The Great Deception -> Bp Oil Explosion - Scam Continues Even Feb 2012

Bp Oil Explosion - Scam Continues Even Feb 2012, Illness continues; Crooks unaccountable!

Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

jofortruth

Posted: May 5 2010, 07:37 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

BP Oil Spill Timeline:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10656239

Main: (No, the damage from the spill is not over! Sept 2011)
http://gulfrescuealliance.webs.com/currentsituation.htm

Oil Rig Fire
http://www.politicolnews.com/oil-rig-fire/

QUOTE

The Oil Rig of USCG called the Deep Water Horizon where 11 workers are still missing just sank into the ocean 2 hours ago off the coast of Louisiana.� The pictures of burning fuel oil, and gasses from the bottom shows the damage in air and possible oil spillage into the ocean.

Environmentalist are now determining the possible damage to the Florida beaches, Louisiana and Texas coastlines that will carry the oil spill throughout the gulf.

Oil Rig Sinks into the Gulf of Mexico-Environmental Damage is Largely Predicted
Video Courtesy of YouTube and the Associated Press.

The video was shot yesterday but since then the rig sank into the ocean from a huge blast. The ramifications of this explosion has not been disclosed or investigated, the amount of oil spilling into the ocean and the missing men is all a mystery not disclosed by the media at this time.

Oil Rig Image of Burning Smoke, Oil Spillage into the Environment
The Louisiana coast has been hit by Katrina and the Oil rig site stayed intact fortunately but the safety questions on the rigs is poor as this explosion is being downplayed in the media.
The Exxon Valdez ship that spilled oil in Alaska and the west coast of Canada spilled 257 thousand barrels of oil. Exxon has yet to pay for the damages, the environment affected land, animals and is still being cleaned up today.

In this blow up of an oil rig 336 thousand barrels of oil are suspected to be spilled into the ocean and will ultimately hit the Louisiana shore if the winds and waves bring the oil and spread it. Needless to say the environmental concerns are very high. Advocates for off shore drilling have been pressing for more oil rigs and the safety questions are always disregarded in favor of big oil companies and profits.

The story continues to raise concerns that oil rigs are not safe off of shores like Florida and would cost the tourism trade trillions more dollars of losses. This was a state of the art oil rig with all the modern equipment and it still blew up with no investigation it is now harder to determine the origin of the explosion. Simply stating it was accidental is not good enough and fails to address the real causes of the explosion.

Oil Rigs have always posed Huge Dangers to the Shores of the US Continent
Oil company�s lease the equipment from Trans Ocean which are companies like BP that is implicated with this oil rig. There is a blow out preventer that is supposed to keep gasses contained that may have exploded or failed. The well bore was just ready for production however this is when the explosion occurred. Firefighters are on the rig at all times and failed to put the fire out on this rig in the Gulf of Mexico with 30 thousand workers currently in the gulf there are thousands of oil rigs pumping oil. 126 men were rescued off the rig except for the 11 missing as the Coast Guard reported early yesterday.

jofortruth

Posted: May 5 2010, 07:47 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Halliburton Provides Cementing Facts Regarding Rig Incident
http://www.oilvoice.com/n/Halliburton_Prov.../d850ecaff.aspx
http://www.oilvoice.com/region/Gulf_Of_Mexico.aspx

QUOTE

Halliburton has confirmed its continued support of, and cooperation with, the ongoing investigations into the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig incident in the Gulf of Mexico earlier this month. Halliburton extends its heartfelt sympathy to the families, friends and our industry colleagues of the 11 people lost and those injured in the tragedy.

As one of several service providers on the rig, Halliburton can confirm the following:

� Halliburton performed a variety of services on the rig, including cementing, and had four employees stationed on the rig at the time of the accident. Halliburton's employees returned to shore safely, due, in part, to the brave rescue efforts by the U.S. Coast Guard and other organizations.

� Halliburton had completed the cementing of the final production casing string in accordance with the well design approximately 20 hours prior to the incident. The cement slurry design was consistent with that utilized in other similar applications.

� In accordance with accepted industry practice approved by our customers, tests demonstrating the integrity of the production casing string were completed.

�At the time of the incident, well operations had not yet reached the point requiring the placement of the final cement plug which would enable the planned temporary abandonment of the well, consistent with normal oilfield practice.

� We are assisting with planning and engineering support for a wide range of options designed to secure the well, including a potential relief well.

Halliburton continues to assist in efforts to identify the factors that may have lead up to the disaster, but it is premature and irresponsible to speculate on any specific causal issues.

Halliburton originated oilfield cementing and leads the world in effective, efficient delivery of zonal isolation and engineering for the life of the well, conducting thousands of successful well cementing jobs each year. The company views safety as critical to its success and is committed to continuously improve performance.

jofortruth

Posted: May 15 2010, 07:17 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Halliburton May Be Culprit In Oil Rig Explosion:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/h...i_n_558481.html

QUOTE

Last year, Halliburton was also implicated for its cementing work prior to a massive blowout off the coast of Australia, where a rig caught on fire and spewed hundreds of thousands of gallons into the sea for ten weeks.

In that incident, workers apparently failed to properly pump cement into the well, according to Elmer Danenberger, former head of regulatory affairs for the U.S. Minerals Management Service, who testified to an Australian commission probing that accident.

"The problem with the cementing job was one of the root causes in the Australian blowout," Danenberger told Huffington Post, adding that the rig crew didn't pick up on indications of an influx of fluids coming back in after they cemented the casing. "The crew didn't pick up on them and didn't take action."

It appears that Halliburton has no clue how to keep its nose clean! This is the 2nd time they have been involved in this type of incident. HUM! What is it with these guys?????? They need to be investigated!

jofortruth

Posted: May 15 2010, 07:19 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Halliburton Responsible for Australia's third-largest oil spill
http://alaskafreepress.com/news/3526

QUOTE

Sydney. After a week of hearings at the federal inquiry into Australia's third-largest oil spill, it is becoming clear the blow-out at the Montara well was caused by a chain of poor decisions and miscalculations.

Up to 2,000 barrels of oil and gas spewed from the Montara well into the Timor Sea every day for 10 weeks from August 21 last year.

But a picture is emerging that shows decisions made in the months leading up to the accident are to blame for the incident off Western Australia.

In February 2009, a West Atlas rig began drilling the well hundreds of kilometres off the Kimberley coast.

The Thai-based owner of the well, PTTEP Australasia, called for operations to be suspended in March so it could focus on other wells it owned in the Montara field.

This is where the project stopped going to plan.

PTTEP used pressure caps instead of a cement plug to temporarily stop the flow from the well.

That decision was approved by the Northern Territory Department of Resources in just 30 minutes, and the inquiry has raised questions about whether the agency acted diligently enough when regulating the oil company's operations.

Two pressure caps were authorised to be used on the well as barriers, but only one was ever installed and, contrary to good oil field practice, it was never tested.

In his opening statement, counsel assisting the inquiry, Tom Howe, QC, said: "No one has been able to provide, to this point, a satisfactory explanation to the inquiry as to why the cap was not installed."

A senior manager from Atlas Drilling, David Gouldin, has told the inquiry that the installation of the cap remained on a to-do list on a whiteboard in an office on the rig until the blow-out.

When the West Atlas drilling team returned to the well in August, workers removed the existing cap for cleaning. It was never reinstalled. Hours later, the well kicked and began releasing an uncontrolled flow of oil and gas that would not be blocked for months.

Inadequate cementing

In addition to the missing pressure cap, further problems arose with the well's cement casing.

Cement is used to set the drilling pipe in place and to ensure oil and gas does not leak into the surrounding ocean.

But while 199 barrels of cement should have been used to achieve the "top of cement" standard practice on the Montara well, only 133 barrels were used.

Even more mistakes appear to have occurred when that cement casing was tested.

Extra cement was pumped into the well in a test designed to check if the casing was full.

When the liquid flowed back as expected, it was thought to be pure cement. It has now emerged that the fluid was contaminated with seawater.

That mistake significantly weakened the strength of the casing as a barrier.

PTTEP supervisor Noel Treasure has told the inquiry that he "miscalculated" the volume of cement.

And while figures indicating the mistake were emailed to managers at both Atlas Drilling and PTTEP, it has been suggested there was not sufficient scrutiny of the information by on-shore personnel.

Atlas Drilling rig manager Donald Miller told the inquiry that he received the figures in a daily drilling report, but he did not focus enough on the report nor give it sufficient weight.

'Nervous and upset'

During his evidence, Mr Treasure came under fire for failing to sign the first statement he made about the accident.

As the most senior representative from PTTEP working on the rig in the lead up to the spill, Mr Treasure made a draft witness statement in the week before the inquiry.

But instead of substantiating the statement, Mr Treasure chose instead to submit an amended statutory declaration.

When questioned about this, Mr Treasure told the inquiry he was frightened about civil liability.

"I was nervous and I was upset," he said.

"I was worried about it, because I went through and checked some of my records afterwards ... and some of the stuff I said in the statement was incorrect."

Mr Treasure says he spoke to a senior PTTEP executive about his draft statement in the week before the inquiry began, but he says the executive did not ask him to change his statement.

As well as the cause of the spill, the inquiry will attempt to uncover why it took almost three months for the leak to be stopped.

It will also hear evidence about the environmental consequences of the accident and the current regulatory system for the offshore petroleum industry.

jofortruth	Posted: May 15 2010, 09:36 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Big Oil Fought Off New Safety Rules Before Rig Explosion http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/26/b...a_n_552575.html Proposed Rules: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/MMS-2...0003-0001-1.pdf Photos: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/d...wly_in_the.html

jofortruth

Posted: May 17 2010, 10:56 AM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Lawyers say oil rig workers asked to sign statement following Deepwater Horizon explosion:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...-05-11-13-51-11

QUOTE

May 11, 1:51 PM EDT

Lawyers say oil rig workers asked to sign statement following Deepwater Horizon explosion

By GARANCE BURKE and CURT ANDERSON
Associated Press Writers

Workers aboard an exploding offshore drilling platform were told to sign statements denying they were hurt or witnessed the blast that rocked the rig, killed 11 and spewed millions of gallons of oil into the ocean, their attorneys said Tuesday.

Survivors floated for hours in life boats in the Gulf of Mexico following the disaster on the Deepwater Horizon, and were greeted by company officials onshore asking them to sign statements that they had no "first hand or personal knowledge" of the incident, attorneys said.

"These men are told they have to sign these statements or they can't go home," said Tony Buzbee, a Houston-based attorney for 10 Transocean workers. "I think it's pretty callous, but I'm not surprised by it."

Guy Cantwell, a spokesman for rig owner Transocean Ltd., refused to answer whether Transocean or any company attached to the firm had supplied the statement, claiming it was inappropriate to comment on litigation.

"Our focus has been on the crewmembers and their families, working with all parties in the response efforts and conducting a Transocean investigation into the incident," he said Monday.

The men were kept for at least 10 hours at sea, then taken to a hotel on shore in Louisiana to sign the forms and be debriefed, according to Buzbee and court documents filed in lawsuits already brought by some Transocean employees. While such statements have no legal force and are a common industry practice, they are often used to attack the credibility of workers who later sue or testify in a lawsuit, Buzbee said.

"When I signed that I didn't care what it was. I wanted to sign the papers to do whatever I had to do so me and my wife could leave to go home," Chris Choy, a 23-year-old surviving worker said in an interview that aired Monday night with PBS' "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer." "I'd been up for 40 hours and was just going through hell."

Choy said he tried to save Aaron Dale Burkeen of Mississippi, one of 11 workers missing and presumed dead following the explosion, before being evacuated from the burning rig to a cargo boat where he watched the rig go down in flames.

"One of my clients was trying to get counseling and they had them sign this form," said Kurt Arnold, another Houston-based attorney who filed suit on behalf of three workers and the widow of a deceased crane operator last week. "They were trying to get as many of these guys to sign these statements as possible."

Robert Wine, a BP spokesman, reviewed the statement and said it had "nothing to do with BP."

"We did not make our 6 employees sign anything, let alone a waiver," he said in a statement.

Rig workers or their families have filed at least several wrongful death or personal injury lawsuits against Transocean, rig operator BP PLC and other companies involved in the offshore drilling operation.

Fishermen, property owners, restaurateurs, resort companies and others have filed nearly 50 potential class-action lawsuits claiming the spill is causing or will cause steep economic losses.

The explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon has triggered a major environmental disaster because an uncapped well continues to spew at least 210,000 gallons per day into the Gulf.

---

Burke reported from Fresno, Calif. Anderson reported from Miami.

jofortruth

Posted: May 17 2010, 11:01 AM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Transocean Ltd. Asked Workers To Sign Form Letters Indicating They Were Not Injured After Oil Rig Disaster, Houston Maritime Attorney Says
http://www.prweb.com/releases/Arnold-Itkin...rweb3974964.htm

QUOTE

Houston Maritime Attorney Kurt Arnold Tells NPR survivors of the disaster described the scene as "extremely gruesome."

Houston, Texas (PRWEB) May 7, 2010 -- Houston maritime attorney Kurt Arnold continues to be a key source for expert commentary in the aftermath of the Transocean Ltd. oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico.

Houston Maritime Lawyer Kurt Arnold - On Thursday, Arnold, a founding partner of Arnold & Itkin LLP, spoke to National Public Radio about Transocean Ltd.�s efforts to have workers from the doomed oil rig sign pre-printed statements indicating they were not hurt in the fire and explosion.

One of the guys told me that as he's running out, there's guys burning and some guys missing limbs. It's like a war zone. They were told to sign a document saying:

* I was not a witness to the incident requiring the evacuation and have no first hand or personal knowledge regarding the incident.��

* I was not injured as a result of the incident or evacuation.��

Some of those survivors say they were coerced into signing and that the forms are being used against them as they file lawsuits seeking compensation for psychiatric problems and other injuries from the oil rig explosion, according to the NPR report.

Arnold, who concentrates in maritime injury cases, told Joseph Shapiro of NPR�s �All Things Considered� that he has talked to survivors of the disaster who described the scene as "extremely gruesome."

"One of the guys told me that as he's running out, there's guys burning and some guys missing limbs. It's like a war zone," Arnold said in the NPR report.

Deepwater Horizon, a massive oil rig owned by Transocean Ltd., a Swiss firm, and leased to BP PLC, was drilling about 52 miles southeast of Venice, La., in 5,000 feet of water when fire erupted on the evening of April 20. Most of the 126-member crew escaped from the burning oil rig, which eventually collapsed and sank into the ocean. Eleven crew members were killed and at least 17 workers suffered injuries.

In Thursday�s NPR report, Arnold said survivors who escaped the burning rig told him and other attorneys that they were kept secluded on the Gulf and after they arrived on shore. They were not allowed to phone their families to say they were all right, Arnold said. While kept in a hotel room, they were debriefed and handed letters to sign that said they had no direct knowledge of the incident and were not harmed, according to Arnold.

Workers were asked to initial two paragraphs at the bottom of a form letter if they agreed with the statements, according to the NPR report. One paragraph stated: "I was not a witness to the incident requiring the evacuation and have no first hand or personal knowledge regarding the incident." The second paragraph stated: "I was not injured as a result of the incident or evacuation."

Arnold told NPR reporter Shapiro that asking workers to sign those forms was coercive, especially since the request was made hours after a fire and explosion where 11 workers died. Such tactics are extreme but not unheard of, and courts will likely question the veracity of these letters, Arnold said in the on-air report.

�All Things Considered,� which debuted May 3, 1971, is NPR�s flagship broadcast, airing on more than 560 radio stations and reaching an audience of approximately 12 million listeners each weekday.

Earlier in the week, Arnold shared his insights about Transocean and oil rig fires with local television, radio and print media, including ABC�s Houston affiliate and The Houston Chronicle.

About Arnold & Itkin LLP

The lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP, a personal injury law firm based in Houston, Texas, understand the complexities and legalities of maritime law and have a successful track record of verdicts and settlements. The firm provides legal guidance on all aspects of maritime law and the benefits off shore workers are entitled to under the Jones Act, the Death on the High Seas Act, the principle of maintenance and cure, or the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.

jofortruth

Posted: May 17 2010, 05:02 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

BP's insurance to cushion impact of oil spill-Fitch
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN3017954620100430

QUOTE

Fri Apr 30, 2010

NEW YORK, April 30 (Reuters) - Containment and cleanup costs of a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could top $3 billion, but financial impacts on BP Plc will be limited by the oil company's insurance, Fitch Ratings said on Friday.

An oil drilling rig on lease to London-based BP (BP.L) (BP.N) exploded in flames on April 20 and collapsed two days later, leading to a massive oil spill that threatened to become the worst U.S. ecological disaster ever.

The spreading oil has deepened fears of severe damage to fisheries, wildlife refuges and tourism in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. Shrimp fishermen in Louisiana have filed a class action lawsuit against BP, accusing it of negligence.

"The ultimate financial impact on BP will depend on how the environmental and economic impact develops when the spill reaches land," Fitch said in a statement.
Costs could be more than $3 billion, depending on how long it takes to arrest the flow of oil into the Gulf, Jeffrey Woodruff, senior director in Fitch's energy team in London, said in the statement.

Insurance will likely cover the majority of BP's costs, limiting rating pressure, Fitch said. It now rates BP AA-plus, just one notch below its top rating of AAA.

There are precedents for assessing the potential impacts, Fitch said. In the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, when about 250,000 barrels of crude oil were spilled into Prince William Sound, Alaska, cleanup costs were an estimated $2 billion, Fitch said. Exxon was eventually found liable for actual damages of about $287 million and compensatory damages of about $500 million after a series of appeals spanning nearly 20 years, Fitch said.

Exxon was originally assessed punitive damages of $5 billion but a US Supreme Court ruling in 2003 imposed limits on punitive damages, helping reduce Exxon's liability, Fitch said.

Assuming the BP oil spill is worse than the Exxon Valdez accident, as environmentalists are now claiming, and it takes an additional 60 to 90 days to drill a relief well and stop the leak, the total spill could be about 1 million barrels, Fitch said.

Fitch said it will take rating action if necessary because of significant increases in BP's estimated environmental or litigation costs.

Transocean Says Insurance Covers $560 Million Oil Rig Loss
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/inter...m#axzz0oDrAXbo6

QUOTE

April 27, 2010

Transocean Ltd. said Monday its insurance covers the total loss of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform and wreck removal after the rig that burned and sank off the Louisiana coast last week.

Wreck removal coverage was only to the extent that it could be carried out and was needed, Transocean said, adding that the rig -- with an insured value of $560 million -- was about 1,500 feet northwest of the well and away from any subsea pipelines.

"Transocean is committing all necessary resources to support ongoing efforts to stop the flow of hydrocarbons from the well,'' the Switzerland-based company said in a statement.

