The Mustang Conspiracy: Part 2: BP and The Ruby Pipeline

page: 2
204
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I have watched both videos.

To me, in my humble opinion - this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, BP (and other large corporations) really don't care about the earth, or the people who live upon this planet. All they care about is profit and power.

This type of poopie has been allowed by the common man too long.

We need to UNITE and RISE UP AGAINST TPTB, the small group of the elite that own these corporations and put a stop to this tyranny.

An example: The BP Corporation has systematically killed our entire Gulf Coast and maybe our Atlantic Coast.

Now we find they are killing off our wild mustangs.

What else are they mucking with that we don't know about.

From a insider point of view: I handle Filings for Workers Compensation Claims for large Energy Companies - and they are the most ruthless and heartless companies to deal with. From top to bottom, all the people employed are truely ruthless, they don't care about anything but their next paycheck, no matter what the expense to another - and that folks is selling your soul.

No, it's not the devil or satan popping up it's the day to day dealings you have that determine if you truely sell your soul to "survive" that is how TPTB get and entrap you - are you a "me myself and I person" or a "us person".

This is a test and we 3d entrapped souls are being put through the final exams right here and now - no on the fence on this one, one or the other - it is your choice.

Do you stand by and look the other way or take action and show your strength?

Your call.

Me, I choose to fight and die upon my feet rather than serve on my knees.

[edit on 4-7-2010 by ofhumandescent]




posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Jed1Knight
 


What do you think the name of the company was before their PR machine convinced them it should be changed to "BP"?

A little research REALLY goes a long way mate.


Springer...



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MrsBlonde
 



didn't you hear the journalist in the original post say that NO OTHER ISSUE in the history of legislature got more response than The Wild Horse and Burro Act?


And you see what happened as a result of that right? The most unanimous legislation in history and that still didn't stop TPTB from forced extinction of native horses. See how powerless we are? In my opinion passing legislation holds zero weight on what actually drives this country which is money, greed, sex, corruption, talking heads, liars, and absolute utter mindlessness. I'm sick of this bleep.


[edit on 7/4/2010 by Mr Knowledge]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I feel sorry for any wildlife being hurt, and not knowing all facts in this matter.

but why would building a pipeline through these area's have a necessity of removal for these animals, pipelines would displace something like a 100foot strip of land that needs to be cleared and in no way would this pose a hazard for either the animals or damage to the pipeline from them.

actual minesites that are built would have more of an effect with wider areas being 'off limits' to such animals and the end results of such mining that might indeed pose a hazard for wildlife in these immediate areas.

unprocessed uranium from the ground is not dangerous as such in it's natural state, and areas of where these have been mined are only really a hazard with any tailings or water storage dams from that process, but still do not see any major ecological hazards from a leftover or disused quarry even if filled with ground water.

sure, this water in these unused mines might not be ideal for animal life or consumption for that perticular area but does not impede on other places these animals can and do find cleaner sources for their lives.

farmers would have more of a concern and problem about roaming wild animals on their property than would any mining company in the same area as such.

still it's all about human progress and the encroachment on these places where wild animals can still roam freely. sad to see them gone.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Unfortunately, I am not amazed that our gov't agencies are cocooned with large corporations. I am however, glad when they go too far and let damning information slip out that illustrates the union.

I was not surprised at all to learn that there was a link connecting BP to the destruction of the Mustangs. I am willing to bet that if these video's go viral, BP will simply buy the search terms to help control the damage, like they have done with the Deepwater fiasco. (Source) & (Source)

Honestly, as important as this story is, I think it will be eclipsed and drowned out by the many other events that are going on. I often feel quite ineffectual in terms of being able to make a real difference. Even as one gov't scandal is exposed and the main "players" cast out, the same scandal still continues lead by another figurehead, promising change.

I am really thinking hard about how we can successfully divorce big business from our gov't. It would be simple if no $$ were involved, but our culture and society are entrenched in money and all that it supposedly gives you. The people who live and die by the need to have tons of it, are the ones in charge.

We need to figure out a way to break that cycle.

There is something that members in Nevada (and others close by) might be able to do about the Mustang round-ups. I found a site called the Cloud Foundation that lists the days of the next horse round-up. (Although I am having trouble with the link they provide. )

Meanwhile the BLM wants your input on wild horses according to their website, here. The direct link to do that is here. Of course I am sure we can all guess this is all for fluff and show.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
For those concerned about this proven conspiracy between big-oil and the US government, DIGG this up on DIGG.com...

Go here...
digg.com/politics/BP_Connected_To_Wild_Horse_Destruction_in_Wes tern_States

If you're logged into DIGG, make sure you digg it.


Thanks.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   




[edit on 4 -7 -2010 by British Petroleum]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   


— Doc Velocity



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Please spread the word to everyone you know, if you happen to know anyone in mass media all the better. I grew up with and owned horses, this is very sad.





posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
...this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, BP (and other large corporations) really don't care about the earth, or the people who live upon this planet. All they care about is profit and power.

I grew up on the Gulf, dead in the middle of the oil-drilling and oil-refining upper Texas coast, near Louisiana, and I can tell you this about the oil corporations: They know more about the Earth, its biomes and its life processes than do any of us, environmentalists included.

I can also tell you that, if crude oil leakage was a catastrophic threat to the marine environment, then our oceans would have been dead zones a hundred million years ago, long before humankind ever evolved. Crude oil and methane and all sorts of raw chemistry NATURALLY leaks into the world's oceans through fissures in the crust and has done so, nonstop, for millions and millions of years.

Raw and toxic Earth chemistry has shaped the evolution of the marine environment since before the first single-celled organisms came into existence

Consider, for instance, the so-called "black smokers" of the ocean abyss... These are volcanic vents of superheated water and the foulest, most toxic natural chemistry imaginable — including the very toxic hydrogen sulfide, which is deadly to almost all forms of life on Earth. This poison makes crude oil seem like koolaid.

The "black smokers" have belched forth their evil concoctions, uncontrolled and uncapped, for untold millions of years — for so long, in fact, that Life evolved to not only deal with these extreme temperatures and toxins, but to thrive on them. The "black smokers" are host to some of the most incredible living creatures found on our planet — creatures that eat hydrogen sulfide and like it.

But this is no secret. The oil industry knew, many decades ago, that there are microbes that thrive in raw crude, drawn up from the primordial depths. The oil industry knew about extremophiles long before the discovery of "black smokers"... The oil industry knew that crude oil degrades upon exposure to sea water and sunlight and air, and that there are microbes in our environment that consume crude oil, assisting and accelerating its decomposition and resorption.

These creatures exist because they evolved in an environment of constant crude oil leakage, over millions of years.

And that's why neither BP nor the oil industry nor the federal government are terribly excited about the Deepwater Horizon leak. In addition to countless natural crude oil leaks in the Earth's crust, there are 714 active oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, and every one of them leaks crude oil.

In point of fact, every year some 370 million gallons of oil enters the world's oceans, and it goes unreported. There's no hysteria, there's no environmental apocalypse, there are no headlines. For comparison, the Deepwater Horizon oil leak has released only about 111 million gallons of crude in three months.

So why haven't we heard the great wailing and gnashing of teeth before the Deepwater Horizon incident?

It's because this administration, in collusion with the Global Green Agenda, has CHOSEN the Deepwater Horizon incident as its new poster child for Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxation, and all manner of other new and draconian environmental policies — even though they KNOW the crude oil leak IS NOT a particular threat to the environment. It just looks nasty, mainly, which is enough to frighten the envirotards out there into willing compliance.

The manmade global warming hoax has failed miserably, so they're going to use Deepwater Horizon to put their environmental policy reforms on the fast track.

For which YOU will foot the bill. In short, we're going to get screwed royally, but now they're using a petroleum lubricant.

— Doc Velocity







[edit on 7/4/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
First of all -



This! This is the kind of thing ATS should be doing with its resources - thank you thank you thank you! Videos such as these are 10x better than "Conspiracy Chicks"! And it was good to see Knapp again.


This video does a good job of showing the insidious relationship between corporations and the government - and the destruction of the natural world for money:power - Here in Australia we call a wild-horse a "Brumby" and they are a beautiful creature that is most likely every bit as sentient as ourselves.



www.peta.org...

