Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Futility is persistent.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


               

Navy Corps of Engineers

Offshore oil wells operated by US Navy.
  (+1, -4)
(+1, -4)
  [vote for,
against]

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!
darkspeed, Jun 14 2010

[link]






       I believe there is more than one navy in the world still.
pocmloc, Jun 14 2010
  

       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?
zen_tom, Jun 14 2010
  

       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?
hippo, Jun 14 2010
  

       //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.
mouseposture, Jun 14 2010
  

       //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.
ldischler, Jun 14 2010
  

       //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).
ldischler, Jun 14 2010
  

       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.
RayfordSteele, Jun 14 2010
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle