The communities are fishing communities. That means they have boats that are available and, because of the oil, they literally have no other means of income.
I know, I'm just saying that those fishing communities will not have enough resources to at least equalize the amount of oil coming in on their own. Their moratorium on outside help is leading to there just being more oil - if the local labor joins forces with BP and the government, then there'll be enough to start beating it back. But their moratorium on outside assistance is just pr0olonging the cleanup process.
These local fishermen were promised, and have every right, to get work helping with the cleanup.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed, I'm saying that they need more help to be able to make progress on the spill. If local resources are exhausted before they're given assistance, it'll be a waste because they'll stop coming and the oil will still be flowing out. It'll be inefficient and wasteful to just throw the local communities at the spill when all they're gonna do is exhaust their resources without dealing a blow to how much oil there is. They're better than nothing, but they can't clean up without assistance. Local labor should work in tandem with other sources if they want this cleaned up.
also, you saying this has me worried that you either didn't read all of my post or took what you replied to out of context. I didn't say they should be barred from helping, I said that they should work in tandem with out-of-state labor, BP, and the government. This is an all-hands-on-deck scenario just like Katrina, because if we don't at least break even on the amount of oil polluting the coast, the Gulf will slowly die. And the locals, by barring others from giving assistance, are just harming themselves and the Gulf more.
Corn into fuel wasn't the brightest, but I wish I could go back in time and kill the dodo head who made oil the huge thing of today.
He was no dodo head! Oil is an incredibly great resource, and is better than corn and other forms of fuel in every aspect, except for abundance and emissions. Otherwise it's pretty much just better.
I still find it funny how our greatest minds are thinking of ways to drill into the oil, but they don't care about keeping it from leaking.
All it takes is one crazed Louisiana hillbilly with a match-problem solved right.
And goodbye half of Mexico and the Southern bits of America, but oil problem solved right.
(Idiocy, sarcasm, stupidity, lies, prostate problems, spam, trolling, bladder problems, tardive dyskinesia, sudden blindness and narrow-mindedness are all side effects of my post)
(All words in the above parenthesizes <hows my spelling> are meant as minor jokes)
Avorne, anti American prejudices aside, BP hasn't stood for Brtish Petroleum for 12 years, since they merged with an American company. It has 3 times as many American employees as British ones, has several Americans on its directors board, and its chairman is Swedish. Blaming a single company for the problem is ridiculous.
That said, I'm pissed off with Obama for characteriising BP in a bad light, when the firms who actually built the platform and the faulty pipe are American. Not to mention that the now anti British Obama seems to have forgotten about the American inflicted Torrey Canyon, Piper Alpha and Bhopal disasters caused by solely American corporations which killed thousands, maimed thousands more, who didn't even lift a finger to help. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
It was a accident. No one really caused it to happen.
If I decide to play lacrosse in my grandmother's living room and break her antique lamp by accident, would you still use this line of argumentation. There were clear oversights and what I (and many others) consider to be criminal negligence. There are responsible parties involved and moneys being payed to the victims. Just because there is no direct causal link between a person's intentions and the actions does not mean the person shouldn't be held accountable.
I could be wrong here but a friend of mine told me that the rig was actually owned by a separate company and BP was simply paying them to do the drilling? Is there any chance this is true, or is it just a rumor? Personally, I'm glad they're at least paying reparations to the peoples whose livelihoods they've destroyed.
Going to be? They already are. My favorite is the one that the environmental activists tried to teach Obama a lesson and things got a little out of hand.
Pointing fingers and accusations at whose to blame whilst the oil rig is still spewing oil is completely out of the question. We need a way to stop it; the best way is to strap dynamite to the rig and blow it up. There isn't anything alive near it and it's not nuclear. The rig will collapse in on itself, theoretically stopping it.
One suggestion, but all others fail. It is a fire hose and trying to put a cap on it is extremely difficult.
I could be wrong here but a friend of mine told me that the rig was actually owned by a separate company and BP was simply paying them to do the drilling? Is there any chance this is true, or is it just a rumor?
This rig, called the Deepwater Horizon, is owned by Transocean, but was being rented and operated by British Petroleum (BP). Ultimately, both parties will be held responsible in some fashion, although BP will likely continue to take the brunt of the blame.
[/quote]Pointing fingers and accusations at whose to blame whilst the oil rig is still spewing oil is completely out of the question[quote]
Tell that to Mr. Obama. What is unfortunate about all this is that BP has so much money in the bank that they could ride out three more of these before worrying. Therefore, they aren't putting 110% effort into this. Calamari in my city is becoming ridiculously expensive, but besides a reputation crack, BP isn't worrying.