A sweeping roundup of wild horses in the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range began September 3, in Lovell, Wyoming. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) plans to remove more than 70 horses and foals from a small herd, citing concerns of lack of food because of poor range conditions. Visitors to the range dispute this claim, stating that the range is in good condition and that there's plenty of food to sustain the herd.

BLM officials use helicopters to round up animals during such removals. The panicked horses often suffer devastating injuries as the helicopters chase the terrified animals toward a corral. Once captured, horses older than 10 years of age can be sold to "kill buyers," who transport the animals to Canada for slaughter, while younger horses may be placed in a government holding with 33,000 other horses whom the BLM has previously removed from the wild. The BLM has even proposed killing these animals because it can no longer afford to feed them.

Please place an immediate call to officials and tell them that wild-horse roundups are inherently cruel and simply can't be carried out humanely. Demand that the BLM's horse roundups, including the one scheduled for today, be immediately cancelled.

Please send polite comments to:

The Honorable Ken Salazar
Secretary
U.S. Department of Interior
202-208-3100

Director Bob Abbey
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
202-208-3801
866-468-7826

www.peta.org...



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com
 


Thank you for those two excellent videos. Question: Can you post
them on youtube.com to get maximum exposure?



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by Jed1Knight
 


What do you think the name of the company was before their PR machine convinced them it should be changed to "BP"?

A little research REALLY goes a long way mate.


Springer...


Didn't they change the name from British Petroleum to "just" BP because American Big Oil and Banks bought 39% of the company?

The US own 39% of BP and the Brits 40% and the rest is owned by various groups and investments Banks around the world including American interests.

I just find it a little bit strange that so many in the American mainstream media and President Obama are insisting on calling the BP Corporation by its old name.

It's almost like the American Oil industry and the Obama administration want to whip up Anti-British sentiments among the American public by pointing their finger at the Brits and distance themselves from the problems and risks & dangers inherent in deepwater drilling.


Oil groups distance themselves from BP

The chief executives of the world’s biggest international oil companies will testify on Tuesday that the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico “was preventable’’, publicly distancing themselves for the first time from the UK company, the Financial Times has learnt.

Executives from ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips will say that by following current “best practices’’ companies can avoid such accidents, according to interviews with those who have seen the planned remarks
---
They also want to respond to the criticism that the industry was unprepared for a disaster of this scale, given the companies’ inability to help BP stop and contain the oil gushing into the Gulf since the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig.

www.ft.com...


Don't get me wrong here, I very much dislike soulless Big Corporations in General, especially those who are destroying our planet, the nature and wildlife.

But doesn't it smell like a conspiracy against the Brits by other Oil Corporations, and a golden opportunity to paint themselves to look a tad better to the American public with some good ol' American PR to save their own sorry butts and their industry from bad PR?


A great opportunity to bash the competition maybe?


Anyway! the oil spill is an awful tragedy of epic proportions for all people and animals who are affacted by this result of corporate greed.

And thanks for showing us the great video about the Mustang conspiracy - I really hope this will go viral and bring this Corporate scandal and corruption out into the light & public eye for everyone to see what these soulless greedy Corporations are doing to the world.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by Jed1Knight
 


What do you think the name of the company was before their PR machine convinced them it should be changed to "BP"?

A little research REALLY goes a long way mate.


Springer...


With respect, BP formally changed it name to BP p.l.c on Tuesday May 1st 2001. The parent company was previously called BP Amoco p.l.c. - the name given on 31 December 1998, the date of the merger between BP and Amoco.

Source

[edit on 5-7-2010 by LarryLove]


CX

posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Great video's Mark, George and all involved....that was certainly an eye opener.
Professionaly done too, casual but a great watch with fantastic investigation.

As for the use of the "British Petroleum" title, i can understand why people are going to get fed up with it's use. Whether it was the company's name years ago or not, it hasn't been for many years.

I guess you'll only get Brit's complaining about this, but i guess it's a defensive thing. By using the word "British" it will place blame towards the Brits for not only the oil leak, but now killing horses which lets face it will get much more of an emotion in most people.

