March 13, 2001, 3 BP workers killed in Georgia when thermal decomposition vessel violently exploded. They burned to death.
People should not forget what BP calls an innocent "incident."
We thought BP learned it's lesson before Macondo, but it didn't.
Please help make sure BP learned its lesson so no future deaths occur.
Thank you, and have a great week-end!
Yesterday Judge Barbier denied BP's motion to halt settlement payments so certain "safeguards" can be implemented in the process.
Not very significant, as no one really believed this Motion had a chance, nor do I think BP is likely win on appeal with this one.
Just keeping the board advised as to the legal process in the consolidated case.
Will you do me, and the struggling population of gray wolves in this country, a huge favor, and sign the petition by Rep. Peter DeFazio to strengthen protection of this endangered species?
Business interests don't mind seeing the gray wolf go extinct, but it would be a crying shame if we lost this magnificent creature. I can't post the link here, but you can just google the subject to sign it.
I posted this public in case others might join the drive.
Thanks to all.
It's clear to me that audiomr is the smartest person in the room, at least on this issue. I will never be as articulate of informed on the issue as audiomr, but it is helpful to read the insight and know what is actually probably going on!
I wonder what audiomr thinks appropriate responses to climate change is - economic, etc.
No one wants to limit economic growth, but we also shouldn't turn a blind eye.
No, unsupported claims and insults are denounced. I notice your response contains nothing factual or supported by science.
This issue is scientific, not political, moral, economic or part of a juvenile comic book fantasy view of the world. Sorry, but that's the truth.
If you want to participate meaningfully in a conversation, I suggest you address the actual issue.
I consider this matter closed.
If global warming is eco#$%$, more than half the world is eco#$%$. Perhaps you're the outlier and your perspective is skewed.
Your comparison of GW to peak oil is laughable. Peak oil was predicted first by oil companies and had nothing to do with ecology. Technology has delayed peak oil, not failure of ideology.
Why don't you take your nonsense somewhere that it would be a better fit - like a church revival in backwoods Alabama.
I trust this clarifies this matter.
Thanks, Steve, but I can handle myself from here. You've irked him enough to make him dust off all the sockpuppets today. I can take it from here ;)
herjrr, Ok, I re-read and think I understand your point. It's interesting in the sense that I suppose you're correct, we really don't know the cause and effect of prior increases in temps + CO2. I mean, I'm assuming the data doesn't show one occurring before the other, right? So we have just assumed the CO2 caused the warming.
But the thing is, the warming that has occurred now has coincided with an increase in CO2. I think, even without the historical date, scientists would still point to CO2 (and methane) as responsible for the warming. So, this makes people believe CO2 caused warming in the past.
At the end of the day, you still have to explain global temp increases, and CO2 seems the obvious choice, right? Well, maybe "obvious" is a little strong if you want to be accurate like a scientist.
That's a little bit like asking "does high cholesterol cause heart disease, or does heart disease cause high cholesterol?"
What dooms your argument is the fact that we know where the increased CO2 comes from - fossil fuel consumption. It's like very obvious, in fact.
I've known it ever since the "BP - Beyond Petroleum" marketing nonsense.
Maybe it should be "BP - Beyond Pensions" to be more accurate!
Good luck to you and yours!
Thanks, Steve (or is it Steven??). See how nasty and foul he is? Believe me, you are doing many women, past, present and future a favor by deterring his criminal stalking behavior. I knew a gentleman who was going to report his to the authorities so nadsmis attacked him with abusive, racist posts. You can read those too, if you look them up.
Let's take this convo offline. ;)
"So why does that claimant deserve to be paid??"
That's the problem, if you start asking why an individual claim "deserves" to get paid, you start thrawting the language of the settlement. BP's class action counsel stated at the time the agreement was approved that there would be "false positives." In the words of Clint Eastwood, deserve's got nothing to do with it.
I could just as easily turn that around on BP. BP only has to pay business losses for 2010. What if a business had losses in 2011, 2012, etc., or went out of business from the spill. Doesn't it deserve more compensation?
At the end of the day, it's a contract, and one BP was aware could lead to "false positives."
The only conceivable basis to invalidate it, in my opinion, would have to be the argument the class members lack standing and the entire agreement is invalid under Rule whatever-it-is.
And it would be nice if a gentleman came to my defense against that a**hole nadsmis who is stalking me because I don't "do" fat white lardazz boyz.
Read the opinion. The majority pointed out that when BP crafted the agreement, it decided to include a requirement that claimants sign an affidavit that the losses were related to the spill. The agreement further provides that if BP, as a result of its own investigation, later determines that the losses were not related to the spill, it can come back and reverse the payment. The claims administrator had nothing to do with this process.
So BP can investigate all the claims it wants and get its money back. It is choosing not to do that, but rather to try to invalidate the entire agreement. The Court rejected that as complete BS.
After reading the opinion and learning of this fact, I'm more persuaded than ever as to how low BP's position is, and how disingenuous a Company it is.
Unfortunately, the small guy can't respond with full page ads refuting BP's nonsense. But at least we're getting the word out so the public will learn the truth.
Very nice answers. FYI, the path to my heart goes through the BP corporate criminal trial and story. I suggest you review posts on that board, and do your own research on their ecocide. If you agree with me on that - and I know you will - your rewards will exceed your wildest dreams.
Now get busy little man. I want to see you chime in with your thoughts on that forum (that should agree with mine). Some thumbs up would be good too.
This is a pretty significant loss for BP, imo. The BEL payments will now resume. BP can appeal to the full circuit or the Supreme Court, but that's no guarantee.
BP lost 2-1 in this case. The 1 dissenter who agreed with BP - Judge Judith Brown Clement - chairs a pro-Big Oil panel in her off time. An ethics group complained that she should recuse herself, but she didn't.
Even with the pro-Big Oil judge, BP still lost.
I think business economic loss claims will be fully paid now. This goes straight to the bottom line. Bad news for BP.
Please take this test:
1. Do you believe in global warming?
2. Do you believe a woman has domain over her body and freedom of choice?
3. Do you believe corporate criminals who destroy ecosystems must be held accountable to pay all their damages?
If you answer correctly, we might have some things to talk about.
Sorry, contrary to what might have been written about me, I don't go around sending pictures of myself to strangers. Nice try though...