The well being drilled for BP Plc began spewing oil after the rig sank last week

jofortruth	Posted: May 17 2010, 05:26 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Congressional House Energy Subcommittee hearings: (Written text - Videos of hearing can also be downloaded here): http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?...ories&Itemid=55 Full Videos: (2 Parts) (See Excerpts below) http://www.cspan.org/Watch/Media/2010/05/1...+Oil+Spill.aspx http://www.cspan.org/Watch/Media/2010/05/1...+Oil+Spill.aspx NOTE: Rep Joe Barton (R-TX) gave an opening statement which I don't see on this page (Video Part 1 Time 12:15-12:53). He said "Do not use this accident as an excuse to take away from the American people probably the largest domestic resource we have to develop on the North American continent." (His response to Waxman's opening statement). (BARTON'S STATEMENT IS SIGNIFICANT WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT WAXMAN SAID IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT. IMO, WAXMAN USED HIS OPENING STATEMENT TO PROMOTE HIS BELIEF WE SHOULD HAVE CLEAN RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY, THUS PUSHING THE DEMS GREEN BELIEFS. AT THIS POINT IN THIS HEARING, WHICH WAS THE BEGINNING, THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT CAUSED THE OIL EXPLOSION IN THE GULF. HE WAS OUT OF ORDER, IMO AND WAS USING HIS STATUS ON THIS COMMITTEE FOR TALKING POINTS! STAY ON TOPIC, WAXMAN, AND QUIT USING THIS HEARING FOR THE WRONG PURPOSES!)

jofortruth	Posted: May 17 2010, 09:41 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Oil Spill 4-20-10 Hearing in House Energy Subcommittee 5-12-10 - Part 1 of 2 (Excerpts from hearing show who must be held accountable) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow2Vs9zpXQs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0IqqRYUveM

jofortruth	Posted: May 18 2010, 11:11 AM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	CNN Founder Ted Turner: Oil Spill May Be God�s Message Not to Drill http://www.prisonplanet.com/cnn-founder-te...t-to-drill.html See how the elite use incidents to promote their agenda???? Ted is an Atheist, so him referring to God anything is a joke! He mentions Copenhagen. Yeah, right, the contrived bag of lies to convince people to go along with their climate change and green tax scams. This man has no more credibility. When he said we would all turn into cannibals, that was the last straw for me! This guy is nuts along with most of the elite who believe in eugenics and other garbage! http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=7000

jofortruth	Posted: May 18 2010, 04:25 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5cUVhfC2I0

jofortruth	Posted: May 21 2010, 04:58 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	BP CEO Says Oil Spill Isn't Their Fault http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS508iNYPqs&feature=related

jofortruth	Posted: May 24 2010, 02:26 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	'Knowing' Movie Knew About Oil Rig Explosion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5WISUquers The sick elite think they must tell us beforehand what they plan on doing. This they think, in some sick way, absolves them of their crimes against humanity! They have used movies to foreshadow their sick actions for a long time. This is but another occurence! OTHER TIMES THIS HAS HAPPENED: http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...topic=8374&st=0 http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...6929&st=0&#last

jofortruth	Posted: May 24 2010, 10:43 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Did you know BP was a big pusher of Copenhagen and the Carbon tax? They even sponsored the summit! http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...opic=6777&st=25 This is looking more suspicious now! It would not surprise me a bit if they did this intentionally because they didn't get what they wanted in Copenhagen! This needs more investigation, but the associations and facts surrounding what happened in the gulf look more and more like BP (and the oil companies) are the culprits in this disaster! If this is true, these people are psychos and disgusting! BP needs to be investigated as well as Halliburton! Something stinks!

jofortruth	Posted: Jun 2 2010, 09:42 AM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Exxon Valdez Oil Spill is still in the courts and it happened in 1989: http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=8394

jofortruth	Posted: Jun 2 2010, 09:48 AM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Many of us think this could have been prevented. There is also the idea that sabotage was involved because some, including BP, are pushing carbon taxes (one of the biggest proponents of), green everything and a New World Order! Also, the Global Bankers are destroying our economy, so they can bring in their NWO. There is saber rattling all over the Middle East, and war could be eminent with Iran. Folks, this all fits into their idea of tearing down the old, so they can bring in their new, and they are doing it on all fronts! They are destroying our livelihood, just look at the Gulf States right now! Then look at all of America, where similar destruction is taking place! Millions of jobs have been lost; some will never return. The list goes on and on, and if you don't think there is a problem, you are not living in the real world!

jofortruth

Posted: Jun 2 2010, 09:57 AM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Goldman Sachs sold 43.7% of their BP stock by 3/31/10 & the Oil Spill Occurred on April 20, 2010: (JUST AMAZING HOW CORRUPT THESE PEOPLE ARE)
http://moneycentral.msn.com/ownership?Hold...rship&Symbol=BP
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=173328.0

Raw Story: Goldman Sachs sold $250 million of BP stock before spill
http://www.infowars.com/raw-story-goldman-...k-before-spill/

QUOTE

John Byrne
Raw Story
June 2, 2010

Firm�s stock sale nearly twice as large as any other institution; Represented 44 percent of total BP investment

The brokerage firm that�s faced the most scrutiny from regulators in the past year over the shorting of mortgage related securities seems to have had good timing when it came to something else: the stock of British oil giant BP.

According to regulatory filings, RawStory.com has found that Goldman Sachs sold 4,680,822 shares of BP in the first quarter of 2010. Goldman�s sales were the largest of any firm during that time. Goldman would have pocketed slightly more than $266 million if their holdings were sold at the average price of BP�s stock during the quarter.

If Goldman had sold these shares today, their investment would have lost 36 percent its value, or $96 million. The share sales represented 44 percent of Goldman�s holdings � meaning that Goldman�s remaining holdings have still lost tens of millions in value.

Attached Image (Click thumbnail to expand)

jofortruth

Posted: Jun 2 2010, 10:11 AM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

BP SEC Filings recently: (These are updates on what BP is doing about the problem they created in the gulf. The SEC requires them to file these updates regularly.)
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/sec/f...g.asp?Symbol=BP

SEC filing June 1, 2010 (top of list): (pg 3)
http://msnmoney.brand.edgar-online.com/Dis...x%3fticker%3dBP

QUOTE

It is anticipated that the next planned operation will provide a more permanent system by directing oil and gas to a new free-standing riser ending approximately 300 feet below sea level.

