Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414
Ace, I need to respectfully disagree with you on both points.
Even if we concede that your description does constitute a "plan", it is so grossly inadequate as to be rendered meaningless. So, whether it's called a plan or not doesn't change the incompetance.
|
In Roach's post #107 there is a quote from BP executive's in their testimony to Congress:
Quote:
insisted last night that its contingency plan had worked, despite coming under fire in Congress for minimising the risks of offshore drilling and trying to shirk blame for the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
With an estimated 4m gallons of oil polluting the gulf from the ruptured well, Lamar McKay, the chief executive of BP America, said the company had adequately anticipated the potential scale of any spill and that its clean-up operation had gone according to plan.
"We had a very specific plan," he told the Senate. "It has actually worked." But he acknowledged the spill could grow to nearly 19m US gallons by the time a relief well – the only sure method of stopping the leak – is drilled. BP's defence came at the end of a testy day of hearings before two committees which saw the three oil titans connected to the disaster repeatedly accused of trying to slough off their financial and legal obligations.
|
We had a contingency plan for Louisiana spill, and it's working, BP chief tells angry senators | Environment | The Guardian
In Roach's post #182 he gave a link to a IEP (PDF), starting in section 7.0 you find the reference Oil Spill Response Plan by BP (MMS company number 21591 and 02481) which was inaccordance to 30 CFR 254 approved 11/14/08.
My position has been clear, this was an accident (not done on purpose, subject to judgment error), BP followed the rules (doing what was required by regulators short of what may turn out to be poor judgment calls), including having a OSRP, and that BP had/has no incentive for the spill and to not resolve the matter as soon as possible. If BP acted inadequately, including the inadequacy of a "plan", they share the blame but "we" have to take our share also.
Quote:
|
Secondly, Based on the links rb has submitted, I have concluded that he has provided ample evidence that the federal government did not meet the people's expectations either. I think his links have covered both sides (if there even are sides to this) as to how the corporate and public sector have colluded to weaken the necessary systems, programs, and plans necessary to safeguard the environment during drilling.
|
So, why not answer simple questions?
Quote:
|
I'm appreciative of his research because it has allowed me to have several informed conversations with people who were desperately trying to make this a right/left issue. I wish you'd settle down on this one. I've tried to see your points, and I just can't reconcile them to other information. The sky is blue.
|
I appreciate his research also, but he comes across as if he knows all the answers and whatever he presents is the only proper conclusion. When other possibilities are presented he goes into an uncontrollable tizzy. The more he refuses to address simple questions the more I persist. This issue about a "plan" could have easily been put to rest, and I am still not clear on his position. He presents evidence that there was a plan and then says there "was no fucking plan:", and I am the one who has the problem. I do have problems, but attempting to clearly communicate my view is not one.
---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by silent_jay
Drilling a relief well after the fact isn't a plan ace, that's common sense, the relief well should have been drilled alongside the current well, that is the point of a relief well, to relieve pressure from a well in case of a blow out, it's not a hard concept to understand.
|
The only way I can think to respond here is with an extreme example. A local Fire Department has plans in place to protect life and property. A house burns down and there is loss of life - then after the fact you come along and say there was no plan because they did not have a station next door to the house that burned. And, even if there was a station next door with "fool-proof" monitors, sprinklers, etc, the house could still burn and their could still be loss of life. So to me it seems you want things to be risk free, this risk free world is fantasy.
Quote:
|
If rb clearly has an agenda then what is it? If it's so clear to you, should be an easy answer. I think you're problem is with anything rb posts, and no matter what he posts it's going to get your knickers in a twist
|
I will let him state his agenda if he chooses to do so. I have read enough from him on various topics to know.