Will Britain remove the B in BP?

Not least because it's not owned by the government so they don't have any say in what the company is called...
 
You and Famine are going to make Duke mad with your conspiracy talk.

What conspiracy talk?

Transocean are (were) the rig's owners. Halliburton are (were) the rig's operators. BP were leasing the rig and the workers to explore a prospect they owned exploration rights to - on board the rig at the time of the explosion were 79 Transocean employees (one of which was the rig's commander), 7 BP employees and 40 from other companies including, but not limited to, Halliburton. The two supposed causes of the accident are a malfunctioning blowout preventer - with which Transocean have a poor track record - and an inadequate cement seal - with which Transocean also have a poor track record, though they hire in outside expertise to construct them from... Halliburton.


BP own exploration rights to the prospect and leased the Deepwater Horizon and its crew from Transocean who subcontract to Halliburton. It's hardly a conspiracy to point these little details out and wonder what happened to the two companies actually operating the rig - and the company that actually owns it - when it exploded.

It's like blaming Iceland Express when their plane crashes rather than the people who built it (Boeing) or operate it (Astraeus), simply because they'd paid some money to lease it.

(apropos of nothing, Bruce Dickinson of Iron Maiden is a fully-qualified commercial airline pilot and flies for Astraeus on their leased Iceland Express routes)
 
Last edited:
You and Famine are going to make Duke mad with your conspiracy talk.

You honestly don't see the difference between corner-cutting with a little collusion, and deliberately blowing up a rig to make a windfall insurance profit?
 
You honestly don't see the difference between corner-cutting with a little collusion, and deliberately blowing up a rig to make a windfall insurance profit?

Oh, the idea of a deliberate plot to blow the thing is certainly quite far-fetched. Actually I do appreciate the lads digging into the details. But like the rest of us, I wonder if any seamy details of the Halliburton connections will ever come to light. Would the Democrat Obama go out of his way to protect Bush and Cheney in this case? How firm his leash on Holder?

Apropos of nothing much - I won a 45 minute long wheel-to-wheel duel yesterday at a circuit I watched my hero Graham Hill, a registered pilot, win at 47 years ago.

Respectfully,
Dotini
 
Not least because it's not owned by the government so they don't have any say in what the company is called...

Lies!

We are clearly responsible for whatever any off "our" companies do, including when they have as many shares as in the US.

Our blame society is shining through again, we'll ignore the massive rewards everyone has been taking from BP's remarkable successes, because a good old chinwag is always fun.
 
You know if I never heard of the Gulf oil spill I’d still be fit to be tied over the whole letting the terrorist go thing. I’m way more PO’d with their actions over that, then the Gulf, it’s just that both stories happened virtually at the same time. I don’t have any good will for anything or anyone that had anything to do with the denile of getting justice for those families.

I miss the pictures that you used to include in your comments. I think this one needs a picture.
 
I miss the pictures that you used to include in your comments. I think this one needs a picture.

How this?

nile.jpg


:P
 
I honestly think that LeftyWright69 needs to stop going onto all those conspiracy websites. >99% of them are pure bullcrap.
 
Only >99%?

Besides, where do you think I got the facts about the North Korean submarine? :D
 
For those determined to learn the latest rumors and theories on the oil well disaster, go to this website: http://www.rense.com/

This site features many conspiracy and mystery stories, some of them quite scurrilous. Scroll down a ways, and on the left will be a column entitled:
Featured Stories
Oil Catastrophe - Quickest Updates!​

Here you will find numerous videos and stories from a variety of sources.

Cautiously submitted,
Dotini
 
BP Admits It Lobbied British for Libyan Prisoner Transfer

Interesting URL/headline disparity there:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Blood-For-Oil-BP-Denies-It-Wanted-Pan-Am-103-Bomber-Set-Free-98520589.html

It's worth a note too that "lobbied" hasn't got the same meaning or weight in the UK that it does in the US.
 
Interesting URL/headline disparity there:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Blood-For-Oil-BP-Denies-It-Wanted-Pan-Am-103-Bomber-Set-Free-98520589.html

It's worth a note too that "lobbied" hasn't got the same meaning or weight in the UK that it does in the US.

