It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sensors Deployed To Better Track Oil Spill In Gulf

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Sensors Deployed To Better Track Oil Spill In Gulf


news.yahoo.com

SCHRIEVER, La. – Undersea sensors were deployed to a ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico on Sunday in an effort to better track the amount of oil gushing into the sea as pressure mounted on BP to create special accounts that would set aside billions of dollars to pay for spill-related claims.

New estimates say the blown-out well could have been spewing as much as 2 million gallons of crude a day before a cut-and-cap maneuver earlier this month started capturing some of the flow.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
The Gulf of B.P. Oil Disaster : A National Emergency Situation and Smoke On the Water
Gulf oil leak damage estimates range from bad to calamitous
Oil Leak + Evidence = Unfathomable Disaster ! Government Not Talking to Avoid MASS PANIC! The Earth
Exxon Mobile Excess profit research




posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Now just how many incidents are going to happen before BP PLC gets this shut off, cleaned-up, and the other incidents are shown in the light of day?

We have had 4 incidents now, between Venezuela, the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, and West Virginia, far too many incidents to call them just "accidents", and they are deploying sensors to track the oil spill.

I have to seriously wonder if these are mere accidents or "accidents" meaning terrorism events, in other words sabotage.

It would seem as if British Petroleum is being trashed in more ways than financially, possibly politically, definitely by ATS'ers and other media outlets.

BP Spills Coffee


If it weren't so sad what's happening in the Gulf of Mexico this might be funnier.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
It would seem as if British Petroleum is being trashed in more ways than financially, possibly politically, definitely by ATS'ers and other media outlets.


There hasn't been a company called British Petroleum for more than a decade now. Are you referring to BP Plc?



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Spartan,

IMO this is all a rouse to gain support for Obama's green agenda and Cap & Trade.

The more ecological disasters we have, the more people are getting frustrated at Big Oil. Maybe BP is the scape goat. One of the big ones needs to fall to scare people.

Perhaps this was their choice?

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Chris McGee
 


Yes, BP PLC, it's still British Petroleum, as far as I am concerned.

Changing a corporate name is just changing a name.

It is still the same people, just a different name, and possibly different board of directors.

It's still connected to Halliburton and this could be all connected to the Iraq War.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Well, this could be an actual terrorist attack, it could be an accident.

No matter what, Obama will use it, to get any agenda out of it he can.

Just as those in Washington D.C. opposed to him will use it to destroy him.

It's quite honestly a scene of collateral political damage.

With innocent American citizens suffering in the middle no matter how you wrap it up.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by Chris McGee
 


Yes, BP PLC, it's still British Petroleum, as far as I am concerned.

Changing a corporate name is just changing a name.

It is still the same people, just a different name, and possibly different board of directors.

It's still connected to Halliburton and this could be all connected to the Iraq War.


The name actually changed when they merged with Amoco, becoming BP Amoco, then just BP Plc. British Petroleum hasn't existed since then and the company is now owned 40% by british shareholders and 39% by american shareholders.

As you can see, more than just the name changed, the entire makeup of the company changed significantly.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


Never let a good disaster go to waste eh?

How sad that once again it is us who pay the price for corporate greed and political clout.

Hopefully not for much longer.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Chris McGee
 


Meaning a strong alliance of shareholders.

Also it means a political target.

As far as terrorism is concerned, especially since Halliburton is in the mix.

Considering Halliburton was run by Dick Cheney, and him and Bush's lies got us involved in the Iraq War, through the Project for the New American Century.

Sure sounds like a political target to me.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Correct.

That's how politics works, whether it's Washington D.C., the United Nations, or corporations like BP PLC.

No matter whether it is International Politics or Corporate and Office Politics.

The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power




Amazon Review :

The Bush years have given rise to fears of a resurgent Imperial Presidency.

Those fears are justified, but the problem cannot be solved simply by bringing a new administration to power.

In his provocative new book, The Cult of the Presidency, Gene Healy argues that the fault lies not in our leaders but in ourselves.

When our scholars lionize presidents who break free from constitutional restraints, when our columnists and talking heads repeatedly call upon the "commander in chief " to dream great dreams and seek the power to achieve them--when voters look to the president for salvation from all problems great and small--should we really be surprised that the presidency has burst its constitutional bonds and grown powerful enough to threaten American liberty?

The Cult of the Presidency takes a step back from the ongoing red team/blue team combat and shows that, at bottom, conservatives and liberals agree on the boundless nature of presidential responsibility.

For both camps, it is the president's job to grow the economy, teach our children well, provide seamless protection from terrorist threats, and rescue Americans from spiritual malaise.

Very few Americans seem to think it odd, says Healy, "when presidential candidates talk as if they're running for a job that's a combination of guardian angel, shaman, and supreme warlord of the earth."

Healy takes aim at that unconfined conception of presidential responsibility, identifying it as the source of much of our political woe and some of the gravest threats to our liberties.

If the public expects the president to heal everything that ails us, the president is going to demand--or seize--the power necessary to handle that responsibility.

Interweaving historical scholarship, legal analysis, and trenchant cultural commentary, The Cult of the Presidency traces America's decades-long drift from the Framers' vision for the presidency: a constitutionally constrained chief magistrate charged with faithful execution of the laws.

Restoring that vision will require a Congress and a Court willing to check executive power, but Healy emphasizes that there is no simple legislative or judicial "fix" to the problems of the presidency.

Unless Americans change what we ask of the office--no longer demanding what we should not want and cannot have--we'll get what, in a sense, we deserve.


Politicians never waste a good disaster, never, it is how they get more funding.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Chris McGee
 


You can argue all you want that the company is in fact no longer British Petroleum. Unfortunately in the vast majority of minds the name BP is still British Petroleum. There is not a lot they can do to change that opinion either. Aside from changing the name from BP to something else.

I know British citizens do not like the connection as they feel it paints them in a bad light. I do not think however that the general public blames Britain or it's citizens for this one companies colossal screw up.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
No Matter what it is ... These High ranking officails =idiots sure picked a messed up way to destroy our earth.. I wish it was just a bad dream..but it's not ..It to me is and act of something for sure it's an act of coruption in the most extreme way possible ... so now what???




new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join