Massive Gulf Coast Oil Spill

[bushwacked]

the rigs pulling up anchor and heading off to other parts of the world seem to view it as more of a long-term thing. some of the others are sort of in a holding pattern waiting to see. I guess we'll see how it ultimately shakes out.

 

Yea, we will see. I may work in the environmental industry, but I make my money working for private companies battling against the cumbersome governmental processes that often leaves me frustrated. Drilling permits should have had more stringent requirements on how to deal with a disaster like this. To me, the primary reason is clear, since emergency procedures were not required through the regulatory channel, energy companies decided it wasn't worth investing capital in how to mitigate it. I'm of the opinion no-one can make a honest argument to the contrary.

 

I just don't get this kind of stuff:.....Jimmy Neutron et al is stating that there shouldn't be further regulations because this event is an anomaly that we shouldn't worry much about and since govt. is broken and oil companies aren't, we should trust the oil companies. Balla is wondering how BP and the govt. could let this happen, then blames the Feds for stabbing Louisiana in the heart by placing a temporary ban on drilling. You're so set on defending less regulation, you've been forced, as a matter of consistency, to support an asinine idea of James Cameron sending blue Jebus Horses into the well like its the beginning of a magical silver bullet, while Perch is stating how it shows how clueless Obama is.

 

This is a political clusterf*ck with everyone looking for a scapegoat. The fact of the matter is when you fail to prepare, you prepare for failure. The reaction to the spill is just that, reactive. Success comes through proactive planning. Regulations will now be put into place because of political pressure from the disaster, this would be true under any administration.

[gbpfan1231]

Yea, we will see. I may work in the environmental industry, but I make my money working for private companies battling against the cumbersome governmental processes that often leaves me frustrated. Drilling permits should have had more stringent requirements on how to deal with a disaster like this. To me, the primary reason is clear, since emergency procedures were not required through the regulatory channel, energy companies decided it wasn't worth investing capital in how to mitigate it. I'm of the opinion no-one can make a honest argument to the contrary.

 

I just don't get this kind of stuff:.....Jimmy Neutron et al is stating that there shouldn't be further regulations because this event is an anomaly that we shouldn't worry much about and since govt. is broken and oil companies aren't, we should trust the oil companies. Balla is wondering how BP and the govt. could let this happen, then blames the Feds for stabbing Louisiana in the heart by placing a temporary ban on drilling. You're so set on defending less regulation, you've been forced, as a matter of consistency, to support an asinine idea of James Cameron sending blue Jebus Horses into the well like its the beginning of a magical silver bullet, while Perch is stating how it shows how clueless Obama is.

 

This is a political clusterf*ck with everyone looking for a scapegoat. The fact of the matter is when you fail to prepare, you prepare for failure. The reaction to the spill is just that, reactive. Success comes through proactive planning. Regulations will now be put into place because of political pressure from the disaster, this would be true under any administration.

I am guessing you fail to prepare before 99% of your posts????

[Perchoutofwater]

Yea, we will see. I may work in the environmental industry, but I make my money working for private companies battling against the cumbersome governmental processes that often leaves me frustrated. Drilling permits should have had more stringent requirements on how to deal with a disaster like this. To me, the primary reason is clear, since emergency procedures were not required through the regulatory channel, energy companies decided it wasn't worth investing capital in how to mitigate it. I'm of the opinion no-one can make a honest argument to the contrary.

 

I just don't get this kind of stuff:.....Jimmy Neutron et al is stating that there shouldn't be further regulations because this event is an anomaly that we shouldn't worry much about and since govt. is broken and oil companies aren't, we should trust the oil companies. Balla is wondering how BP and the govt. could let this happen, then blames the Feds for stabbing Louisiana in the heart by placing a temporary ban on drilling. You're so set on defending less regulation, you've been forced, as a matter of consistency, to support an asinine idea of James Cameron sending blue Jebus Horses into the well like its the beginning of a magical silver bullet, while Perch is stating how it shows how clueless Obama is.

 

This is a political clusterf*ck with everyone looking for a scapegoat. The fact of the matter is when you fail to prepare, you prepare for failure. The reaction to the spill is just that, reactive. Success comes through proactive planning. Regulations will now be put into place because of political pressure from the disaster, this would be true under any administration.

 

I think I heard on the radio someone from the federal government I'm not sure if it was Gibbs or if was the Coast Guard Admiral heading up things down in the gulf, that it is yet to be determined if what caused the spill was human error or mechanical error. Obviously if it is mechanical error you might have a case for additional regulation assuming of course the regulations currently in place were followed. From what I hear the government inspectors were pretty lax, and enjoying a lot for lack of a better word bribes from the oil companies in the form of dinners and stuff like that. If it was human error then it really isn't about regulation but failure to abide by it, and you can't legislate or regulate away stupidity. I'm not against additional sensible regulation if it is needed. This is one of the few areas where I think the federal government really needs to be involved as it really does involve multiple states, and industries in multiple states. I don't think there is any question that the federal government has mishandled the response to this disaster. I do think that BP bears the prime responsibility for the clean up, and should repay the federal government for any expenditures in incurs as a result of the clean up. My biggest complaint is the feds sat on their hands when requests were made to burn the slick early on when it was a viable option, and the government sat on it hands when the state of Louisiana requested permission to build berms. There is no excuse for the government to take three weeks to approve the building of these berms, none at all. I also think to a lesser degree the federal government should be criticized for allowing the use of oil disbursement chemicals below the surface when the State of Louisiana specifically requested this not be allowed. Obviously on the last item BP carries most of the blame, but in the one area where the federal government didn't drag it's feet it didn't listen to the with the most to lose, and the result was as Louisiana predicted. The moratorium on deep water drilling is just another example of how clueless the administration is. Taking away the jobs of so many in the gulf area in a down economic time for what I hope is a short sighted knee jerk reaction, and not political maneuvering is just stupid.

[SuperBalla]

Honestly, and call me naive, I assumed Big Oil had a plan on how to respond to a well blow out. Even those 5 to 10,000 "water to bore" feet deep. They manage the #1 commodity of Earth. However, they got lax. Likely by their success and safety track record multiplied by the lack there of a competent MMS agent to do unbiased analysis we now have a multi state eco and biological mess with not a clear end in site. The rumor is BP cut corners before the blow-out and didn't add extra casing that might have cost 10 extra mill and an extra week to complete. Instead and even with some negatives on tests management was content with the progress and were committed moving the rig. Time is money... I have also heard that BP or Transocean customized the BOP, they have more blood on their hands there. Likely due to years of movement and mileage, it was changed and/or fixed, but not by CAM (symbol) the manufacture. I bought some shares Friday BTW. Cameron Industries will likely be the company to modify all BOP's...they are the leader in BOP's. Ultimately I'm sure the courts will uncover reports and tests, assuming they still exist of what happened. I can assure you that BP is, or someone there, is shaking in their boots.

 

For the record, I am not opposed to better regulations on BIG OIL in order to drill in the Gulf. I think it is obvious. I am however opposed to forcing the drill ships to freeze for 6 months. Purely knee jerk.

Edited June 5, 2010 by SuperBalla

[rattsass]

If you are looking to assign blame in this matter I think there is plenty to go around:

 

BP/big oil - for being irresponsible greedy bastards that cut corners wherever they are allowed to

 

Government- For their cozy little relationship with big oil that compels them to allow big oil to cut those corners

 

Environmentalists - For forcing drilling in far too deep waters to be safe in the first place. If we are to do it, we at least need to be able to control the situation should one such as this arise,

 

We the people - for our continued dependence on oil - for allowing our government to do as they will when it comes to regulations and laws - and for not demanding that our energy situation be a priority when it became apparent in the 1970s that this was going to be a huge problem going forward.

 

It all has come home to roost, and you me and everybody blowing carbon is to blame.

Edited June 5, 2010 by rattsass

[wiegie]

Is it just my imagination or is it true that when BP is talking about how much oil is leaking they measure things in barrels, but when they talk about how much oil they are capturing, they report it in gallons?

[Jimmy Neutron]

Is it just my imagination or is it true that when BP is talking about how much oil is leaking they measure things in barrels, but when they talk about how much oil they are capturing, they report it in gallons?

 

i have not caught that, but it wouldn't surprise me...

[SuperBalla]

Is it just my imagination or is it true that when BP is talking about how much oil is leaking they measure things in barrels, but when they talk about how much oil they are capturing, they report it in gallons?

 

 

The standard oil barrel of 42 US gallons is used in the United States as a measure of crude oil and other petroleum products. They must be trying to convert it for the public.

[Chief Dick]

The standard oil barrel of 42 US gallons is used in the United States as a measure of crude oil and other petroleum products. They must be trying to convert it for the public.

 

Plus the public can see they are actually capturing more than what is coming out.

[detlef]

Not sure if this was posted above, but it's nice to see BP execs are being stand up about it...

 

"I want my life back"

 

BP officials aren't exactly helping matters with public statements that can come across as callous. Outraged Web users have posted the phone number and email address for company representative Randy Prescott in the wake of reports that he'd said "Louisiana isn't the only place that has shrimp." And CEO Hayward has delivered at least one cringe-worthy gaffe every few days. Most recently, Hayward said, "I'd like my life back" in an interview with CNN. That ill-timed display of self-pity prompted critics to point out that the 11 men who lost their lives in the explosion would probably also like their lives back, as would the countless Gulf residents who will be economic casualties of disaster.

 

Suck it LA, we can get our shrimp elsewhere

Edited June 5, 2010 by detlef

[Azazello1313]

Yea, we will see. I may work in the environmental industry, but I make my money working for private companies battling against the cumbersome governmental processes that often leaves me frustrated. Drilling permits should have had more stringent requirements on how to deal with a disaster like this. To me, the primary reason is clear, since emergency procedures were not required through the regulatory channel, energy companies decided it wasn't worth investing capital in how to mitigate it. I'm of the opinion no-one can make a honest argument to the contrary.

