Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
Yes, to some extent. I'd also pass a bit of the buck to the government (not this or that administration, just in general). I heard on the radio some expert type mentioning that this specific kind of leakage wouldn't have happened with for instance a Norweigan or Brazilian drilling site, due to higher equirements for safety valves. A full investigation will tell us more of course, but preliminary, it loos like BP followed the regulations at hand, and that the regulations at hand were insufficient in this event. Remains to be seen though.What this actually highlights is the limitations of response technology. Booms are only effective in 1 to 1.5 meter sea swells. Over that, oil gets past the booms. Dispersants break the oil up but it is is only spread into the sea. Skimmers can only recover about 10 to 15 percent of the slick under ideal conditions and burning not much more. Yes, it is the cost of doing business, but that entails the environemental damage and the loss of revenue to all many other business. And yes, it is BP as the owner but many other contactors, such as Haliburton, are liable to some extent.
Response technology is indeed limited, not to mention costly. In comparison, preventive technology is (and pardon the pun) a drop in the ocean.
Last edited: