posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:46 AM
Originally posted by On the Edge
Yep,what else is new?
"Obama Sheltered BP's Deepwater Horizon Rig from Regulatory Requirement"
The report would have included probable ecological consequences in the event of a spill.
BP also assured the MMS that any spill would not seriously hurt marine wildlife and that "due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response
capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected."
...Obama's decision to disregard scientific evidence is not the result of a mistaken policy, however. It is the result of definite class
thanks for the linked article...
i'm cherry picking data in this reply post...in the same manner the BP & cohorts cherry-picked the lesser threats of environmental impact.
see a 'spill' in the oil drillers jargon is anything that exceeds normal spillage in the normal process of extraction...
Which i'd say it is NOT the absolute pristine condition of absolutely no oil/petroleum into the waters off the Rig. Oil platform operations normally
include the burnoff of the gas byproduct all the time, the soot & vapors from the burnoff pollutes both the air and the surface water downwind from
the rig... a sort of fallout if-you-will...
so there's plent of imparement of the environment but is viewd as part of the operation.
Just when does contamination become a 'spill'? 100 bbls 10k bbls?
i heard rumors that BP is only going to be levied the max cost of $750M
because 'nothing' imaginable could go wrong with this sophisticated rig, all the technological safegards and disaster models say so...
(as in meteor strikes, or huge gas deposits under extreme pressure, all are next to impossible...)
Now, lets investigate the regulatory agency and see if the impact studies & potential damage reports bring into account other factors such as the
location-> in a sort of Hurricane Alley in the Gulf of Mexico