Chef Jim Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Thank you for proving my point for me, though you didn't mean to. Environmentalists are for banning drilling, like in Anwar, while the tourist industry takes the nimby approach. Environmentalists are also against drilling too close to shore and I think they had more to do with driving these wells to deeper water than the tourist industry did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 I gotta disagree here. The system for inspecting these wells had been so weakened or just non-existant that it would be foolish to allow drilling to continue. If this well was so recklessly pushed forward, no doubt others were as well Even if that were the case, BP is not responsible for paying the laid-off workers salaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Thank you for proving my point for me, though you didn't mean to. Environmentalists are for banning drilling, like in Anwar, while the tourist industry takes the nimby approach. First off, twit: It's ANWR. The Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. A name that's pretty funny considering there's no wildlife there 10 months of the year. The next 10 days has a forecasted high of 40. Second: Who cares? At the end of the day, people who don't live in any version of reality have gotten the idiots in Washington to do tremendously stupid things on their behalf. Those things haven't led to the energy Utopia (welcome to reality) and instead our Southern Coastline will likely be a black hole for 100 years. The indirect result via the butterfly effect. Short term "victory", serious long term loss. That's to say nothing of the hypocrisy of allowing places like Russia and the Middle East to drill - where there is virtually no environmental law and zero accountability (welcome to Russia admitting that they've capped wells with NUCLEAR weapons). Yeah, let's not get energy in America. Surely those Russians and religious nuttos won't ruin the planet while we pretend to be "green". Welcome to how government really works. Now go back to things you're good at, like pretending the current administration in Washington has actually accomplished something more than driving us even deeper into debt at an even more staggering pace than the previous group of criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted June 19, 2010 Author Share Posted June 19, 2010 Even if that were the case, BP is not responsible for paying the laid-off workers salaries. well they paid into some form of unemployment to begin with. So, yes BP is accountable to some degree for these laid-off workers salaries before the moratorium by the Obama administration. Now, because they couldn't follow basic business practices of maintaining your equipment despite generating record profits. They should be held accountable to their workers, and everyone effected by this spill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 I'm curious. What if, after the dust settles and the investigations are complete, it turned out that BP wasn't at fault at all? What if it turned out that this was all because Halliburton knowingly used Velveeta instead of concrete? And the Coast Guard prevented BP from doing the things which were in hindsight the correct responses? Would Barton still be a slimeball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts