BP likely to face criminal charges, say these folks:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...and-justin-blum.html
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
quote:After all, mere negligence leading to serious oil pollution constitutes a misdemeanor.
Not too serious.
If the oil was spilling out because of a natural occurrence such as an earthquake, who do you sue then? Everyone wants to act like BP created the oil as well. It is naturally occurring.
I am not defending their stupidity in ignoring safety regulations but the oil will evaporate and disperse faster if they leave it alone. Collect what you can but don't use chemicals or burn the excess.
...........................................................................
Analysis: Doing nothing might have been best for oil spill
Kate Kelland, Health and Science Correspondent
LONDON
Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:21pm EDT
LONDON (Reuters) - It might have been better for the environment to have done nothing about the enormous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico except to keep the oil out at sea, British scientists said on Monday.
Marine biology and environmental experts said they feared the aggressive cleanup operation, during which oil has been set alight and oil-dispersing chemicals have been dumped into the sea, might be more damaging than the oil itself.
Previous experience suggests that containing the oil out at sea but otherwise leaving it alone to disperse and evaporate naturally is better in the long run but is regarded as politically unacceptable, they said.
"One of the problems with this spill is that it has gone from the environmental arena into the economic and political arena, so if you ask how bad it is, that depends on which perspective you're coming from," said Martin Preston, an expert in marine pollution, earth and ocean sciences from Britain's Liverpool University.
"Economically, clearly the impact has been very large, but environmentally the jury is still out. One of the tensions between environment and politics is that politicians cannot be seen to be doing nothing, even though doing nothing is sometimes the best option."
I would be happy for those directly involved (rather those who were supposed to be involved) in overseeing the safety of the operation to serve time in Angola. I doubt if that goes to the top, but those assigned to that rig with MMS, and the people with BP who argued with the drillers about trying to take shortcuts to make the well productive sooner, and whoever decided not to put the added blowout protector and even the person who was supposed to ride herd on the batteries that were dead.
Get 'em all and let them see how they like it in the swamps of La. Recken them ole' Cajun boys would take a liking to them ?
Get 'em all and let them see how they like it in the swamps of La. Recken them ole' Cajun boys would take a liking to them ?
I don't know about those Cajun boys, but I bet the gators would like them. Chomp chomp!
quote:Originally posted by seeweed:
I would be happy for those directly involved (rather those who were supposed to be involved) in overseeing the safety of the operation to serve time in Angola. I doubt if that goes to the top, but those assigned to that rig with MMS, and the people with BP who argued with the drillers about trying to take shortcuts to make the well productive sooner, and whoever decided not to put the added blowout protector and even the person who was supposed to ride herd on the batteries that were dead.
Get 'em all and let them see how they like it in the swamps of La. Recken them ole' Cajun boys would take a liking to them ?
Shore 'nuff! They might wind up squealin' lak a pig!
quote:Originally posted by b50m:quote:After all, mere negligence leading to serious oil pollution constitutes a misdemeanor.
Not too serious.
If the oil was spilling out because of a natural occurrence such as an earthquake, who do you sue then? Everyone wants to act like BP created the oil as well. It is naturally occurring.
I am not defending their stupidity in ignoring safety regulations but the oil will evaporate and disperse faster if they leave it alone. Collect what you can but don't use chemicals or burn the excess.
...........................................................................
Analysis: Doing nothing might have been best for oil spill
Kate Kelland, Health and Science Correspondent
LONDON
Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:21pm EDT
LONDON (Reuters) - It might have been better for the environment to have done nothing about the enormous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico except to keep the oil out at sea, British scientists said on Monday.
Marine biology and environmental experts said they feared the aggressive cleanup operation, during which oil has been set alight and oil-dispersing chemicals have been dumped into the sea, might be more damaging than the oil itself.
Previous experience suggests that containing the oil out at sea but otherwise leaving it alone to disperse and evaporate naturally is better in the long run but is regarded as politically unacceptable, they said.
"One of the problems with this spill is that it has gone from the environmental arena into the economic and political arena, so if you ask how bad it is, that depends on which perspective you're coming from," said Martin Preston, an expert in marine pollution, earth and ocean sciences from Britain's Liverpool University.
"Economically, clearly the impact has been very large, but environmentally the jury is still out. One of the tensions between environment and politics is that politicians cannot be seen to be doing nothing, even though doing nothing is sometimes the best option."
sorry but all those "british" scientist and so called experts bought and paid for by "british petroleum" are absolute idiots. this is a catastrophe of extinction level if not controlled quickly, we should not underestimate the effects this will have on our "the human population" future.
sorry 'bout your BP stock there b50m
quote:Jail, Baby, Jail?
Does that include Obama as well?
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...h-drilling-policies/quote:Less than four months after President Barack Obama took office, his new administration received a forceful warning about the dangers of offshore oil drilling.
The alarm was rung by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., which found that the government was unprepared for a major spill at sea, relying on an "irrational" environmental analysis of the risks of offshore drilling.
The April 2009 ruling stunned both the administration and the oil industry, and threatened to delay or cancel dozens of offshore projects in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.
Despite its pro-environment pledges, the Obama administration urged the court to revisit the decision. Politically, it needed to push ahead with conventional oil production while it expanded support for renewable energy.
Another reason: money. In its arguments to the court, the government said that the loss of royalties on the oil, estimated at almost $10 billion, "may have significant financial consequences for the federal government."