Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
A 90-day plan to stop oil spillage doesn't seem like a very good plan. Should nobody be upset with BP's 90-day plan? Because it's a plan, right? As in it was made in advance, right?
|
BP is an entity playing by the rules. Like it or not our government let BP drill with the plan they had. Why did "we" do that? We will eventually find out, but I would send an immediate message to the industry by "firing" BP rather than making nice with them. I would take over the clean up, the effort to stop the leak and revoke the lease. I would increase the consequence of failure sending the industry a message. But unfortunately I am not in charge.
---------- Post added at 02:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
If your scenario is correct, Ace, whoever at BP concocted this plan of getting the relief well started 2 weeks after the accident (knowing it would take 90 days to complete) -along with whoever in the government approved it - should be brought up on criminal negligence charges. That's the stupidest fucking plan I've ever of since it basically dooms the fishing and tourism industies during and after the spill. I find it impossible to believe that you honestly think that BP is going to knowingly have a plan in place that's going to open themselves up to billions of dollars in losses, millions in legal costs and years of court time. To drive their stock price down by 40%? If that's was really and truly the plan, as you seem to believe, then I hope that their Directors and Officers insurance premiums are paid because those insurance carriers are going to pay out whatever limits there are, regardless of what those limits are.
That's the only logical conclusion of your story, Ace. And it makes no sense at all.
|
O.k., so your position is that they had no plan and you think that is more reasonable than what I presented?
Why did it take two week to initiate the drilling of the relief well? Did they ask that question during the Congressional hearings? Has anyone asked that question? Isn't that a good question to ask? Like I said I think the focus is misdirected and there are some other issues that should be discussed. And I can not stress enough how important it was to get BP out of the picture as soon as it could have been done - on things like this you have to have an outside-impartial involvement to solve the problem of this scale most efficiently. BP's interests may not always be in "our" interest.