Forum Announcement

Please don't panic! You are not in the Twilight Zone, you are experiencing the new CNET forums platform! Please click here to read the details. Thanks!!

Speakeasy

Praise

No cookies for BP

by JP Bill / November 28, 2012 / 7:48 PM UTC
U.S. bans BP from new government contracts after oil spill deal
,


(Reuters) - The U.S. government banned BP Plc on Wednesday from new federal contracts over its "lack of business integrity" in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, possibly imperiling the company's role as a top U.S. offshore oil and gas producer and the No. 1 military fuel supplier.

The suspension, announced by the Environmental Protection Agency, comes on the heels of BP's November 15 agreement with the U.S. government to plead guilty to criminal misconduct in the Gulf of Mexico disaster, the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history. The British energy giant agreed to pay $4.5 billion in penalties, including a record $1.256 billion criminal fine.

BP and its affiliates are barred from new federal contracts until they demonstrate they can meet federal business standards, the EPA said. The suspension is "standard practice" and BP's existing U.S. government contracts are not affected, it said.
Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: No cookies for BP
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: No cookies for BP
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
So
by TONI H / November 29, 2012 / 2:01 AM UTC
In reply to: No cookies for BP

We either import more to fuel our navy or we spend $26 per barrel for God knows how long for that infamous biofuel that is already deemed inefficient and another huge waste of taxpayer money. Massive cutbacks for our military in all departments, and then spend what's left on crap like this...........

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2012/07/19/the-navys-use-of-biofuels-is-inefficient-and-costly

http://www.examiner.com/article/26-per-gallon-green-fuel-costs-for-u-s-navy-are-the-new-400-toilet-seats

We have a freaking leprechaun for a president he's so green, and as long as his agenda moves forward, who cares about REAL national security.

Collapse -
(NT) Hammers cost $400,......... NOT toilet seats....They're $640
by JP Bill / November 29, 2012 / 3:36 AM UTC
In reply to: So
Collapse -
This just illustrates how little you understand about...
by Pepe7 / November 29, 2012 / 2:02 PM UTC
In reply to: So

...technology, and how it develops over time. I suggest you have a chat with a chemical engineer, or perhaps someone with a lot of experience in the oil & gas industry before posting more drivel.

At one point, when we were using coal to power ships, we subsidized such developments to switch to oil. This is no different. If at some point it can become more cost effective to product fuel from algae/seawater, then we will at least have researched it properly. Keep in mind that many military officials have asked for some of these cutbacks. Keep up with the literature and you may actually be informed.

Of course, politicians such as McCain will be vocal critics of any sort of green alternatives since he is owned by big oil.

Collapse -
chance
by Histopathlab / November 29, 2012 / 4:14 AM UTC
In reply to: No cookies for BP

Is this life time ban or what? US should have give them chance to improve their integrity.

Collapse -
Suspensions vs bans
by TONI H / November 29, 2012 / 5:08 AM UTC
In reply to: Response

SUSPENSION: 1. An interruption in the intensity or amount of something 2. Temporary cessation or suspension 3. A time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of something

BAN: 1. A decree that prohibits something 2. An official prohibition

Collapse -
(NT) And?
by JP Bill / November 29, 2012 / 5:19 AM UTC
In reply to: Suspensions vs bans
Collapse -
And
by TONI H / November 29, 2012 / 5:52 AM UTC
In reply to: And?

typical 'government speak'........say one thing and mean another. They outright BAN, then try to soften the blow by calling it 'suspension'. Green BO means BAN and it will stay that way until he's gone and somebody else comes down the pike to lift it.

Collapse -
RE: Green BO means BAN and it will stay that way until he's
by JP Bill / November 29, 2012 / 6:38 AM UTC
In reply to: And
Green BO means BAN and it will stay that way until he's gone and somebody else comes down the pike to lift it.

We have "government speak" AND we also have "Toni speak"

Which is closer to the truth?

BP is still doing business with the Government...Just no new contracts.....IF it was a "Total Ban of BP" ...as opposed to a "ban, temporary ban, suspension of NEW contracts"

THEN your argument MIGHT hold some water.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Collapse -
Do you know when
by TONI H / November 29, 2012 / 6:56 AM UTC

those current contracts run out with no extensions or renewals or new ones replacing them? BO's agenda of doing away with fossil fuels won't include a lift of the ban....He will continue to close out one by one every company that deals with coal, natural gas, and oil. But we'll fix it later when he's gone for good.

Collapse -
RE:He will continue to close out one by one
by JP Bill / November 29, 2012 / 7:13 AM UTC
In reply to: Do you know when

And yet they are still having bids on NEW Contacts?

For What purpose?

Collapse -
Appearances?????
by TONI H / November 29, 2012 / 8:28 AM UTC

And are you ok, even though it doesn't affect you, with our government drastically cutting our military and national security but STILL allocate $26 per GALLON in biofuel for massive ships in our Navy?

Collapse -
RE: with our government drastically cutting our military
by JP Bill / November 29, 2012 / 10:52 AM UTC
In reply to: Appearances?????

with our government drastically cutting our military and national security

The report showed continued strength in homebuilding, which rose at an annual rate of 14.2 percent. And government spending expanded at an annual rate 3.5 percent, marking its first positive contribution to overall economic growth in two years. The increase was driven by a big jump in defense spending.

Link provided upon request.

Collapse -
yeah...provide the link
by TONI H / November 29, 2012 / 11:32 AM UTC

Hard to believe that they would be increasing defense spending after bringing home all those troops.......AND planning to cut $600B Jan 1 (that's in addition to the $500B ALREADY being chopped away).......unless that increase in spending was for the biofuels that your other post just reported as being voted on to restrict it now.

Collapse -
So
by TONI H / November 29, 2012 / 1:33 PM UTC

even with the massive cuts to military spending that are required ($500B already in place plus the real possibility of an additional $600B), the Feds will be spending $26 per barrel for biofuel for the Navy. We can't have the money for our national security and will reduce our militaries to less than 1945 levels, but they can still find 'extra' money in the Pentagon budget to spend billions on expensive, unnecessary fuel.......PLUS all the mechanics involved in converting engines, etc. to accommodate it.

And that's ok with you?

Collapse -
RE: PLUS all the mechanics involved in converting engines,
by JP Bill / November 29, 2012 / 1:46 PM UTC
PLUS all the mechanics involved in converting engines, etc. to accommodate it.

NOW you have a problem with defense spending?

A job is a job? or only military jobs count?
Collapse -
This just in
by JP Bill / November 29, 2012 / 11:10 AM UTC
In reply to: Appearances?????

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate voted on Wednesday to strike restrictions in its annual defense policy bill that would have severely limited the military's effort to develop biofuels for jets and warplanes.

The Senate voted 62-37 to remove language in the National Defense Authorization Act that would have barred the military from buying the controversial alternative fuels if they cost more than petroleum.

Collapse -
Thank goodness for longer term thinking
by Pepe7 / November 29, 2012 / 6:04 PM UTC
In reply to: This just in

At least the senate isn't full of as many dolts as the house and can think in the longer term.

Without a shred of doubt, biofuels will have some impact on future energy usage. It is a matter of how and when, not a matter of if anymore, regardless of how much shale gas will be produced on such large scale.

Collapse -
(NT) Nope..it's only headed up by one
by TONI H / November 30, 2012 / 1:05 AM UTC
Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 45,842 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,052 discussions
icon
Tablets 1,149 discussions
icon
Security 28,606 discussions
icon
Home Audio and Video 18,995 discussions
icon
HDTV Picture Setting 1,743 discussions
icon
Cell Phones 11,258 discussions
icon
Windows 8 1,311 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 10,496 discussions