Replies

Given BP’s demonstrated duplicity, I’ll believe it when I see it. Praying it’s true and if it is...it begs the question, why this wasn’t done 30 days ago?

Why didn’t Obama send in tankers to begin sucking this crap up 30 days ago?

Because the probablility for success was relatively low, plus preparations had to be completed before it could be attempted. The well head had to be repaired to the extent it could be, plus there was tremendous pressure to collect the oil being released.

In a situation like this, where conditions are extreme, every move must be carefully evaluted. A mistake could exacerbate the already terrible problem. If, for example, they used too heavy a mud, they could possibly fracture the formation and cause a catastrophic release, or even a collapse of the sea floor and well (called "cratering").

You should also realize that there would have been a great deal of denial, of scape-goating, turf wars, all the wonderful things you see in a government bureaucracy, you will find in a corporate bureaucracy as well.

The corporate culture at BP has had a questionable safety reputation for some time. They have had a sorry reputation for safety in their refineries and as we have found out now, they were skimping on the safety equipment on this rig.

Don't forget that BP has had a cozy relation with the Dems and with Obama.

The quick answer to your question is, people are fallible.

Given BP’s demonstrated duplicity, I’ll believe it when I see it. Praying it’s true and if it is...it begs the question, why this wasn’t done 30 days ago?

I'd guess they'd rather have capped it somehow and still been able to make money off the oil siphoned off than take a total loss on the whole project.

I'm really not happy with the dispersants being used. Better that they let it float to the top and skim it off somehow, than to have it mix in with the sea water. Just look what your dishwater does when you add Dawn to water and wash a greasy frying pan.