Thats interesting, I know it's a little over kill to think there is a British to American translator....lol.... but here it is

this must not be a disparity translator.....
try pasting "BP Admits It Lobbied British for Libyan Prisoner Transfer"
then try "he opened the bonnet"

We know bonnet means "hood"
 
Last edited:
Interesting URL/headline disparity there:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Blood-For-Oil-BP-Denies-It-Wanted-Pan-Am-103-Bomber-Set-Free-98520589.html

It's worth a note too that "lobbied" hasn't got the same meaning or weight in the UK that it does in the US.

Yeah, they just wanted him back in Libya.

But a year later Megrahi is free in Libya and the doctor who gave the diagnosis admits the bomber could live 10 or 20 more years -- and that he had been paid by the Libyan government.

Oops.
 
As I said at the time of the release, the evidence was pretty vague and it all smelled more of needing to arrest someone for the bombing. I'm not entirely convinced that the Lockerbie case was fully solved at all and that this man is even to blame.
In any case, as has been said already, BP has little to do with it at all - it was the Scottish Government's decision. Why does the US and/or the media feel the need to turn the screw on BP? As far as I can see, BP had an accident - sure its their responsibility to avoid such accidents but is it really necessary to go to these lengths to condemn them? I mean, this has nothing to do with sorting out an oil rig in the Mexican Gulf....
I'm pretty worried about my future with pensions and all, this is certainly not helping one bit.
 
As I said at the time of the release, the evidence was pretty vague and it all smelled more of needing to arrest someone for the bombing. I'm not entirely convinced that the Lockerbie case was fully solved at all and that this man is even to blame.
In any case, as has been said already, BP has little to do with it at all - it was the Scottish Government's decision. Why does the US and/or the media feel the need to turn the screw on BP? As far as I can see, BP had an accident - sure its their responsibility to avoid such accidents but is it really necessary to go to these lengths to condemn them? I mean, this has nothing to do with sorting out an oil rig in the Mexican Gulf....
I'm pretty worried about my future with pensions and all, this is certainly not helping one bit.

Let me see if I got this right, Al Megrahi was a scapegoat used by Gaddafi to take the pressure off Libya generated by the UN, US trade sanctions, and Libya’s inclusion on the US list of states sponsoring terrorism? Do you think Gaddafi’s offer to pay 2.7 Billion might be an admission of guilt?
 
Not really "evidence" though is it? I could just as easily say that its an attempt to help promote a positive image of Libya, the evidence that was produced in the trials was pointing to Libya regradless of whether Al Megrahi was guilty or not. Even if its an admission of guilt, does it prove this particular man had anything to do with it?
As far as I'm concerned, they never proved he actually had anything to do with the bombing.

And I don't think I ever said it was Libya using him as a scapegoat.
 
Last edited:
Not really "evidence" though is it? I could just as easily say that its an attempt to help promote a positive image of Libya, the evidence that was produced in the trials was pointing to Libya regradless of whether Al Megrahi was guilty or not. Even if its an admission of guilt, does it prove this particular man had anything to do with it?
As far as I'm concerned, they never proved he actually had anything to do with the bombing.

And I don't think I ever said it was Libya using him as a scapegoat.

Something tells me that there is never going to be any evidence that would sway you to believe that Libya has ever done anything terrorist related.

1234565.jpg
 
I'm not questioning Libya though. And I never said they "never did anything terrorist related", please don't put words in my mouth thankyou.
 
Something tells me that there is never going to be any evidence that would sway you to believe that Libya has ever done anything terrorist related.

1234565.jpg

Its a rather large leap you are taking here to go from 'this one person may have been set-up as a fall guy' to 'Libya never did anything naughty at all'.

By all means debate a subject, its a cornerstone of GT Planet, but you will not get very far if you miss-represent what people have said to this kind of degree.


Scaff
 
Its a rather large leap you are taking here to go from 'this one person may have been set-up as a fall guy' to 'Libya never did anything naughty at all'.

By all means debate a subject, its a cornerstone of GT Planet, but you will not get very far if you miss-represent what people have said to this kind of degree.


Scaff

Hey, hey... no need to call his mother a whore.
 
Back