As was said earlier, "Who doesn't love horses?". Good point. Now imagine your country was accused of killing these lovely creatures?

You'd be a bit fed up if the company was in fact called another name, half owned by the US and employed more US workers than Brits.

I know it's only a word, but we all moan about the play on words when the MSM does it don't we?

That's not to say this is how it is intented by Mark and George, however whilst some of ATS know that BP is not a solely British company, many of ATS won't know that....and those outside ATS who watch this video could quite easily start accusing us Brits of killing the horses.

I think of so many ATS threads when i sit here right now. There's the ones that rightly blame the government and big corporations for their greed which is doing this.

Then there are the threads that say we are ALL to blame for the need for oil, as we ALL use products that come from oil.

Does that mean if we sit at our computers and use everything associated with oil (plastics and the likes), does that mean that we are all indirectly to blame for not only the oil damage, but the death of these horses too?

I want to reiterate the shame of all this though. Although i have never been a horse owner, i have lived around them all my life and they are fascinating animals. I am lucky enough to live in a part of the UK where they roam free on the forest, through our village and we have contact with them every day.

It would kill this place if we lost them, let's hope something is done before it happens over there.

CX.

[edit on 5/7/10 by CX]



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by Jed1Knight
 


What do you think the name of the company was before their PR machine convinced them it should be changed to "BP"?

A little research REALLY goes a long way mate.


Springer...



Thanks

[edit on 5-7-2010 by BANANAMONTANA]



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
European shares waver but BP gains

Earth is a resource, humans are a resource, everything is a resource.
Didn't you learn that from Melville's Moby Dick?
And all citizens/workers are contributing to it because they want to earn a golden coin...

There is only one way to prevent this - but who has the guts to say: NO!

Just look at this:

BP Texas Refinery Had Huge Toxic Release Just Before Gulf Blowout

www.propublica.org...

It has been totally ignored.




The company now estimates that 538,000 pounds of chemicals escaped from the refinery while it was replacing the equipment. These included 17,000 pounds of benzene, a known carcinogen; 37,000 pounds of nitrogen oxides, which contribute to respiratory problems; and 186,000 pounds of carbon monoxide.





The 40-day emissions were initially reported by the Daily News of Galveston, Texas, but received little national attention.


No one pays attention...

It happens everywhere and affects everyone, and yet all just let go and get carried away by this abysmal torrent.



[edit on 5-7-2010 by DangerDeath]



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


Great point and one we hadn't considered, I changed the title to "BP" sans the "British Petroleum". Thanks for the heads up.

Springer...



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by Jed1Knight
 


What do you think the name of the company was before their PR machine convinced them it should be changed to "BP"?

A little research REALLY goes a long way mate.


Springer...


With respect, BP formally changed it name to BP p.l.c on Tuesday May 1st 2001. The parent company was previously called BP Amoco p.l.c. - the name given on 31 December 1998, the date of the merger between BP and Amoco.

Source

[edit on 5-7-2010 by LarryLove]



Yeah! you sure find some interesting things when you're looking at the company's history! (from a conspiracy angle)

Rockefeller's Standard Oil became Amoco who then merged with BP in the late 1990's.

Btw! some interesting facts, who had the most to lose in Iran and Cuba?

Answer: Standard Oil



Nevertheless, cheaper international exploration costs spurred Standard (Indiana) to again become active in the growing foreign oil arena that it had all but left in 1932 when it sold Pan American's foreign interests. To handle international land leasing and joint ventures, the company organized Pan American International Oil Corporation in New York, as a subsidiary of Pan American Petroleum. Foreign operations included exploration rights for 13 million acres in Cuba, obtained in 1955


The traditional oil-industry profit arrangement for international activities had been an even split between the company and the host government, though several firms had quietly bent the guidelines. Standard (Indiana) broke openly with this custom in a 1958 deal with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), in which Standard (Indiana) split the profits evenly, then gave NIOC half of its own share, to which it added a $25 million bonus.
---
In late December 1978 the Shah of Iran was overthrown, and Standard (Indiana) hurriedly closed its Iranian facility and evacuated American staff members after all American employees of Amoco Iran Oil Company received death threats. The year 1978 had seen record-breaking production in Iran, and its loss resulted in a 35 percent production decrease in the company's overseas operations.


