Skip to main content

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/P...pwater-Horizon-probe

McConnell says it might not be fair to the oil industry! How about what's fair to AMERICANS?! Who is he trying to protect, Cheney? Or is it just another effort to make Obama look bad? After all, he admitted his number one priority was to see Obama defeated in 2012. It's going to backfire on him though. He is making the Republican party look bad!

Co-winner of the "Likable Liberal" award who asks, "Can't we all get along?"

1 Corinthians 1:18-24 (CEV)
18 The message about the cross doesn't make any sense to lost people. But for those of us who are being saved, it is God's power at work.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Wow. Two hours and forty views later, and not one response. Guess there really isn't much anyone can say to defend this ultimate example of obstructionism.

What a pleasant two hours that must have been O No! Two blissful hours with no misinformation, half truths, talking points from Fox or just plain old bashing from any of the right wing! Maybe we can now start intelligent conversations on this forum, NAH, b50m is CONSTANTLY on here, she must be at a John Birch society meeting with ferrellj or they are planning their tea party palooza 2010.
Last two paragraphs:

quote:
But given criticism of the Obama White House for making deals with BP and allowing BP agents in the Gulf free rein in the spill's aftermath, many Democrats may be worried about where blame would ultimately fall if the commission were to have subpeona power.

"It's possible that the commissioners are trying to objectively do what's right, and they're being stymied by people who don't want them to do what's correct," says Vincenzo Sainato, a criminal justice professor and government accountability expert, also at Loyola. "Maybe [lack of subpoena power] isn't about protecting the BPs and Halliburtons. Maybe it's about protecting [ineffectual government]."

Dems true colors too?
No B, it's the Republicans who are trying to block the subpoenas. If they thought Obama would get the blame they would be all for them. But they know on which side their bread is buttered.
"Republicans in the Senate, in a move engineered by minority leader Mitch McConnell, have blocked subpoena power on fears that the that the Democratic-leaning commission would be unfair to oil-and-gas interests."
Even without subpoenas, the investigation is going forward.


Gulf spill panel: No evidence BP, firms cut corners to save money
By Darren Goode - 11/08/10 11:02 AM ET

The chief investigator of the bipartisan White House commission looking into the causes of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill said there is no evidence to suggest that BP, Transocean or Halliburton cut corners on safety to save money.

“To date we have not found a single instance where human beings made a conscious decision to favor dollars over safety," Fred Bartlit, chief counsel of the commission, said during a presentation at the opening of a two-day hearing.
Thats sad. At least saving money is an understandable excuse for using non-conforming cement. What was the reason for not addressing the failure of the cement


quote:
William Reilly — the co-chairman of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offhsore Drilling — spoke a day after a marathon panel hearing delved into what caused the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig.

“Whatever else we learned and saw yesterday, it was emphatically not a culture of safety on that rig,” Reilly said Tuesday at the outset of the second day of the panel’s two-day hearing.

He said the commission probe has revealed a “ghastly” story of “one bad call after another,” including the decision to proceed after failed cement tests, well pressure tests that were mistakenly judged a success and others. Experts questioned BP's use of a single plug in the process. Charlie Williams, a chief scientist with Shell Energy Resources, said his company used a minimum of three plugs in its deepwater wells.

Reilly described the narrative, developed by Bartlit in a courtroom style that drew on sophisticated graphics and questioning of executives from the three companies, as "ghastly".

Bartlit said he found no concrete evidence that any of those mistakes were motivated by cost – a conclusion that drew angry criticism from Democrats in Congress. But he also noted that time and money were always factors because of the huge costs associated with offshore drilling. "Any time you are talking about $1.5m [£935,000] a day, money enters into it."

Panel members also said that BP was hurried and made confusing, last-minute changes to plans that were unusual in the complex environment of deep-water drilling. They said BP could have operated more safely if it had taken the time to get the necessary equipment and materials.

"We are aware of what appeared to be a rush to completion," Reilly said. What is unclear, he added, was what drove people to determine that they could not wait for equipment and materials to perform operations more safely.
Once again, pulling out selected sentences can put an entirely different spin on a story, Read the complete article below: You really need to quit doing this b50m or quit posting period because you are not going to get away with it as long as I have an internet connection.


Gulf spill panel: No evidence BP, firms cut corners to save money
By Darren Goode - 11/08/10 11:02 AM ET

The chief investigator of the bipartisan White House commission looking into the causes of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill said there is no evidence to suggest that BP, Transocean or Halliburton cut corners on safety to save money.

