And , there is an oil leak due to an accident , which BP is trying to solve.

So what this is protest about , are they claiming BP deliberately caused the oil leak are they claiming that BP is not trying to solve the oil leak , or is the reality that they don?t like oil extraction of any sort and their just using this accident to attack that process by jumping on a oil covered band wagon.

Remember oil leaks cost money, sometimes lots of money, and oil companies are evil capitalists, so our eco friends tell us, so why would they either cause one or not try and stop one?

@ bananachips

So what this is protest about , are they claiming BP deliberately caused the oil leak are they claiming that BP is not trying to solve the

oil leak

So that's what BP does is it? they go around finding other people's oil spills and then cleaning them up for them?

or is the reality that they don?t like oil extraction of any sort and their just using this accident to attack that process by jumping on a oil covered band wagon.

Well of course, who'd have thought that oil drilling could cause an oil slick? Greenpeace never saw that coming did they!

"Under Tony Hayward's leadership BP has taken huge risks to pump oil from ever more remote places, while slashing investment in the clean energy projects that could actually help reduce our dependence on oil and beat climate change."

Yes drilling for oil at huge depths and in remote locations is risky, but a lot of technology used for such ventures is designed in accordance with the best known data available from environmental and scientific institutions. If things go wrong the solution is also based on the self same criteria. If this data resource is incomplete or flawed is it right to blame BP alone when things go wrong and criticise them for taking huge risks in order to satisfy the growing demand for oil?

Clean energy products; there is no real evidence to suggest that BP are slashing investment in clean energy products. By comparison millions of pounds of taxpayers money allocated globally by organizations and governments is being wasted on half baked clean energy schemes that are at best useless. Giving Greenpeace the benefit of the doubt, it is quite conceivable that BP (if indeed they have cut back their investment) has simply decided to concentrate investment in research that is viable and not waste money.

There is little to be gained from staging protests like this except to grab the headlines for a day and self promotion. Instead of complaining about things why don't Greenpeace utilise their resources to help BP in clearing up the oil spill ...do something constructive for once!

Personally I don't have any issue with Greenpeace, in fact I have supported their causes on previous occasions...so it really gets my back up when occasionally they do something daft...it just slowly eradicates support for actual worthwhile causes!

Mobi - You might be interested to read this and any of the links that catch your attention, to get a sense of what responsibility BP might have for the current situation. It is still early days and there is to be a full inquiry, so I am not saying that these claims are true, simply that they might give you more of an idea of why people would be so angry with BP specifically.

Some of the issues:
? Was there pressure from BP to cut corners on safety in order to make more money?
? Did BP fail to install a US$500,000 piece of safety equipment that may have significantly reduced the multibillion dollar likely final cost of the blowout?
? Was BP hiding the full extent of the problem?

Remember, BP do not have a good safety record and have repeatedly been fined and their culture of irresponsibility condemned by investigations and by judges in multiple countries after a string of disasters. They are not alone in this amongst the oil industry, but they certainly do not have a good track record.

thesnufkin how BP deals with its own oil spills depends on the oil spill , how Shell deals with its own oil spills depends on the oil spill etc etc
There are companies that provide services in these situation and different countries have their own system , laws etc.

Why do you want BP to be deal with all oil spills and how do you expect BP to force these countries and companies to follow their approach?

EthicsEdinburgh perhaps you can tell me if oil leaks cost money, sometimes lots of money, and oil companies are evil capitalists, so our eco friends tell us, why would they either cause one or not try and stop one?

I'm looking forward to the day when BP - and other oil companies - hang their corporate banners from the Greenpeace HQ

@bananachips - Let me help you think this through honey. You asked the following question, not once but twice:

"...perhaps you can tell me if oil leaks cost money, sometimes lots of money, and oil companies are evil capitalists, so our eco friends tell us, why would they either cause one or not try and stop one?"

It's called "gambling" bananachips.

The corporations are banking that if they save half a million bucks on some part that according to their own statisticians predictions will "most likely" not be needed, that's a savings of a perfectly good half mill! They believe their own hype and do indeed cut costs by cutting corners. Yes, when it blows up in their face it's not only several hundred times more expensive but it also massively adversely affects humans, wildlife and the environment.

Unfortunately, they really don't care about the second bit, just the first bit, and are all too willing to gamble with lives and ecosystems because if they get away with it, and no-one dies, they just made even more money!

OK bananachips, are you clear now or did I do that too quickly for you?

