"The economic impact for this event will be incredible, and felt for decades to come."

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, May 16th, 2010 11:36pm PDT - promote requested by notarobot.

"Learn from the mistakes"
Ya right! They've never taken the time to learn from any other spill!
It's the cost of doing business from the Big oil companies. The companies that put their own laws in place so they don't have to answer to anyone. They are the ones with the money, the ones with the power, the ones who control everything we do. They have made it a monopoly that wen need to rely on, right down to the cars we drive. we don't need gas powered cars, but they ensure that we don't have a choice. Major wars are fought and people are slaughtered, all for the manipulation of this resource.

If they don't care about the lives dying over wars due to oil control, why would they care about the water and marine life. Their only concern is how can they make a buck off this and continue to control a resource that isn't theirs.

This is an embarrassment for them at best!

[redacted]

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rocketboom, oil slick, flyover, plain, nature, BP, Halliburton, spill' to 'rocketboom, deepwater horizon, oil slick, flyover, plain, nature, BP, Halliburton, spill' - edited by kronosposeidon

*eco

Adding video to channels (Eco) - requested by kronosposeidon.

it was not a small random chance.
thats what BP would LOVE for you to view this disaster but in reality it was negligence and greed.
40 billion in profits last year and BP tried to save 500k.fuck BP in the ass with a razor blade dildo.
the reason why you have not seen this type of disaster in other developed countries is due to the fact they impose incredibly strict safety measures with hefty fines attached if not adhered to.
thanks to haliburton and its influence in american legislature no such requirements here in the states.

exxons valdez was tragic but that was an tanker and with that comes risk.THIS could have been avoided from the beginning all the way to a few days prior.
so while i would tend to agree with your assertion "accidents happen" not in this case..NOT ONE BIT..this could have and SHOULD have been avoided but..profit above all else right??
now you watch as BP will use its political might to squirm out of this disaster which will be felt for the next twenty years.
whole communities wiped out.eco-systems destroyed to a point they may never recover.
accidents happen right? what would you say if you understood this could have been avoided?
would you still be so flip?
because i know if i run into a BP executive i am kicking him in the balls.

[redacted]

Actually, I can't imagine they make enough volume of this component to do any statistically significant testing.

And BP is absolutely responsible for this disaster, good intentions or no. The final manufacturer or project owner has to take responsibility to ensure the quality of the components, parts, and modules that he buys. Especially since the risks are so high. The fact that they didn't put this fail safe on their rig looks very much like a financially driven decision.

But even if they did everything they could, it's still their fault. BP, and other oil companies, choose to gamble not only with their investors, but with our planet. And that is not hyperbole, as we now see. All of BP's money will not fix this disaster. They owe humanity a huge debt.

Also, I am sure that this has happened before with BP or others in the same business; I hope some journo is digging for other occurrences so we know the full score.

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^enoch:
it was not a small random chance.
thats what BP would LOVE for you to view this disaster but in reality it was negligence and greed.
40 billion in profits last year and BP tried to save 500k.fuck BP in the ass with a razor blade dildo.
the reason why you have not seen this type of disaster in other developed countries is due to the fact they impose incredibly strict safety measures with hefty fines attached if not adhered to.
thanks to haliburton and its influence in american legislature no such requirements here in the states.
exxons valdez was tragic but that was an tanker and with that comes risk.THIS could have been avoided from the beginning all the way to a few days prior.
so while i would tend to agree with your assertion "accidents happen" not in this case..NOT ONE BIT..this could have and SHOULD have been avoided but..profit above all else right??
now you watch as BP will use its political might to squirm out of this disaster which will be felt for the next twenty years.
whole communities wiped out.eco-systems destroyed to a point they may never recover.
accidents happen right? what would you say if you understood this could have been avoided?
would you still be so flip?
because i know if i run into a BP executive i am kicking him in the balls.

You seem pretty confident. Prove it wasn't a small chance. Prove they don't go through an abundance of safety regulations. It's easy to hop on the hate boat when something bad happens, but do you really think that these companies are that stupid? Yes, they'll get a slightly larger profit if they cut some corners, but they weigh that against something like this happening and just reinforce standards. Crews go through extensive safety training. The equipment used out there is tested before deployment. To think otherwise is ignorant. It pisses me off even more than you seem to place all of the blame on BP. I'll say it once and I'll say it again: BP didn't manufacture that blow-out preventor. We don't know all of the details yet, but do you really think they would purposely put a faulty preventor out in a deep-ocean well?

Also, my rebuttal for it NOT being small, random chance. Basic statistics. The company that produced the BOP in question probably ran simple random samples on their final products. A sample taken from a large batch of BOP probably tested fine, even though this one, and possible many others, was able to get through their testing, due to small, and random chance.

[redacted]

proof?
ok..lets use the same anecdotal evidence you used from the very SAME interview.
http://videosift.com/video/60-Minutes-Deepwater-Horizon-s-Blowout-Part-1
part 2.
http://videosift.com/video/60-Minutes-Deepwater-Horizon-s-Blowout-Part-2
notice anything that may ADD to what you posted?
would you like me to post the senate hearings from c-span while those companies involved all try to pass the buck?
would you like me to also post the comparisons of regulations comparing the countries in the north atlantic with the USA?
or the fines over the past ten years levied against haliburton for similar malfeasance?
would you like me to spoon feed this to you?


listen man.
you want to believe this was all just a small random quirky accident that nothing or nobody could have stopped..well,that is your choice.
but dont come to the table with that flimsy flaccid thing you call an argument,because it is small,wimpy and weak.
the next time you want to spout off do a bit of leg work so you dont get tagged in the nose.
you have a right to your opinion but not to your own facts.
and the fact is:BP used political influence to avoid having to keep safety standards by having regulations thrown out the window.the result of this was 11 dead and whole communities and eco-systems wasted.
so you call this a random freak accident.
well..sure.you are correct..
BUT if BP had been forced to be inspected every month and haliburton had to keep strict production values.
FOUR failsafes would have never failed.
at least not all of them at the same time.
and then...using your anecdotal premise...look at how the BP manager dealt with the destroyed rubber.
so you are right about the freakishness of the events but EACH one was due to malfeasance on BP's part.
why?
greed and profit.

[redacted]

ok mcboinkens.
there is just too much ground for me to cover to get you up to speed on this.
when i called your argument weak,i was simply making a statement not attempting to judge you wholesale,just the argument you presented.

it is also obvious to me you didnt watch the entire interview, because if you did... you would heard the rest of the story on the systematic breakdown based on BP managements decisions.
which brings me to another observation:
you use anecdotal evidence to present your premise but when the very same anecdotal evidence is presented you dismiss it arbitrarily because it conflicts with your stance.
that is hypocrisy.

my friend,
if you knew what a SSDG actually was and what it does on an ocean rig or ship,you would have never stated your suspicion about the lights "getting brighter".
so you quote the tech to promote your premise and then turn around and doubt him (based on your own lack of understanding) because the rest of his interview conflicts with your understanding.
you asked for proof and i gave it.i even did so in the form you first presented.
i do not understand how i have followed the rules you set out and yet you still look the other way.
based on nothing more than your own stubbornness to not be wrong?
what could possibly be your thought processes?
did you view my argument with you as a personal attack?
i do not know you..to attack you personally would be disingenuine.
your argument was flawed,based on weak assumptions..i revealed these flaws...thats all.
i would hope you would do the same to me if my argument is so riddled with illogical fallacies.
if my response offended you then i humbly apologize.
it was not my intent to hurt your feelings but only to expose the flaw in your logic.

that being said i do not engage with those who refuse to explore the fact that they may be wrong.