• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BP refuses EPA order to switch to less-toxic oil dispersant

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
BP refuses EPA order to switch to less-toxic oil dispersant


IMO if BP does not follow the order given by EPA, the federal regulatory agency with the authority to make that order, the U.S. Marshals need to start arresting people.


Ah, the opening scene from a Sci-Fi B-movie. Corrupt, greedy oil company + weak, ineffective government oversight and regulation = giant fish monster.
 
What an arrogant bunch of bastards. They're worried about keeping confidential business information secret while the Gulf of Mexico turns into another Dead Sea.
 
Last edited:
If a person refused the government like this, they would be arrested immediately; so is a corporation supposed to be able to skirt the law?

If the execs. don't comply they should face charges.

It's not going to happen though. Corporations have so much immunity these days.
 
If you read the article closely, you'll see that they have violated no order and broken no law.


The EPA ordered them to explain why they had to use this (EPA-approved) product or stop using it altogether. They explained why they had to use this product. Seems pretty straightforward to me. If the EPA actually wants them to stop using it, they should order them to stop. If they then refuse, there might be an actual story.
 

The EPA may have to get a court order. I'm just guessing.

In an emergency situation, they shouldn't have to. BP doesn't have a leg to stand on.
 
If the government would quit playing politics they could say something if not get out of the way
 
ptif219 said:
If the government would quit playing politics they could say something if not get out of the way
Click to expand...

Get out of the way of what? BP screwing things up even more?
 
hazlnut said:
The EPA may have to get a court order. I'm just guessing.

In an emergency situation, they shouldn't have to. BP doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that they answered the EPA's question.

USA-1 said:
Get out of the way of what? BP screwing things up even more?
Click to expand...

So what would you prefer they do? Use the other dispersant, which is more toxic, or use none at all, thus increasing the amount of oil which gets loose and harms the area?
 
RightinNYC said:
So what would you prefer they do? Use the other dispersant, which is more toxic, or use none at all, thus increasing the amount of oil which gets loose and harms the area?
Click to expand...

You're right. Best leave it up to BP's judgment. They have done up bang up job so far.


"While the dispersant BP has been using is on the agency's approved list, BP is using this dispersant in unprecedented volumes and, last week, began using it underwater at the source of the leak — a procedure that has never been tried before," the EPA noted last week, acknowledging that "much is unknown about the underwater use of dispersants."

Are the dispersants helping or causing more damage?
 
USA-1 said:
You're right. Best leave it up to BP's judgment. They have done up bang up job so far.
Click to expand...

Non-responsive.


I don't know, as it's not my job to know. It is the EPA's job to know, but they don't seem to know either. That might be why they haven't ordered BP to actually stop using it.

I'll ask again:

"What would you prefer they do? Use the other dispersant, which is more toxic, or use none at all, thus increasing the amount of oil which gets loose and harms the area?"
 
USA-1 said:
Get out of the way of what? BP screwing things up even more?
Click to expand...

What has the government done to help?

BP keeps trying and does not give up while all the government does is point fingers and complain
 
RightinNYC said:
I
I'll ask again:

"What would you prefer they do? Use the other dispersant, which is more toxic, or use none at all, thus increasing the amount of oil which gets loose and harms the area?"
Click to expand...

You don't know if its worse or not. You just said that. They may be doing irrepairable damage. They are doing things never tried before.
 
USA-1 said:
You don't know if its worse or not. You just said that. They may be doing irrepairable damage. They are doing things never tried before.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly my point. No one appears to know for certain whether this will help or not. BP believes it will, which is why they're doing it. The EPA doesn't appear to know, which is why they didn't order BP to stop.
 
ptif219 said:
What has the government done to help?

BP keeps trying and does not give up while all the government does is point fingers and complain
Click to expand...

The government is not in the oil business and does not have the expertise or the equipment to handle events like this. BP has shown they can't handle it either. So should the government just be quiet and ignore the problem? It's another case of the nanny state government being expected to bail out big business
and clean up the mess.
 
USA-1 said:
You don't know if its worse or not. You just said that. They may be doing irrepairable damage. They are doing things never tried before.
Click to expand...

So BP should be like the government and do nothing?
 
RightinNYC said:
Which is exactly my point. No one appears to know for certain whether this will help or not. BP believes it will, which is why they're doing it. The EPA doesn't appear to know, which is why they didn't order BP to stop.
Click to expand...

That's why the government wants BP to use less toxic dispersants.

Makes sense to me.

"demands from government officials and environmentalists to use a less-toxic dispersant to break up the oil"
 
USA-1 said:
The government asked BP to use a less toxic dispersant at that depth.
Click to expand...

Why? No proof of anything just more politics. No law is being broken just the government bowing to the demands of environmental whackos
 
USA-1 said:
The government asked BP to use a less toxic dispersant at that depth.
Click to expand...

USA-1 said:
That's why the government wants BP to use less toxic dispersants.

Makes sense to me.

"demands from government officials and environmentalists to use a less-toxic dispersant to break up the oil"
Click to expand...

Again, read the article more closely. They did not demand the use of a different dispersant. The EPA ordered them to explain why they had to use this (EPA-approved) product or stop using it altogether. They explained why they had to use this product.

If the EPA actually ordered them to stop using this product and they refused, then there would be a story.

For further information: UPDATE: BP Defends Dispersant After EPA Orders It Changed - WSJ.com

 
ptif219 said:
Why? No proof of anything just more politics. No law is being broken just the government bowing to the demands of environmental whackos
Click to expand...

Environmental Wackos? My God man, BP is poisoning the Gulf of Mexico. First with the oil and then possibly with the dispersants. You people are something else.:roll:
When the proof gets there it may be too late.
 
Sounds to me as though BP may be thumbing their noses at the EPA in an attempt to force the EPA to issue a directive ceasing the use of Corexit9500/9527A.

What better way to pass the blame for this disaster onto the US government ?

BP could then argue that the ( visible ) damage would have been less if they had been allowed to continue using that product.

Also, in all likelihood, if the EPA did order BP to stop using Corexit there would be some nut-job screaming that Obama was taking over the oil industry.
 

It's the EPA's job to concern itself with the environment, not political optics. It should do whatever it thinks is best, regardless of what some nut job might say.
 
USA-1 said:
Environmental Wackos? My God man, BP is poisoning the Gulf of Mexico. First with the oil and then possibly with the dispersants. You people are something else.:roll:
When the proof gets there it may be too late.
Click to expand...

Blame BP and not Obama who has done nothing except point fingers and complain. Where are the government scientist and engineers coming up with possible solutions?
 
RightinNYC said:
It's the EPA's job to concern itself with the environment, not political optics. It should do whatever it thinks is best, regardless of what some nut job might say.
Click to expand...

Its the oil industries job to protect the environment and it should not be the governments job to baby sit them.
 
USA-1 said:
Its the oil industries job to protect the environment and it should not be the governments job to baby sit them.
Click to expand...

So you're in favor of eliminating the EPA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…