@EthicsEdinburgh;

Thanks, but I am aware of those issues and fully comprehend why people are so angry.

The questions you noted may be considerations integral to ongoing investigations, any attempt to answer them would be speculative at best and no doubt counterproductive. I don't have the answers and I am fairly certain few do.

For the record; I have no connection to BP other than volunteering my engineering expertise to propose solutions that may help with containing the oil spill. At least I have tried to help...!

My earlier comments were in relation to the issue of Clathrate Hydrate, which scuppered the first attempt at containment and prolonged the leakage. I generalised on the issues as this is most certainly not the ideal forum for in-depth discussions on this phenomena.

Dianarama , so you don't think they care about the cost of clean up , well you could always try reading what the head of BP is telling the city , no sign of them not caring there. It cost a lot so of course they care.

But remember than only make money for what they get out and can use , anything else is costing not making money .

Oddly as yet no one knows what caused it , it could in the end be a simple miscalculation or manufacturing error , just an accident . The only way to be totally safe is not to do it at all , and if that had happened in the past none of us would be writing on here.

Which may be a good or bad thing, put perhaps we should be grateful that people did not do nothing if there was any risk in history?

nilreb so just how clever does calling people morons as your entire contribution make you?

Go GP UK!

A Metropolitan police spokesman said two protesters were thought to be on the balcony, with several others demonstrating outside the building.

Typical. The two climbers are obviously standing on the balcony wearing bright orange lids. Maybe the police should try looking skywards and they'd spot them.

mobi
20 May 2010, 12:26PM

Yes drilling for oil at huge depths and in remote locations is risky, but a lot of technology used for such ventures is designed in accordance with the best known data available from environmental and scientific institutions

Horse shit. BP took the risk, now they must pay.

is it right to blame BP alone when things go wrong and criticise them for taking huge risks in order to satisfy the growing demand for oil?

No, both Haliburton and Trans Ocean have also royally fucked this one up by paying lip service to safety regs. Plenty of balme to go round here.

Millions of pounds of taxpayers money allocated globally by organizations and governments is being wasted on half baked clean energy schemes that are at best useless.

At best useless? You call wind power useless? Man, what are you going to do when the oil runs out?

Instead of complaining about things why don't Greenpeace utilise their resources to help BP in clearing up the oil spill ...do something constructive for once!

GP USA have vollunteers helping to try to remove oil off of sea birds and turtles, but most are already dead when they hit the beach. The Greenpeace fleet consists of three ships, the Rainbow Warrior II, the Esperanza and the Actric Sunrise. What do you suggest these small ships do to address the approx. 50,000 barrels that are gushing out every day?

@Bluecloud

Millions of pounds of taxpayers money allocated globally by organizations and governments is being wasted on half baked clean energy schemes that are at best useless.

At best useless? You call wind power useless? Man, what are you going to do when the oil runs out?

Thank you very much for your insight and contributions, which I will take into consideration! You have obviously given your comments a great deal of thought and I appreciate you taking the time.

My comment though was in reference to the clean energy schemes that are not feasible nor adequately researched but for reason still attract substantial funding. There was no mention of any specific aspect of the industry, you merely assumed that.

I personally support the work of properly engineered solutions that are viable, but I do take exception to millions being wasted on the schemes that are not!

"Green" funding is much easier to obtain than other forms of investment and unfortunately there are unscrupulous companies that will take full advantage of that.

well you could always try reading what the head of BP is telling the city , no sign of them not caring there. It cost a lot so of course they care.

Bananachips, the head of BP has only tried to shift blame away from his own shoulders. He is obliged to divert company resources to attempt plugging the leak and to help in the clean-up, but he has claimed from the beginning that BP are not to blame. This is clearly nonsense.

Here's a link to a CBS 60 minutes feature on the deepwater horizon spill, http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6490348n

I think it's an interesting piece of investigative journalism which proves that there are serious questions about safety standards leading up to the blowout which BP must answer.

I applaud these protesters for their athleticism and their daring. BP has been involved in too many accidents. It is clear that their policies don't favour a safety-first approach. In fact, they seem callously willing to take regular financial hits on accidents, in return for the higher yields (and massive overall profits) that cutting corners can offer.

First quarter profits for 2010:
"BP said replacement cost net profit, which strips out unrealized gains related to rises in the value of inventories, was $5.60 billion in the quarter, up from $2.39 billion in the same period of 2009, thanks to higher oil and gas prices."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63Q0LP20100427

Thank god these people only have 1 MP (out of 650). Imagine a world where they actually had the power to run things.

