With technology long available, such as the clean-up ship at the link, why did the oil companies choose not to put these into production, and why did state and federal governments NOT insist that they do so before putting our irreplaceable resources at risk of such a devastating event?
Why did they use toxic dispersants to spread the oil out and not contain and clean-up as was needed. Heck, instead of using a poisonous dispersant, they COULD be using polymers, which are non-toxic and make the oil into a
floating rock which could be towed away and burned, not wasting BTU's.
Meanwhile,the Gulf is poisoned and the coastlines become uninhabitable. It may come to evacuation of those areas, due to methane, benzene and other nasty gases brought ashore by storms.
(Don't forget, Haliburton was the one who screwed up the cementing job in the first place.)
Asked by Anonymous at 12:23 PM on Jun. 4, 2010 in Politics & Current Events
Answer by itsmesteph11 at 12:39 PM on Jun. 4, 2010
Answer by Anonymous at 1:17 PM on Jun. 4, 2010
Like they say, hindsight is 20/20 but you can't fault them for not wanting to pay for something that they had a 1 in a million chance of needing.
Are you kidding me? Not fault them? Ever heard of backup plans? 1 of the most ridiculous comments ever.
I hope you would expect better of your air carrier or surgeon.
Answer by Anonymous at 1:19 PM on Jun. 4, 2010
Answer by delilahsmom1177 at 1:32 PM on Jun. 4, 2010
Answer by Anonymous at 1:36 PM on Jun. 4, 2010
Answer by Anonymous at 1:40 PM on Jun. 4, 2010
Answer by delilahsmom1177 at 1:43 PM on Jun. 4, 2010
Answer by itsmesteph11 at 2:21 PM on Jun. 4, 2010
Answer by delilahsmom1177 at 2:23 PM on Jun. 4, 2010
Answer by Anonymous at 2:25 PM on Jun. 4, 2010
Active Posts in All Groups