A flexible hose then will be attached to a containment vessel. This long-term option is designed to permit the system to more effectively disconnect and reconnect the riser to provide the greatest flexibility for operations during a hurricane. Implementation of this enhancement is expected in late June or early July.

SEC filing June 1, 2010 (Pg 3)
http://msnmoney.brand.edgar-online.com/Dis...x%3fticker%3dBP

QUOTE

The Government, together with BP, have therefore decided to move to the next step in the subsea operations, the deployment of the Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP) Cap Containment System.

jofortruth	Posted: Jun 2 2010, 10:49 AM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,495 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	BP Announces State Specific Response Websites: http://www.oilvoice.com/n/BP_Announces_Lau.../1a4830878.aspx BP News: http://www.oilvoice.com/Latest_News/BP/b2bb9d3f.aspx BP News Archive: (From day of oil spill forward) http://www.oilvoice.com/News_Archive/BP/b2bb9d3f.aspx

jofortruth

Posted: Jun 2 2010, 11:48 AM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Obama Appoints some Interesting Characters to be on his Oil Commission to investigate BP Oil Disaster: (Conflicts of Interest?)
http://blogs.alternet.org/movingtrainmedia...-bp-commission/

QUOTE

Nuclear Energy Has a Friend in Heads of Obama�s BP Oil Disaster Commission

Posted By kgosztola On May 25, 2010

In his weekly radio address on Saturday, May 22nd, President Obama selected the two men that will be leading an independent commission that will examine the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, find the �root causes� of the disaster, and produce a report in six months. Those men were former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) and former head of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under George H.W. Bush, William K. Reilly, a Republican.

President Obama said in his address, �If the laws on our books are inadequate to prevent such an oil spill, or if we didn�t enforce those laws � I want to know it�I want to know what worked and what didn�t work in our response to the disaster, and where oversight of the oil and gas industry broke down.�

BP has been hiding reports and video on the disaster, low balling estimates on the amount of oil that has leaked into the Gulf, and ignoring orders or requests issued by federal agencies dictating recommendations and guidelines for the cleanup. The government has allowed BP to continue to handle this disaster in this manner, which might lead one to believe this commission might simply be one where oil & gas companies involved in offshore drilling (especially BP) could use the disaster to re-brand their company�s image, regain the confidence of politicians, up their contributions to key political leaders, and continue to obstruct movement toward clean, renewable energy in America. With Graham and Reilly on the commission, it�s far more likely that this commission will advance a much different agenda�a nuclear energy agenda.

Both Graham and Reilly have records that show each possesses some level of interest in confronting environmental issues. Graham developed a reputation for being outspoken against offshore drilling in the early 1990s. Reilly was a leader of the World Wildlife Fund and has the distinction of being the first head of the EPA to actually �come from a job in the environmental community.�

In addition to being involved in policymaking related to oil energy and offshore drilling, both Graham and Reilly have supported the nuclear industry financially and politically.

Obama said of the two in his address, �I can�t think of two people who will bring greater experience or better judgment to the task at hand�In the days to come, I�ll appoint 5 other distinguished Americans including scientists, engineers, and environmental advocates to join them on the commission.�

Those who would like to see individuals without business ties to an industry that could benefit from this commission might be able to think of two better people.

Fmr. Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) Opposed to Offshore Drilling,Very Much for Nuclear Energy

Upon becoming the chairman of the Senate Nuclear Regulation Subcommittee in August 1990, Graham began to give speeches suggesting �nuclear energy should play a �significant role� in meeting America�s long-term energy needs.� (St. Petersburg Times � Tuesday, February 12, 1991)

In a speech given in February 1991, Graham remarked to the American Nuclear Energy Council, a Washington-based trade group, �There are no black-and-white courses in a national energy policy�Every option has both assets and liabilities.� He acknowledged that nuclear energy had cost and environmental drawbacks but also said that it could be a key way to solve the country�s energy problems.

Graham recommended plant licensing procedures be streamlined to make it �no more difficult to permit a nuclear plant than it is [to permit] an electric plant.�

Graham suggested dealing with the question of how to dispose nuclear waste was just as significant as figuring out a way to handle the environmental and health issues that carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide from fossil fuels presented Americans and he cited the war in the Persian Gulf as even more reason to pursue nuclear energy.

In November 1990, Graham said on CNBC that America was �too reliant on petroleum as our source of energy� and he noted while 75 percent of all energy in France is nuclear, only 15 percent of U.S. energy is nuclear. He also added that Florida�s energy consumption was 20 percent nuclear, which was above the national average. (The Tampa Tribune � Monday, November 19, 1990)

The same month he visited a nuclear power plant owned by Florida Power & Light Co. and argued that rising oil cost and clean air legislation would make nuclear energy more important, practical by 2010. He claimed nuclear power was no longer a source of �environmental anxiety� and had become an �environmental asset� because it does not dirty the air like coal does. (The Palm Beach Post � Friday, November 2, 1990)

In the midst of all the posturing in favor of nuclear energy, Graham made it plain that he could not unequivocally support the interests of oil and gas companies. When President Bush was considering requests to drill for oil and gas off the coast of Florida, Graham opposed the requests cited an audit that found the federal government had �done a poor job of enforcing regulations at onshore oil and gas wells.� He noted that the environment had been damaged as a result and taxpayers would probably have to pay �millions of dollars to clean up abandoned wells� as a result. (St. Petersburg Times � Wednesday, December 27, 1989)

Earlier in June, a study had found that �the Interior Department had not levied a single civil penalty in six years, despite finding 16,000 violations in that period of time.� Graham presumably understood what could happen to Florida if oil and gas companies were able to open shop in certain protected areas and he suggested that if offshore drilling moved forward Florida�s coast could be impacted like areas in the western United States.

He continued to defend areas of Florida from oil interests by spearheading an effort to �kill a little-noticed amendment� to the National Security Energy Act of 1990 that would �reverse President George H.W. Bush�s moratorium on oil drilling off the Florida Keys.� (The Orlando Sentinel Saturday Sept. 29, 1990). He signed on to a statement declaring that he and twenty-six other senators were unable to support �oil and gas leasing in wilderness and other environmentally sensitive areas now protected from intrusion, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Florida Keys, and the National Marine Sanctuaries.� This statement was made as oil prices rose and conflict in the Gulf between Iraq and Kuwait (that the U.S. became heavily involved in) increased.

