in or just spend the whole time dawdling along.

 

Last summer we drove up to British Columbia (1300 miles from my home) I made it in 2-1/2 days with a two night stop over.

 

MY brother in law used to drive from Los Angeles to Montreal Canada in 3 days (about 3000 miles) That I could never do

 

Long distance truck drivers do cross country trips on a regular basis. Time is money to them

 

You must really like driving then as I would go by plane

[Harleyman]

You must really like driving then as I would go by plane

 

I dont mind it one way or the other. Planes only take you from one major city to another whilst having a car allows you to stop off at places of interest in more remote areas

[cressida]

I dont mind it one way or the other. Planes only take you from one major city to another whilst having a car allows you to stop off at places of interest in more remote areas

 

 

It sure must be fun travelling with you

[Harleyman]

I think it stands for 'Apiarian Urine' - The company didn't want to use 'Au' because people might've thought they were over-charging for their product.

 

If 'BP' is going to be known as 'British Petroleum' will AOL be happy to be called 'America On Line'? (They get really upset if you call them that ) And should Exxon be referred to once again as 'The Humble Oil & Refining Company'?

 

Given that one of the constituent parts of BP is a company called 'Amoco' (The American Oil Company) and given that the oil spill occurred in the American Part of BP (Amoco?) is the oil spill the fault of British Petroleum or the American Oil Company? Or neither?

 

Perhaps Mr Obama is trying to shift attention away from his (apparently) very slow reaction to the problem onto somebody else.

 

'Big Oil' doesn't have a very good reputation in Louisiana. - I understand that 'Mr Go' (a channel which caused much of the problem in 2005 during Hurricane Katrina) was built largely to help 'Big Oil'. There has been considerable criticism voiced by many people on the gulf coast about the lack of control over the Oil Industry by both the Federal and the State governments, and presumably Mr Obama doesn't want any of the sh*t which is flying around to stick to him.

 

The spill is a huge disaster. It's going to cost 'Big Oil' (In this case, Amoco ) a lot of money, it's going to cost the states with coastlines on the gulf a lot of money, it's going to cause massive damage to the environment and it's going to cost a lot of people - including those who work in tourism, those who fish for a living and those who work in the oil industry - a lot of money and possibly their livelihoods.

 

Not all of the job losses will be caused by the accident itself. Mr Obama's reaction has been to impose a 6-month moratorium on offshore drilling. That will put a lot of Coon-Asses out of work.

 

An accident is an accident and accidents do sometimes happen, but could it have been prevented had the Federal Government done its job properly? (A question which perhaps Mr Obama wouldn't like to hear asked too loudly.)

 

According to Bobby Jindal (the Governor of LA): "People in Louisiana shouldn't have to lose their jobs because federal officials failed to properly regulate the oil-and-gas industry..."

 

Perhaps Mr Obama thinks that if he can shift the blame onto the Brits, less will come his way.

 

Ther is estimated to be about 4000 oil rigs in the Gulf and have been for a considerable amount of time. If government regulation has been so lax as many are saying then this kind of catastrophe would have already happened a long time ago and to some other big oil company

[Suffragette1]

I dont drive for a living. Americans drive great distances for pleasure as much as for a living. If I want to take a trip to Colorado or New Mexico or up north to Oregon, Washington or British Columbia them it's necessary to get the daily mileage in or just spend the whole time dawdling along.

 

Last summer we drove up to British Columbia (1300 miles from my home) I made it in 2-1/2 days with a two night stop over.

 

MY brother in law used to drive from Los Angeles to Montreal Canada in 3 days (about 3000 miles) That I could never do

 

Long distance truck drivers do cross country trips on a regular basis. Time is money to them

I don't blame you, if I had the time and money, I'd like to do a road trip all around the States. It's a beautiful country, has a tremendously varied landscape, the roads are a dream to drive on compared to the UK, everywhere that I have visited has been friendly and hospitable and the service is excellent. I have had some fab holidays in the States.

[JFKvsNixon]

Ther is estimated to be about 4000 oil rigs in the Gulf and have been for a considerable amount of time. If government regulation has been so lax as many are saying then this kind of catastrophe would have already happened a long time ago and to some other big oil company

 

The point is, some are speculating that one of the contributory factors for the accident was the lack of a piece of equipment, that the regulators of other countries insist oil companies must use.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Ther is estimated to be about 4000 oil rigs in the Gulf and have been for a considerable amount of time. If government regulation has been so lax as many are saying then this kind of catastrophe would have already happened a long time ago and to some other big oil company

 

Not so. The chance of failure might well have been higher, but that does not mean that a failure was inevitable in any given time period.

 

The point is, some are speculating that one of the contributory factors for the accident was the lack of a piece of equipment, that the regulators of other countries insist oil companies must use.

 

Should it be determined that the lack of that particular piece of equipment contributed directly to the accident, or that after the accident the lack of the item made solving the problem significantly more difficult, then the US Federal govt (read Obama) will indeed get the blame. - That's hardly fair; the complaints and grumbles about lack of adequate regulation have been going on since well before Obama stood for election, but he is the boss and the buck has to stop somewhere.

 

It's been argued that although the financial sector caused the recent global financial problems, the governments (and particularly the US government) are also culpable because they failed to regulate, monitor and control the industry.

 

That argument may well be adapted to apportion blame for the oil spill. I don't suppose Mr Obama would be too happy if he turned out to be a one-term president because of a problem which occurred and was allowed to continue during the terms of office of many of his predecessors.

[JFKvsNixon]

Not so. The chance of failure might well have been higher, but that does not mean that a failure was inevitable in any given time period.

 

 

 

Should it be determined that the lack of that particular piece of equipment contributed directly to the accident, or that after the accident the lack of the item made solving the problem significantly more difficult, then the US Federal govt (read Obama) will indeed get the blame. - That's hardly fair; the complaints and grumbles about lack of adequate regulation have been going on since well before Obama stood for election, but he is the boss and the buck has to stop somewhere.

 

It's been argued that although the financial sector caused the recent global financial problems, the governments (and particularly the US government) are also culpable because they failed to regulate, monitor and control the industry.

 

That argument may well be adapted to apportion blame for the oil spill. I don't suppose Mr Obama would be too happy if he turned out to be a one-term president because of a problem which occurred and was allowed to continue during the terms of office of many of his predecessors.

 

That's a very interesting way to look at it. The credit crunch and the oil leaks were both accidents waiting to happen because of a lack of regulation.

[Harleyman]

Not so. The chance of failure might well have been higher, but that does not mean that a failure was inevitable in any given time period.

 

 

 

Should it be determined that the lack of that particular piece of equipment contributed directly to the accident, or that after the accident the lack of the item made solving the problem significantly more difficult, then the US Federal govt (read Obama) will indeed get the blame. - That's hardly fair; the complaints and grumbles about lack of adequate regulation have been going on since well before Obama stood for election, but he is the boss and the buck has to stop somewhere.

 

It's been argued that although the financial sector caused the recent global financial problems, the governments (and particularly the US government) are also culpable because they failed to regulate, monitor and control the industry.

 

That argument may well be adapted to apportion blame for the oil spill. I don't suppose Mr Obama would be too happy if he turned out to be a one-term president because of a problem which occurred and was allowed to continue during the terms of office of many of his predecessors.

 

Your letting Tony Hayward and the rest of the BP management off pretty lightly it seems.

 

Was their only responsibility to manage the revenue from the oil well?

[Wildcat]

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/foreign-policy/anger-over-obama-s-anti-british-comments-$21379599.htm

 

Hmmm you never struck me before as someone that would give much credence to the opinion of Lord Tebbit or Boris Johnson. My immediate reaction to anything either of them say is that whatever it is they are saying is likely to be nonsense.