Skip to main content

View Diary: "Cut and cap" = BP doublespeak (154 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The tankers are already there (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WillR

    but it's not very easy to skim oil from the surface when much of it never reaches the surface, and that which does, does so over a wide area, and the wave action turns some of it into mousse.

    If they could collect the oil, they could sell it. What they don't collect, they have to pay to clean up. Don't you think if there was any way they could collect more of it, they would be?

    •  No, they're more interested in hiding (6+ / 0-)

      the scope of the disaster. That's what the dispersants are for: making most of the oil not reach the surface.

      "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." --Hypatia of Alexandria, c.400

      by jayskew on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 11:32:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So you want to make it more obvious by... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WillR

        letting more oil reach the coast, or something?

        Again, if it could be skimmed, they'd do that. It's very substantially in their interests to do that: if you can capture the oil, you can sell the oil. If you cannot capture the oil, you're liable for cleaning up, and very probably for damages.

        It is pure fantasy to believe that BP is willingly bypassing opportunities to collect the oil. Using dispersants as a coverup is a fallback strategy in the absence of any way to collect the oil.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site