Some writers are making a big deal about the reasoning behind why BP (NYSE:BP) allegedly won't measure the oil spill from the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig which killed 11 workers and caused the leak from the ocean bottom.
One the obvious reasons, and legitimate ones in my opinion, is it really does take away from the efforts of trying to plug up the oil leak, which is the top priority.
It is made to sound like there's some secret reasoning behind it, but it's highly doubtful.
What possible reason would there to be to estimate the exact amount of oil being leaked into the ocean? It will do nothing to make it stop, and it's highly distracting, at minimum.
One goof thinks it's a conspiracy to hide the hidden effects of the dispersants used to control the oil, calling it an environmental risk. Who cares?
The writer talks about the potential of a "grave risk to sea life." Like the oil isn't a risk.
The idea that they are exchanging one risk for another concerning marine life is so incredibly stupid, that it's hard to understand how an article like that would even be allowed to be put in any publication.
It is tortured logic to come to this conclusion, as you'll see in this excerpt from the article:
"If the oil-eating bacteria are in fact devouring oxygen at a harmful rate, the dispersants are most likely contributing to this process. One of the reasons for breaking the oil into smaller droplets is to facilitate oil-eating bacteria's access to it. If these bacteria are also consuming the oxygen that marine ecosystems need to survive, the dispersant effort could prove counterproductive.
"But it could also change the way people remember this spill -- and how much accountability they ultimately expect for it. Once the leak is plugged and the oil is dispersed throughout the Gulf, who's to say for certain whether BP's blown well gushed 5,000 or 80,000 barrels of oil a day?"
The Atlantic needs to get this writer off her meds, or whatever it is causing her to make these assumptions.
Look at the way it's said:
"If the oil-eating bacteria are in fact devouring oxygen..."
"...the dispersants are most likely contributing to this process."
"If these bacteria are also consuming the oxygen..."
"...the dispersant effort could prove counterproductive."
"But it could also change the way people remember this spill..."
"...who's to say for certain whether BP's blown well gushed 5,000 or 80,000 barrels of oil a day?"
This writer refuses to make a statement or draw a conclusion, all the coward does is say "if," "most likely," "could," etc.
In other words, these are little disingenuous tactics used to create doubt about the company and process, while covering her rear-end by not being willing to come right out and say it.
Read it carefully and you'll see that what is really being said is she prefers to have some dubious scientists come in and "measure" the amount of oil in the ocean, while probably already having made the conclusion about it like this inept writer, who would rather have the Gulf awash in oil than stop the leak from continuing to rush into the area.
Why? She's obviously an environmental kook who is outraged over the theory that there could be a loss of oxygen which could result in the marine ecosystems not surviving.
She would rather see oil everywhere than the dispersants sprayed to help combat the oil. It's the dispersants that offend this troubled person, and that's a ridiculous and reckless idea for someone to even be thinking about when it's one of the few things that are really helping.
No comments:
Post a Comment