h a l f b a k e r yBuy 1/4, get 1/4 free.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
We all know that the Army Corps of Engineers were ordered to complete the Panama Canal. This was because nobody elese could do it properly. Or at all, really. Today they manage all the Dams and flood controll stuff. So The Navy has just been goofing off as far as looking after the oceans oil wells. From
now on all the offshore oil wells should be the run by the Navy. This is so it would be done right!
[link]
|
| |
I believe there is more than one navy in the world still. |
|
| |
Why would a government run body be any better than a privately run one? |
|
| |
What advantages would this provide? Would the Navy have dealt with a catastrophic blow-out a mile under the sea any better? |
|
| |
Do "The Navy" (I assume you mean the US navy) have some special expertise in deep-water drilling and oil exploration that would make them uniquely able to do this? |
|
| |
//the military has no jurisdiction in this issue// We don't
need no steenking jursidiction. Military organizations may
or
may not know about running oil wells, but seizing and
holding territory is their core competence. No doubt
some
legal rationale could be cooked up post hoc. Maybe
eminent
domain. |
|
| |
[darkspeed] The advantage the Corps of Engineers enjoyed
in completing the Panama Canal was its size* -- in those
days, few non-governmental organizations had such
resources. Nowadays, a multinational oil corporation has
resources exceeding those of many countries. Not
exceeding those of the US federal government, true, but,
BP's offshore petroleum drilling related resources do
probably exceed those of the Feds. |
|
| |
*that and the fact that it committed to building a canal
with locks. Had de Lesseps made that decision, the canal
might have been completed by a private company. |
|
| |
//Why would a government run body be any better than a privately run one?...What advantages would this provide?// |
|
| |
If you screw up, you could be court-martialed and shot, whereas the guy in this case will probably be promoted. |
|
| |
//We don't need no steenking jursidiction.// |
|
| |
We have it anyway. Decades ago, Congress gave the president authority to do whatever he had to do to stop a leak. He could even sink ships that even threatened to spill oil (which seems a little counterproductive, but hey, that's Congress). |
|
| |
I see an advantage in that the a body outside of a
capitalistic system, like the Navy, would have less
(but not zero) incentive to shrink its response forces
to minimal during periods of perceived low risk. |
|
| |