“To date we have not found a single instance where human beings made a conscious decision to favor dollars over safety," Fred Bartlit, chief counsel of the commission, said during a presentation at the opening of a two-day hearing.



The panel — known as the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling — has not found an instance where "a man had a choice between safety and dollar and put his money on dollars,” he said. “We haven't seen it."

Bartlit began a lengthy step-by-step digital presentation on the realities of deepwater drilling and the events leading up to the deadly April 20 blowout of the BP Macondo well that killed 11 rig workers and gushed 185 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. It is the only public presentation of his team's tentative findings into the cause of the accident, which has so far concentrated mainly on the well cementing job by Halliburton.


Bartlit has tentatively found that Halliburton — BP’s contractor for that work — and BP knew weeks ahead of the fatal explosion of the well that cement being used to seal it was faulty but "neither acted upon it," according to an Oct. 28 letter he sent commission members.

Halliburton has pushed back against many of the conclusions in that letter. Officials from the company, along with BP and rig-owner Transocean, will appear before the commission later Monday.

The witnesses are not testifying under oath at this fourth and final meeting of the commission before it is expected to deliver its findings Jan. 11. The House approved giving the commission subpoena authority, but the Senate did not act.

“To those senators that blocked this commission from receiving subpoena power, let me just say, I hope that are you pleasantly surprised … and not disappointed,” William Reilly, commission co-chair and former EPA administrator under the George H.W. Bush administration, said at the start of Monday's meeting.

Bartlit and the other investigators have not said what may have happened to the well’s blowout preventer — the last defense against a well rupturing.

An independent Norwegian foundation was contracted by a federal Joint Investigation Team from the Interior and Homeland Security departments to undertake a forensic examination of the failed blowout preventer.

“It would be very premature for us to speculate when in some reasonable period of time we will know what happened,” Bartlit said.

Spill commission co-chair Bob Graham promised at the start of Monday's meeting that Bartlit and other leading investigators would provide “the clearest presentation the American people have received to date” on the events leading up to the rig explosion.

“We are not looking for scapegoats,” Graham said. “But we do believe we have an obligation to uncover all relevant facts.”

Catch the part where it says a man, as in one individual, but does not release Halliburton from negligence. Also catch the statement of William Reilly, former Bush EPA administrator. Bartlit, Graham, Reilly this has republican cover up written all over it. After all it was Mitch McConnell and company along with bluedogs which blocked subpeona power to the committee. Now it appears this committee will put out whatever fits their set of "facts". Since this is qouted from The Hill, I checked and indeed it did come from a blog, but Darren Goode appears to be a guest journalist for other publications including the National Journal.
Last edited by rocky
I remember reading that the survivors were forced to sign papers forbidding them to speak to anyone about what happened, right after they were rescued, before they even got medical care. SOMEONE is trying to hide something, and only with subpoenas will these men be allowed to talk.

I know, I need to cite references. I'll google it and be right back...
quote:
Originally posted by CageTheElephant:
quote:
Sez ONO:
Wow. Two hours and forty views later, and not one response. Guess there really isn't much anyone can say to defend this ultimate example of obstructionism.


Wow 5 hours and 30 minutes later...and not a single Lib shows up in the "New York Times Begs Pelosi NOT to Run"...which IS a proven fact.


That is obviously an unproven fact. The minority leader is irrelevant as 99% of Americans could not name the current Rep minority leader if Rushs next Lorcet script depended on it.
quote:
Originally posted by CageTheElephant:
quote:
That is obviously an unproven fact. The minority leader is irrelevant as 99% of Americans could not name the current Rep minority leader if Rushs next Lorcet script depended on it.


I have no idea of what you just tried to say...but then that's pretty common to your posts. Cool


The ReppubTeaCons are more concerned with who the minority leader is than actually doing anything. They have already backed off their campaign promise to end earmarks, and cutting the budget will consist of merely not increasing spending over current levels, ie no cuts.

The idea that electing Reps was going to get different results than it did in 1994 or any other cycle is insane. That is some bitter Tea.
quote:
Sez O No:
Because here is the REAL editorial the Times printed, without the blogger's spin. The Times would like to see the Dems "toughen up".



Psst...O NO, c'mere...(the link to the editorial you posted is at....SURPRISE!!!!!!!!!! the bottom of the NYC post)

Toughen up? No, the Times would like to help keep the Dems from getting their ass handed to them again. Big Grin
I even copied the "qoute" link in the original post which appeared at the bottom of the page in my last response over on the original topic site. Then this response appears from Cage about a link to the actual editorial at the bottom of the page. How strange?? BOTH you and I must have really bad vision O NO!
Last edited by rocky

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×