Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Spill

aronsearle said:
Well they would have drilled on land or in shallow waters (plenty of places to do so), but the envirowackos wouldnt give them permits, (is that irony, I can never tell)

Well there are real environmental issues involved with drilling close to shore as well. Personally, after what has happened I don't think I can believe what the oil companies are saying any more.

BP has started the "static kill" - thing which should seal the thing more or less finally. We'll see.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/08/03/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T1#fbid=RM9YfJzc3cq
 
UncannyGarlic said:
aronsearle said:
Also a number of European clean up ships that had the capacity to suck up 200% of the spill where not allowed in US waters due to trade union laws (I think it was called the jones act).
The use of dispersant (especially at the source) makes that a moot point as very large portion of the oil can't even be skimmed. Out of sight, out of mind is the main purpose of dispersant.

The disperssant has basically shielded BP from trillions in damages. Instead of hitting the beaches (and BP) now, the "disappeared" dispersant and oil will jack the rate of chronic disease region wide for generations to come. Corporate Plutocracy.
 
Back
Top