The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Current Events
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-15-2010, 11:15 PM   #1
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
But that expansion coming out of the pipe is legitimate, the stuff isn't going to get smaller in volume again, so what they observe in the video is real volume. I think these guys are probably right.

Quote:
But I'm more convinced than ever that BP is deliberately obscuring all information about the whole damn thing.
What makes you think they know? BP is a big operation, but much of what they do is contracted out, and those contractors aren't going to tell BP any more than they have to. They're all covering there asses too.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2010, 12:46 AM   #2
gvidas
Hoodoo Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
What makes you think they know? BP is a big operation, but much of what they do is contracted out, and those contractors aren't going to tell BP any more than they have to. They're all covering there asses too.
Yeah, maybe more than anything what strikes me is the reluctance to admit what they don't know. I accept that this is pretty deeply entrenched in (corporate) culture. But they're throwing up a lot of weird delays that don't make sense in today's media world: after the first containment dome failed, they took a 48-hour breather to decide what to do next.

By way of comparison, the Times Square Car Bomb fiasco resulted in an arrest in 53 hours. It's not that a lot of important auxiliary work wasn't being done: they've cleared a bunch of wreckage, and at 5,000' it makes sense if things move a little slower.

But, in terms of the 'body language' of a PR campaign, these few weeks of BP trying to manage the fallout has felt very crude and blatant. The assessment which rings most true to me is that they are making a bunch of distracting noise while doing the only thing that has an established shot at working: digging relief wells to plug the whole thing.

I think overall, that's where my interest lies: the specifics of how much is spilling, when will it stop, how much will it affect things, etc-- all that is pretty much whatever it will be. I don't eat seafood, I don't live anywhere near the gulf coast. But how we perceive information intrigues me, and, particularly, the changing face of what it means to 'be transparent' or to share information. I think delaying things, releasing limited information (a few 60 second clips from their ROVs? why not a few hours, crowdsource that shit; etc) does BP a PR disservice. But they might have gotten away with it 5 years ago. That's an interesting change to me.

And, at the same time, there seems to me to be a (bipartisan) trend towards moral outrage coming to outweigh logical, direct interpretations of law: tea partiers and ecoterrorists have similar trajectories, in a way. So it's social and cultural consequences, maybe, that I'm after. After the Exxon Valdez adventure, the initial punitive damages were set at one years' profit. That didn't stick, but it raises the question: what sort of ecological disaster is significant enough to put a multinational corporation on the scale of BP or Exxon out of business? How do you begin to draw that line?
gvidas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2010, 06:56 AM   #3
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvidas View Post
And, at the same time, there seems to me to be a (bipartisan) trend towards moral outrage coming to outweigh logical, direct interpretations of law:
Political posturing in an effort to gain favor for the next election.

Quote:
tea partiers and ecoterrorists have similar trajectories, in a way.
Not even close, apples and oranges.

Quote:
So it's social and cultural consequences, maybe, that I'm after. After the Exxon Valdez adventure, the initial punitive damages were set at one years' profit. That didn't stick, but it raises the question: what sort of ecological disaster is significant enough to put a multinational corporation on the scale of BP or Exxon out of business? How do you begin to draw that line?
You can't and will not be able to put a large multi-national out of business. If it is destruction of the company you are after it is not going to happen, the best you could hope for is that it would be swallowed up, in business terms, by another company, and business would go on as usual. But is that the goal? Is that the end we want? No. I don't think so.
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2010, 08:20 AM   #4
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
I noticed a lot of the pictures on various websites, of every political stripe, are watermarked Greenpeace.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:45 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.