--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchy...@...> wrote: <snip> > Given that BP must protect its bottom, has a right to > withhold information, and has monitoring equipment and > expertise that we don't have, how do we know they want > to shut down the well
Because a blown-out well is a total loss, no matter whose it is. The only thing they *can* do with it is shut it down. That's not what BP says, it's what knowledgeable oil industry folks, who think BP should be lynched, say. > or what the hell they're doing except what they tell us? > Since no one knows what BP has up its pipe, Carville can > flap his misinformed gums about it as much as any concerned > citizen. By me, a concerned citizen is one who takes the time to inform him/herself. > From Carville to citizen activism (including boycotts) > all were saying is "Don't trust BP," for exactly the > reasons you outlined. Granted. But there are some things we *can* know, such as that BP wants to get the well shut down as fast as is humanly possible. We *do* know it doesn't want to have to pay any more for cleanup and liability claims than it absolutely has to. The longer the well keeps flowing, the more that's going to be. > Trust is a bottom line commodity. Why else would BP re-brand > itself as "Beyond Petroleum" or be concerned they're taking > a hit in the stock market or downplay the size of the > environmental impact or on CNN today, trot out an Admiral in > charge of the oil response operation saying, "I trust Tony > Hayward?" That's a Coast Guard admiral, and the Coast Guard is pretty trustworthy. BP doesn't trot him out; he trots himself out. I don't trust what Hayward says to the public for an instant, but it's conceivable he doesn't dare try to spin Admiral Allen, so Allen may be getting the straight dope. No guarantees, but what Allen tells the public is more likely true than what BP does.