Graham was even one of the senators very much opposed to the Cheney energy bill. He and Sen. Dianne Feinstein wrote an editorial published by the Sun-SentinelonJuly6,2003,saying the �basic philosophy behind this bill is to ignore alternative energy issues and drain the nation first � to make it easier and less expensive to extract oil and gas from publicly owned lands, regardless of environmental costs.� The editorial also stated:

�It includes a provision that would open the door to offshore oil drilling by requiring a survey of the oil and gas resources under the outer continental shelf. The language in the bill is little more than a thinly veiled attempt to disparage � and even undermine � long-standing, bipartisan moratoriums that protect our coastline from offshore drilling.

It is important to put the drilling issue into historical perspective. On Jan. 29, 1969, a Union Oil Co. platform experienced a blowout off the coast of Santa Barbara. Over 11 days, about 200,000 gallons of crude oil spread into an 800-square-mile slick that coated 35 miles of beachfront. Thousands of oil-soaked birds � along with dolphins and seals and other mammals � washed up dead on the shore.

A total of $17.3 million in damages was paid to local residents and boat owners, as well as the state of California, Santa Barbara County and the cities of Santa Barbara and Carpinteria.

This tragedy convinced Californians that they were not willing to assume the risks associated with offshore drilling.

Inarguably, Graham has a record that many environmentalists have found praiseworthy. But, when his opposition to oil drilling is considered in the context of his support for nuclear energy, one must ask if Graham is simply a nuclear energy salesman who knows how to play the game.

In 2003, Broward-Palm Beach New Times looked at who �really had a friend in Bob Graham.� They published information on energy and oil markets that Graham had investments in. In 2001, Graham began to shift from investments in Coca-Cola, Microsoft, and health care firms and put $34,000 to $145,000 in seven energy and oil companies, three with nuclear energy interests. (He invested in Vice President Cheney�s former firm, Halliburton, which may present a conflict of interest since the BP oil disaster can be linked to Halliburton).

The New Times pointed out �Graham served on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee where he crafted and voted on legislation that directly affected the companies on which he was betting.� They cite a front-page report published by the Washington Times on March 18, 2001, �Energy needs spur rebirth of nuclear power,� where Graham was quoted as saying, �Nuclear power is not a magic bullet, but it should also not be a poison pill.�

Graham also added, �The technology exists to make nuclear power�already one of our cleanest energy sources�also one of our safest, most reliable, and least expensive.�

The New Times reported that Graham co-sponsored the Nuclear Energy Electricity Assurance Act, �an industry-backed bill designed to encourage expansion of nuclear power after 20 years of stasis.� The contents of the measure included �large incentives and subsidies to nuclear companies like Exelon,� a Chicago-based company and one of the top nuclear energy producers in the nation which had just developed technology in South Africa that the company was hoping to utilize in the United States.

Graham�s PAC contributions from nuclear companies were also detailed:

�The stock buys weren�t the senator�s only financial connection with nuclear power players. From 1998 to 2002, he received $46,287 in PAC contributions from nuclear companies. During his 1998 campaign, when he really needed the money, Graham ranked sixth in the Senate in contributions from nuclear industry PACs, raking in $28,787 during that year�s election cycle, according to the Washington, D.C.-based consumer lobby group Public Citizen.

The single largest nuclear industry contributor to Graham�s campaign was Exelon, which has provided him with $19,000 since 1998. Exelon, in fact, is a particularly generous donor, giving a total of $588,044 to members of Congress in 2002 alone. That makes it the kindest nuclear company to politicians, according to a Public Citizen report issued this past May 20 titled �Hot Waste, Cold Cash.� Duke was ranked seventh, with $376,000, and TXU was sixth, with $394,828.� click here

Former EPA Administrator William K. Reilly: A Chum for Nuclear Energy

In Reilly�s career, he has demonstrated significant support for nuclear energy while also talking tough on environmental issues. Reilly�s experience writing up a report on the Exxon Valdez oil spill certainly makes him seem like the right person to ask questions of BP and offer recommendations on how to move forward and best address the disaster in the Gulf. But, Reilly is currently the co-chair for theNational Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP), a project of the Bipartisan Policy Center.

The Commission was, according to Chemical News & Intelligence, �founded in 2002 and financed by five major US charitable funds.� It �drew on expertise from a diverse group of energy issue stakeholders, many of whom, Reilly said, �otherwise might never have found themselves in the same room.��

One of those energy issue stakeholders that the Commission brought Reilly in contact with is also a chairman of the Commission and CEO of the Exelon Corporation, John W. Rowe.

In 2004, the Commission released a report that called for the expansion of energy technologies to keep up with requirements for �substantially increased quantities� of energy over the next twenty years and address the challenges that �climate change� presented the energy stakeholders and those with the power to create and influence energy policy.

One of the technologies the Commission recommended be expanded was nuclear power. It urged the U.S. to fulfill existing federal commitments on nuclear waste management, provide $2 billion over ten years from federal research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RD&D) budgets for the demonstration of one to two new advanced nuclear power plants, and significantly strengthening the international non-proliferation regime.

Moreover, the report called for �government intervention� that would address key issues and �improve prospects for an expanded, rather than diminished, role for nuclear energy.� It further claimed that this expanded role was warranted by �several policy objectives� including the needs to reduce greenhouse gases, enhance energy security, and alleviate pressure on natural gas supplies in the electric-generation sector.

He became the leader of the Sustainable Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) in 2008. The board was formed by Energy Future Holdings (EFH) to represent the environment, customers, Texas economic development and reliability/technology interests.

Prior to October 2009, EFH was formerly known as TXU Corporation, an energy company. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., the Texas Pacific Group (TPG Capital), Goldman Sachs acquired EFH and EFH made a �range of commitments aimed at providing a more affordable, more reliable, more environmentally friendly and more sustainable supply of energy to the citizens of Texas.�

Energy Future Holdings describes itself as �a Dallas-based energy holding company with a portfolio of competitive and regulated energy subsidiaries, primarily in Texas, including TXU Energy, Luminant and Oncor.� Reilly happens to have connections to all of these companies.

Additionally, EFH�s PAC, the Power Political Action Committee of Energy Future Holdings Corporation, contributed $10,000 to Blue Dog PAC, $5,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, and the Nuclear Energy Institute in the 2010 cycle (so far). EFH definitely intends to shape the political agenda so that nuclear power is included.

