IBCoupe wrote:
The fact remains that BP is the only one with the means to do something about it.
How did you come to that determination? Was it from the Admin looking for a scape goat? Was it from the USCG? The US has had disaster plans on the books for years that almost mirror the oil companies, most likely because they used ours as a model in order to get all the required permits and associated licensing to drill. I've done war time supply asset requisition before. We either have the ability on-hand somewhere or we've got contracts to get the task done accordingly.
It was decided to let BP handle this and it was a bad one. We're on month 2 and the very best efforts by BP have yielded exactly NADA. After 20 days of fumbling around we should have stepped in and assumed full control. If that meant aquiring BP's equipment and manning then so be it. But all of the decisions made should have done by us, not a for profit company.
That's just the way I feel coupled with my experience on how we can respond as a country to almost any disaster anywhere on the globe. With our man power and no budget we should be debating clean-up and environmental prerogatives by now, not watching the same pipe still dumping oil into the Gulf.
For the record, we could have easily tested the low yield tactical nuke option in other area's by now so we could know either way if it would work. THAT is what I consider doing everything. Not simply waiting for a company to make failed attempt after failed attempt.
If that comes off as emotional then so be it, it's been 2 months and I'm unsatisfied with the current Gov on almost all aspects. In my eyes this is just another failure. But whether or not you're a fan, you have got to ask yourself, "seriously? is this the best we can do"?