Just an example of the kind of crap we're seeing in the MSM (from the linked story):
"On Tuesday, BP engineers will attempt to plug the spewing well 5,000ft down on the ocean floor by spraying mud and cement into it. If that fails, there is a back-up plan which sounds about as hi-tech as throwing snowballs at the moon. It is called the "junk shot", and consists of trying to clog the well with golf balls, shredded tyres, and other refuse up to and including human hair. It has, more than a month after the calamity began, come to this." The "junk shot," low-tech as it may sound to the uninformed (like these reporters), is an established method of killing blown-out wells--one BP had been considering almost from the beginning, not something it just came up with out of desperation. Not all the MSM coverage is so irresponsible. The NYTimes, McClatchey, and nola.com have been pretty good. But it's unwise to take anything they say as gospel unless it's corroborated by independent expert sources--specifically folks with oil industry experience. I keep touting the discussions on the environmentalist blog TheOilDrum.com, but there are no doubt others. As to the dispersant issue, EPA is considering BP's response and will make a decision in the next couple of days. Note that its initial directive to BP was to find a better dispersant *OR* explain and document why the one BP was using was the most suitable--which BP did. Whether EPA will accept its explanation, we'll know soon enough; but it's simply wrong to suggest that BP is "defying" EPA. And again, BP is having to thread a very delicate legal needle. It's in the interests of its shareholders--which it is required to favor by law--to use dispersants to keep as much of the oil as possible off the shoreline. What Obama could possibly do other than what he *is* doing is extremely difficult to say. No doubt he could come up with more Oil Spill Theater to make it *appear* he was taking charge and being tougher on BP, but it's not at all clear these would advance a resolution of the crisis. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchy...@...> wrote: > > This is so not right: > EPA: Use a dispersant that is less toxic. > BP: Screw you. Corexit is on your approved list and the Coast Guard said we > can use it so it doesn't rise to the surface where you'll SEE it. So what if > we get miles of underwater plumes. Plumes, shlumes. Big deal. Besides, we got > a sweetheart deal from our cronies who manufacture Corexit. > EPA: Good point. How about banning you from contracts with the government? > BP: Nope. You'll have to do a study first. > EPA: Good idea. > BP: Take a year or two, maybe five. By that time everyone will have forgotten > we killed the oceans and they can blame it on you. > EPA: Good point. How about President Obama, finger wagger in chief, scolds > you with a little righteous anger. > BP: Ooo...scary! > > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-black-hole-at-the-bottom-of-the-gulf-1980693.html >