Reilly was at the center of this deal especially because he is a senior advisor to TPG Capital, a leading private investment firm with $48 billion across a family of funds.�

The deal was used by Reilly to get TXU to, according to the New York Times, �commit to [scaling] back significantly on [plans] to build 11 new coal plants and adhere to a strict code of conduct.� The move demonstrated that Reilly was willing to make moves to get industry off carbon. And, it also showed that companies like TXU, a company that operates nuclear power plants, could be convinced to give up carbon if they were pomised the opportunity to expand their nuclear energy assets.

Reilly did not have a record of being pro-nuclear energy before becoming EPA Administrator under President George H.W. Bush, but in March 1989, as reported by the Austin American-Statesman, Reilly was involved in the production of an EPA report that said if one wanted to help slow the warming of the atmosphere, one needed to drive a small care that was able to get 40 miles per gallon, pay a higher tax on coal and oil, plant lots of new trees and, finally, give up opposition to new nuclear power plants.

The EPA under Reilly specifically called for �the construction of 600 more 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plants around the world.�

And, since then, Reilly has disappointed many conservationists by championing nuclear energy as a clean energy that can address many problems of the future.

Obama Administration�s Ties to Nuclear?

The selection of Graham and Reilly would be just another anomaly if it weren�t for all the clear ties the Obama Administration has to the nuclear energy industry.

On January 24th, 2010, Judy Pasternak published an investigative news story on nuclear energy�s lobbying push. Pasternak reported, �The Obama administration may soon guarantee as much as $18.5 billion in loans to build new nuclear reactors to generate electricity, and Congress is considering whether to add billions more to support an expansion of nuclear power.�

Pasternak detailed, specifically, nuclear power�s ties to the Obama Administration and wrote, �The industry is plugged in on its own at the White House through labor groups and Exelon. Exelon CEO John W. Rowe is NEI�s past chairman and a current director.�

Pasternak added:

�The company, based in the president�s home state of Illinois, has funded Obama campaigns since his Senate run, when employees contributed more than $48,000, according to CQ Moneyline, and Exelon�s political action committee gave the maximum of $10,000. Exelon employees gave Obama nearly $210,000 for his presidential campaign, according to CQ Moneyline.

Exelon�s management includes two Obama bundlers who are friends of the president. One, director John W. Rogers, helped direct Obama�s Illinois fundraising during his presidential race and helped plan the inauguration. The other, Frank M. Clark, has lobbied on nuclear issues for the company.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is close to Exelon, too. The merger that created the utility was the biggest deal of Emanuel�s brief but lucrative investment-banking career. Another White House connection is strategist David Axelrod, whom Exelon subsidiary ComEd once hired to create a fake grass-roots organization supporting higher electricity rates.�

Exelon�s Rowe, who co-chairs an energy commission with Reilly, knew that this moment in history would come � the moment when a price on carbon would be instituted to curb global warming; he just didn�t know when. Rowe told Forbes in a report called �Exelon�s Carbon Advantage, �I thought climate legislation would come sooner or later and that I�d rather have my money in the nuke fleet.�

Rowe is probably right if he has anything to do with it because the same report by Forbes says Rowe has been lobbying for climate legislation that would put a price on carbon. And, according to Public Citizen�s Tyler Slocum, it looks like Rowe�s and other members of the nuclear lobby�s efforts have paid off.

Public Citizen reports the current climate legislation is a �nuclear energy-promoting, oil drilling-championing, coal mining-boosting� piece of legislation �with a weak carbon pricing mechanism thrown in.� The public interest groups warns against the nuclear power incentives currently in the climate change bill:

At its core, this legislation is all about promoting nuclear power and handing taxpayers the bill. Consider:

- Sections 1101 and 1105 would prioritize the needs of nuclear power corporations over the rights of citizens to have full, public hearings about the risks and dangers of locating nuclear power plants in their communities.

- Section 1102 increases loan guarantees primarily for nuclear power to a jaw-dropping $54 billion. These loans are a terrible deal for the taxpayer, especially considering the high risk of default that even the government acknowledges.

- Section 1103 provides $6 billion in taxpayer-subsidized risk insurance for 12 new nuclear reactors.

- Section 1121 allows nuclear power plant owners to write off their depreciation much faster. Section 1121 provides a 10 percent investment tax credit for new reactors.

- Section 1123 extends the Advanced Energy Project credit to nuclear reactors.

- Section 1124-6 allows municipal power agencies to derive certain tax, bond and grant benefits from investing in nuclear power.

If nuclear energy interests have been able to influence the climate change bill in Congress this much, there�s little reason to not believe that nuclear energy lobbyists and others related could influence the commission to investigate the oil leak in the Gulf. In fact, it�s even possible nuclear energy interests played akey role in Obama�s decision to appoint both Graham and Reilly.

Conclusion

There may exist the potential for former Sen. Bob Graham and former head of the EPA William Reilly to uncover all that BP has been hiding from the public and government and why it has taken BP so long to stop the oil from further gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. There is the potential for it to provide great insight into the impacts of offshore drilling and whether America should have a future where offshore drilling is part of a national energy strategy. Given Reilly�s experience writing a report on the Exxon Valdez spill, his knowledge of what worked and didn�t work then should be an asset when investigating and putting together a report on the recent BP oil disaster in the Gulf.

However, as demonstrated in this article, both Graham and Reilly have strong ties to nuclear energy interests. They are spearheading a so-called independent commission that has the capacity to determine the future of not only oil and gas in this country but clean energy in this country.

During the weekend, Graham publicly assured BP and Big Oil that they would get a fair hearing.Because of BP�s and Big Oil;s influence on political leaders in Washington, the Commission is unlikely to suggest that America pursue an energy future free of oil and gas; the Commission will probably not ban offshore drilling permanently. However, what the Commission will likely do is suggest recommendations on how the U.S. can become less and less dependable on carbon energy sources, which contribute to climate change. And, if they do that, they will open a big window for the expansion of the nuclear energy industry in America.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from Moving Train Media: http://blogs.alternet.org/movingtrainmedia

URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/movingtrainmedia...-bp-commission/

jofortruth

Posted: Jun 3 2010, 12:50 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Senator Vitter: Lift Obama�s Moratorium
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq0WZRilT1M...player_embedded

QUOTE

Louisiana has been witnessing a severe lack of urgency and understanding from the Obama Administration and BP. Our state and our way of life continue to be under attack from the devastating oil spill, and now to make matters worse, President Obama�s has imposed a moratorium and shut down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Unless we lift Obama�s moratorium, it could kill thousands of Louisiana jobs.

Rigs won�t wait idly for six months, they�ll move overseas to places like West Africa or Brazil and take jobs with them. I have called on President Obama to replace his recently announced shutdown of deepwater rigs for immediate rig safety inspections.

This moratorium is estimated to kill up to 10,000 Louisiana jobs and possibly 20,000 jobs throughout the course of the year. Our workforce and economy have been significantly impacted from the oil spill, but Obama�s offshore moratorium could threaten potential revenue for Louisiana and be even more devastating.

Obama got heat for doing nothing, so he came up with this ludicrous idea of shutting down drilling in the Gulf. Just months before he came to his mighty podium and announced drilling in the Gulf. This guy is a flip flopper on everything, and a liar on the rest. He's not a leader; he's a globalist puppet!

Once again, he is playing into his globalist friends hands who want their Carbon taxes, and deindustrialization of America. Can we please find a President who supports America for a change, instead of the Globalist NWO agenda????? Both parties have been supporting the NWO for a long time, and I'm sick of their betrayal.

Election 2010 - WE MUST FIRE THE GLOBALIST MINIONS IN BOTH PARTIES! IF YOUR CONGRESSMAN IS AN IDIOT, A TRAITOR, VOTES THE WRONG WAY ON LEGISLATION, TURNS A BLIND EYE TO WHAT IS HAPPENING TO AMERICA, etc. etc, THEN YOU MUST FIRE THEM! ENOUGH OF THE IDIOCY AND TREASON BEING COMMITTED FROM DC (ORCHESTRATED OFF SHORE) AGAINST OUR REPUBLIC!

jofortruth

Posted: Jun 7 2010, 11:02 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

BP chief Tony Hayward sold shares weeks before oil spill
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbys...-oil-spill.html

QUOTE

The chief executive of BP sold �1.4 million of his shares in the fuel giant weeks before the Gulf of Mexico oil spill caused its value to collapse.

Can you believe the CEO of BP, Tony Hayward, sold over 1 million of his shares in BP just weeks before the rig explosion and used part of it to pay off his mansion?

GOLDMAN SACHS ALSO SOLD THEIR SHARES JUST DAYS BEFORE THE EXPLOSION, as you see from a previously posted article.

THESE TWO EXAMPLES, AND BP'S ARROGANCE THROUGHOUT THE LAST 40+ DAYS, ARE ENOUGH TO MAKE ME VERY SUSPICIOUS OF THIS EVENT!

jofortruth

Posted: Jun 8 2010, 10:54 AM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Corexit is Killing the Gulf
http://www.infowars.com/corexit-is-killing-the-gulf-2/

QUOTE

J. Speer-Williams
Infowars.com
June 7, 2010

Let us set aside the possibility of provable intent or gross criminal negligence of governmental regulators and oil company executives causing or allowing the worse humanly caused catastrophe in world history.

Now, let us focus on the greater and utterly provable crimes committed by US regulators and BP (British Petroleum) executives immediately following the blow-out of the Gulf of Mexico oil well.

Please read the following seven paragraphs slowly and carefully to completely understand the enormity of these crimes.

BP, with governmental approval, was so quick to dump hundreds of thousand of gallons of their toxic chemical dispersant, Corexit 9500, at their undersea wellhead and on surface waters that they must have expected a blow out.

BP executives and governmental regulators had to have known just how deadly their dispersant Corexit would turn the Gulf waters, by creating monstrously large, oily, rushing underwater plumes.

These plumes are hundreds of square miles of poisonous, oily micro-particles that go unseen by satellites, cameras, and the naked eyes of the world. They kill all life in their path at 3,000 feet below sea level.

This is death to all life within the fragile Gulf Coast ecosystems that are impacted by these Corexit plumes. Plant, animal, and marine life will die as these oily, Corexit plumes slip their broken oily gunk well under protective booms.

This is death that can never be cleaned up from beneath the sea or from shorelines, without creating greater problems.

What kind of psychopaths would even manufacture something like Corexit, much less put a million gallons of it into our waters?

These sub-humans who have ascended to such power are obviously well behind the human race in the spiritual aspects of their evolutionary development.

If the BP executives were ignorant of what they were doing, they should have been stopped by officials of our federal government.

If our officials were also ignorant, they should all be held accountable for the death and destruction they have allowed by not stopping BP�s use of Corexit.

And what kind of president do we have who has not taken action against these monsters in our government and corporations, who have quadrupled the toxicity of the escaping crude oil with the ungodly use of Corexit.

Obama, who in his first year in office, is said to have indebted Americans more than all previous presidents put together is excellent at two things: Reading from teleprompers the words others write for him and throwing us all ever deeper into debt.

Effective action? We�ve seen none of it.

See article for the rest

jofortruth

Posted: Jun 8 2010, 11:26 AM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,495
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Obama Sheltered BP's Deepwater Horizon Rig from Regulatory Requirement
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19027

QUOTE

Last year the Obama administration granted oil giant BP a special exemption from a legal requirement that it produce a detailed environmental impact study on the possible effects of its Deepwater Horizon drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico, an article Wednesday in the Washington Post reveals.

Federal documents show that the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) gave BP a "categorical exclusion" on April 6, 2009 to commence drilling with Deepwater Horizon even though it had not produced the impact study required by a law known as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The report would have included probable ecological consequences in the event of a spill.

The exemption came less than one month after BP had requested it in a March 10 "exploration plan" submitted to the MMS. The plan said that because a spill was "unlikely," no additional "mitigation measures other than those required by regulation and BP policy will be employed to avoid, diminish or eliminate potential impacts on environmental resources." BP also assured the MMS that any spill would not seriously hurt marine wildlife and that "due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected."

And Obama is wanting to "kick someone's ass over the oil spill". How about starting with your own, Obama, then go to BP. The fact that you can't figure out who to be mad at shows your total complicity and/or stupidity on this issue.

Disgusting behavior coming from a so called President and BP! You both would be fired if I was your boss.

btw, if you would quit spending all of your time on the elite NWO agenda, then maybe you could be a real president and deal with the real issues. But no, you have your orders, and you are following them line by line, and failing at each one and making a wreck of our Country, but you still can't see that! Mr. Puppet, you need a real self examination because what you are doing to America is unforgiveable! The buck stops with you - because you call yourself President!

0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

0 Members:

« Next Oldest | Energy / Oil / ANWR / Oil Wars & Manipulation / State Gas Taxes/World Natural Resources | Next Newest »

DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you