And who was involved in the Caspian sea/basin exploration?

Answer: Amoco/Standard Oil


With the cost of oil and gas exploration soaring and lean operations not able to withstand the failure of a risky venture, more and more oil companies turned to joint ventures in the early and mid-1990s to spread the risk. Amoco was a member of a ten-company consortium that signed an agreement in 1994 with the Republic of Azerbaijan to develop oil fields in the Caspian Sea. Also in 1994 Amoco joined with rivals Shell Oil and Exxon to finance a $1 billion offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico, to be the world's deepest. And in 1995 Shell and Amoco created a limited partnership to develop oil fields in the Permian Basin area of west Texas and southeast New Mexico.


Seems like Amoco/Standard oil sure had a lot to do with the American foreign Geo-political policy and military actions over all these years.


But the keyword here is: Joint Ventures to share the blame, Geo-political wars and to withstand the failure of very risky ventures & to spread the risks.

That's why Amoco merged with BP so that IF anything goes wrong they can point their chubby oily fingers at foreign shores to save their faces and sorry butts infront of their own domestic public opinion and withstand the political pressure when they screw up by pushing things to the limit for profits.

And of course, all these Big Oil Corporations are in cohoot with eachother in joint ventures all over the world these days.

They are all together in the same bed as their bought corrupted politicians and puppet henchmen, Globally - controlling our governments with their Bankster friends.

(As we all know!)

That's why I find it a little bit silly when they are trying to pitch and sell this current disaster to the public through MSM like it is the fault of the British soley.

Hench the heavily use here and in the American MSM of the old name BRITISH PETROLEUM to mislead the public - when in fact, Amoco/Standard Oil is as deeply involved as BP are in the Gulf, because they have merged into one Multinational company since the late 1990's.

Even Obama is repeating the old name over and and over again like a broken record on TV.


He is probably doing this to save the face of the American Oil industry and mislead the public masses into thinking that this is soley the fault of a foreign British Oil Company, and that no American Oil people or companies are involved. And by the same time, he can pick up some political points by doing so infront of the masses and control the public opinion.

But British Petroleum as a pure British company don't exist anymore

American Amoco and the old British Petroleum merged into a new multinational company who are still using the letters BP as their name in this world of their globalism.

And it's surely not soley the British corporate culture to take the blame here in this disaster - I'm pretty sure that it's both the American and British Corporate culture from both Amoco and BP, who now have merged into one new multinational company - are equally bad and greedy when it comes to profits before safety concerns.

They probably caculated the risks to drive this operation to its limits even if it would mean an environmental disaster when something goes wrong - they simply don't care and say; let us deal with that huge problem later, IF and WHEN that occurs.

The profits, cost savings and their personal bonuses goes before everything else as usual in this Multinational Corporate culture of today. It's a sickness, hench many of their CEO's have psychopathic/sociopathic tendencies & personalities.

That's the merit that got them hired by the elite as their henchmen to do the work in the first place!

Unfortunately, these Corporations needs a totally cold hearted egocentric person with absolutely no compassion for others to take certain risks and to make certain decisions, and do things a normal person would never do.

Sometimes their actions and behaviour and public speeches just makes you standing there in shock afterwards with an open mouth saying;
these guys are clinically insane.


And btw! Amoco were also responsible for the worst oil disaster ever in North European waters 1978 when a tanker ran aground off the French coast:


Environmental matters came to the fore again in 1978, when an Amoco International Oil Company tanker, the Amoco Cadiz suffered steering failure during a storm and ran aground off the French coast, leaking about 730,000 gallons of oil into the sea. The huge oil spill cost $75 million to clean up, and left its mark on the area's tourist trade as well as its ecosystem. The French government brought a $300 million lawsuit against Amoco that eventually led to an $128 million judgment against Amoco. Amoco appealed the ruling, but the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago not only upheld the judgment but also increased it to $281 million. Amoco chose not appeal this ruling and paid the French government $243 million and the affected Brittany communities $38 million.


www.fundinguniverse.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 5-7-2010 by Chevalerous]





new topics
top topics
 
204
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join