@jimpow, I was taken in too, but it turns out the BP president was correct. There is significant natural leakage in the gulf, the oil is light and rapidly degrades in the water (which is why the natural leaks aren’t a problem). The leak turns out not to be a big problem after all the media hype. This doesn’t exonerate oil companies. There were (all, not just BP) bypassing safety regulations with the collusion of corrupt government officials.
I also found out (not from BP president), similar problems have happened elsewhere, and there are ships that can rapidly clean up 99% of the oil - but their help was refused. Why? Because our EPA standards require cleanup ships that get 99.9% of the oil. That standard makes sense for heavy crude like the Exxon Valdez spilled (which degrades slowly) - but is insane for the “light sweet” crude from the Gulf, and needs to be revised to depend on the type of oil in the leak/spill.
There is also the more political problem of union rules preventing help from foreign labor, requiring a presidential override in emergencies.
alviebird about 14 years ago
Obviously a politician.
myming about 14 years ago
^ or a lawyer… wait, aren’t they the same ?
lewisbower about 14 years ago
I thought you had to be a lawyer to be a politician to understand the double talk laws made by lawyers.
myming about 14 years ago
^ correct !
transistor about 14 years ago
So “1984”, I love it!
jimpow about 14 years ago
BP spokeman
stuart about 14 years ago
@jimpow, I was taken in too, but it turns out the BP president was correct. There is significant natural leakage in the gulf, the oil is light and rapidly degrades in the water (which is why the natural leaks aren’t a problem). The leak turns out not to be a big problem after all the media hype. This doesn’t exonerate oil companies. There were (all, not just BP) bypassing safety regulations with the collusion of corrupt government officials.
I also found out (not from BP president), similar problems have happened elsewhere, and there are ships that can rapidly clean up 99% of the oil - but their help was refused. Why? Because our EPA standards require cleanup ships that get 99.9% of the oil. That standard makes sense for heavy crude like the Exxon Valdez spilled (which degrades slowly) - but is insane for the “light sweet” crude from the Gulf, and needs to be revised to depend on the type of oil in the leak/spill.
There is also the more political problem of union rules preventing help from foreign labor, requiring a presidential override in emergencies.