What I don't understand

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #327,003

5/28/10 10:22:59 AM

What I don't understand

According to the Mother Jones article, the sand that's being raked up is sent to a facility where the oil is separated from the sand. The sand is sent to a hazardous waste disposal facility, and the oil is sent for processing.

In other words, they still plan on selling the oil recovered from the beaches. If that's the case, wouldn't it make sense to do the booms properly, so that all the oil wound up in a few small spots, and relatively uncontaminated by sand? It should be in BP's best financial interests to contain the oil before it hits the beach. So why don't they? What else is going on here?

--

Drew

Post #327,004

by Another Scott

5/28/10 10:31:38 AM

Maybe it's bureaucracy, maybe it's lawyers.

I agree that it makes sense to do those things, and things like be realistic about the scale of the problem to plan the response accordingly.

I saw something somewhere that said that BP's lawyers were running the communications. They're ultimately worried about the legal judgments against them, so doing things like using millions of gallons of detergents to keep the oil from coming on shore (even if there are very bad consequences) is a way to limit their liability. Downplaying the size helps to keep the ambulance chasers away, too, the thinking goes.

Maybe that's it.

But that's stupid because it's clear the problem is huge and isn't being adequately addressed. Happy talk isn't going to keep the oil off shore. It's much cheaper and better to keep the oil off shore than to scoop up and wash beaches and marshes...

Maybe it's the usual problem of poor communications in large organizations.

I agree that more needs to be known. Whatever the reason, the US needs to be more active.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.

Looks like they may have stopped it!!! - (beepster) - (15) - May 27, 2010, 04:08:32 PM EDT

Or maybe not... - (Another Scott) - (11) - May 27, 2010, 05:28:15 PM EDT

'..if federal officials approved' - (Ashton) - May 27, 2010, 06:35:15 PM EDT

Interesting - (beepster) - (9) - May 28, 2010, 09:29:48 AM EDT

I suspect there's nuance that the reporters are missing. - (Another Scott) - (8) - May 28, 2010, 09:40:25 AM EDT

And you would think that the lead gov't official - (beepster) - (7) - May 28, 2010, 09:42:46 AM EDT

I have not been *at all* impressed by Adm. Allen. - (Another Scott) - (6) - May 28, 2010, 10:16:19 AM EDT

What I don't understand - (drook) - (1) - May 28, 2010, 10:22:59 AM EDT

Maybe it's bureaucracy, maybe it's lawyers. - (Another Scott) - May 28, 2010, 10:31:38 AM EDT

so you want the drivers licence post office - (boxley) - (3) - May 28, 2010, 10:32:25 AM EDT

Heh. - (Another Scott) - (2) - May 28, 2010, 11:31:56 AM EDT

that document is filed under the "ya gotta be shittin me" - (boxley) - (1) - May 28, 2010, 11:48:29 AM EDT

There are always exceptions. - (Another Scott) - May 28, 2010, 12:55:45 PM EDT

BP says top kill failed - (jay) - (2) - May 29, 2010, 06:34:16 PM EDT

they need to get adjacent wells in there to release the - (boxley) - May 29, 2010, 07:54:59 PM EDT

It always seemed a long-shot to me. - (Another Scott) - May 29, 2010, 08:04:29 PM EDT

That tastes like Crab Juice!
43 ms