Thank god these people only have 1 MP (out of 650). Imagine a world where they actually had the power to run things.

I know! They might reign in the raw capitalist greed a bit and leave something for future generations... I can see how terrible a thought this is for you.

Silly me though, short term profits > anything *sigh*

No one's opinion really matters as far as BP's liability.
Under US federal law, BP accepted all risk when they leased the rig from Transocean and drilled for oil. BP had accepted responsibilty as the company in charge and they had ultimate control of all activity on the rig, Deep Horizon, including damage to the environment.
Obviously, BP will try to share responsibility with Transocean and Halliburton.
The many claims against all of these companies will be in litigation for years to come.

Commercial fishing is virtually shut down, and those whose livelihoods depend upon it are suffering.
The tourist industry, important to all on the Gulf coast, especially Florida, has come to a standstill. Reservations are being canceled and no one is making new reservations for a Florida vacation.
The coast of Louisiana is experiencing the beginnings of oil sludge washing up on it's beaches and into its sensitive marshes.
The oil lurking beneath the surface of the sea is a huge unknown in terms of its impact on the ecosystem of the Gulf.
It is not to be assumed that the only damage done is that which is visible by washing ashore.

nonnational's link to CBS' website and the 60 Minutes video is highly recommended.
BP has clearly lied about the severity of the oil spill.
They attempted to buy off fishermen, who are now out of work, by paying them a measly sum in return for forfeiture of legal claims against BP.
The dispersants being used on the oil have never been used in such great quantities, nor have they been used in deep water as is now being done.
BP has stated that they will honor all "legitimate" claims.
No one has defined what BP considers to be "legitimate."
BP has what has been described as a "cozy" relationship with the US federal agencies Minerals Management Services, EPA, NOAA, and the US Coast Guard.
Apparently, the US Coast Guard is actively denying the press access to damaged areas, under orders from BP. Journalists have been threatened with arrest for violating BP's "rules" even though BP has no jurisdiction over the Gulf's shoreline.
There may be criminal charges before this is over and some of those charges may be against US federal employees who failed to enforce regulations controlling the safety and required inspections of drilling rigs.

Of course BP did not want this accident to happen.
No one wanted this.
That does not mean that BP is not responsible for the damage that continues to be done.
The fact that the oil is still gushing from the broken well, one month after the explosion, is evidence that there were no plans in place to handle such a catastrophe.

In the meantime, let's not forget that 11 souls lost their lives and their families are grieving.
Many others suffered injury.
Much of the damage is irreversible.

Greenpeace are constantly doing stupid things whenever they need more money, so in my view, they are nothing more than elaborate self serving scam artists that should be locked up as enviro terrorists. They are constantly putting, not only themselves, but others as well, in dangerous situations. On three different occasions they scaled an oil refinery in Fort Saskatchewan, sat on a conveyor belt at Fort MacMurry and climbed to the roof of the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa. They really need to have less attention paid to them.

"they are nothing more than elaborate self serving scam artists that should be locked up as enviro terrorists."

Don't you think this is perhaps a tinsy winsy bit of an exaggeration.

"They are constantly putting, not only themselves, but others as well, in dangerous situations. On three different occasions they scaled an oil refinery in Fort Saskatchewan, sat on a conveyor belt at Fort MacMurry and climbed to the roof of the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa."

I'm not sure how the first and last example you gave put anyone in particular danger. Greenpeace activists have done enough training to minimise the risks to them before they set off to climb something. If others are exposed to large risk removing them that that is the fault of their employers, the Greenpeace activists could have been left where they were if it was dangerous.

The conveyor belt could have been dangerous to the Greenpeace activists. I guess they minimised the risks before climbing onto the conveyor. If others were exposed to large risks removing them then see above.

These are the three examples you give of terrorists. I think you need to get out more, in the UK the IRA used to blow people up and shoot them regularly. They could be called terrorists, calling Greenpeace terrorists is the sort of twisted debating point that brings discredit on those who make it.

bananachips:

The only way to be totally safe is not to do it at all , and if that had happened in the past none of us would be writing on here.

In a similar way, none of us would be writing on here if we hadn't soiled a lot of diapers. That fact that some dirty business was necessary in the past does not mean it should always be necessary.

For what it's worth, BP Alternative Energy has done some good things. BP is not entirely the Evil Empire, just ca. 97% of it.