BobHelm wrote:No it is NOT enough cookie...
You have, again, accused me of putting words in your mouth. A charge I deny.
I asked you a question - to clarify what
you wrote.
If you did not mean the interpretation that I put on it then what
did you ACTUALLY mean??
BobHelm wrote:cookie wrote:I meant that I seemed to remember that BP said that they will take full resposibility
So that (them taking 'full responsibility') precludes them, in your eyes, of suing other companies??
The above is a question (that is what the ? at the end means).
I am still struggling to see what interpretation other than the one I have suggested it could possibly be...
It is no good saying that 'Full Responsibility' means 'Full Responsibility' that is not an answer at all...
repeat:
did I wrote something more than:
"BP said they would take full responsibility" ???????
two possible answers;: yes or no.....
you again ( and as a moderator you should know better) assume:......
did I somehow exclude any companies trying to avoid their liabilities? NO, of course not.
I repeat again as I also said in the past several times that there are several companies responsible for this incredible disaster.
I just said what I wrote: BP said they would take full responsibility,
and that is it, nothing to assume, nothing to presume, nothing to change,...
BP said they would take full responsibility, nothing more to add.
now back to BP and it´s PR games:
Deepwater Horizon and the Gulf oil spill - the key questions answered
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... s-answered
"The BP report is a self-serving attempt to conceal the critical factor that set the stage for the Macondo incident: BP's fatally flawed well design."
the independent Deepwater Horizon study group final report, published in March this year, suggests that the real root of the problem was BP's own laissez-faire approach to safety.
According to the Deepwater Horizon final report:
"This disaster was preventable if existing progressive guidelines and practices been followed", but BP "did not possess a functional safety culture."
The report, which was independently compiled by an international group of 64 experienced professionals, experts and scholars, gave
a damning analysis of BP's failings. It said that "as a result of a cascade of deeply flawed failure and signal analysis, decision-making, communication, and organisational - managerial processes, safety was compromised to the point that the blowout occurred with catastrophic effects."
There were also reports that BP knew about a fault in the blowout preventer – the piece of equipment that ultimately failed, triggering an explosion – but did nothing to fix it.
( if this is true, then I hope that this sounds criminal to me
)
In addition, BP's contingency plan for dealing with a catastrophic oil spill contained many errors and miscalculations, according to an analysis by the Associated Press. The mistakes included listing animals not found in the Gulf region (including seals and walruses) as potential victims of an oil spill, and the recommendation of a long-deceased scientist as an expert on wildlife contamination.
who would have thought that??????