 

I just don't get this kind of stuff:.....Jimmy Neutron et al is stating that there shouldn't be further regulations because this event is an anomaly that we shouldn't worry much about and since govt. is broken and oil companies aren't, we should trust the oil companies. Balla is wondering how BP and the govt. could let this happen, then blames the Feds for stabbing Louisiana in the heart by placing a temporary ban on drilling. You're so set on defending less regulation, you've been forced, as a matter of consistency, to support an asinine idea of James Cameron sending blue Jebus Horses into the well like its the beginning of a magical silver bullet, while Perch is stating how it shows how clueless Obama is.

 

This is a political clusterf*ck with everyone looking for a scapegoat. The fact of the matter is when you fail to prepare, you prepare for failure. The reaction to the spill is just that, reactive. Success comes through proactive planning. Regulations will now be put into place because of political pressure from the disaster, this would be true under any administration.

 

I have no idea what logic you think you are following in the bolded part. the only point I would make about new "hindsight" regulation going forward is that, as always, it doesn't accomplish squat except to provide some political salve. politicians get to claim they "did something". when something big slips through the cracks, and something nobody thought was possible materializes, we always hear the same spiel. to take some fairly recent examples, if it's 9/11, or the housing/financial crisis, or the enron accounting stuff, or this oil spill -- before it happens, nobody knows to look out for it. the "experts" close to the situation think they know what is going on and what could happen, and they think they have systems and procedures in place to mitigate against any problems they can foresee. then the big thing slips through the cracks. now the reality is, once that happens, everybody knows it's possible, and everybody has a pretty clear idea how to make sure that particular thing never happens again. but still, every time, the politicians (representing society as a whole), decide they need to expand government to prevent it from happening again. nothing about it represents "proactive planning", it is all retroactive casting of blame and, ultimately, political opportunism. and it just doesn't really lead to great policy.

[bushwacked]

Yes,I understand you think that BP's regulatory required emergency response plan, and the requirements thereof leading up to the disaster were perfectly adequate, and if anything, the federal govt. should require less in the future. And now I understand that TSA shouldn't have revised their security procedures after 9/11 because it only represented big govt. "political opportunism." Yer nuts.

Edited June 6, 2010 by bushwacked

[Jimmy Neutron]

I just don't get this kind of stuff:.....Jimmy Neutron et al is stating that there shouldn't be further regulations because this event is an anomaly that we shouldn't worry much about and since govt. is broken and oil companies aren't, we should trust the oil companies.

 

This is a political clusterf*ck with everyone looking for a scapegoat. The fact of the matter is when you fail to prepare, you prepare for failure. The reaction to the spill is just that, reactive. Success comes through proactive planning. Regulations will now be put into place because of political pressure from the disaster, this would be true under any administration.

 

Well, you forgot to mention that I also opine that the cost to BP for the clean up and restitution will be more than enough incentive for BP and the other oil cos. to take more precatuons in the future.

 

I know you and others know it's true, but there were mega safety and enviro regulations before the spill. As usual, the government is great at writing laws and miserable at enforcing them. Frankly, I think whatever government agency was supposed to be enforcing the rules should be on the hook for $$$ right along with BP. That sucks, 'cause we'd pay that out of our pockets, but it would sure be nice to have a government regulatory agency actually do its job.

 

 

 

 

 

Geez, I crak myself up.

[Azazello1313]

And now I understand that TSA shouldn't have revised their security procedures after 9/11 because it only represented big govt. "political opportunism." Yer nuts.

 

TSA procedures aren't the only thing that happened in the government-growing department after 9/11, now was it? there was also the patriot act. and, well, the iraq war (your whole schtick about "The fact of the matter is when you fail to prepare, you prepare for failure...Success comes through proactive planning" sounds very neo-connish, if put into a different context). and gitmo, and torture, and all that other stuff you love.

[Azazello1313]

Well, you forgot to mention that I also opine that the cost to BP for the clean up and restitution will be more than enough incentive for BP and the other oil cos. to take more precatuons in the future.

 

I know you and others know it's true, but there were mega safety and enviro regulations before the spill. As usual, the government is great at writing laws and miserable at enforcing them. Frankly, I think whatever government agency was supposed to be enforcing the rules should be on the hook for $$$ right along with BP. .

 

well your point about BP being on the hook for cleanup and restitution is on the money. they already had all the incentive in the world to prevent this from happening. they thought they had the contingencies covered; so did the government regulators who gave them all kinds of awards. I read somewhere that they had pinschers and stuff on the blowout preventers that were supposed to be a safety against this happening. for all I know, the regulators WERE enforcing the rules, and BP was doing what they and "the rules" thought they needed to. the rules just didn't foresee this kind of event. oops.

 

now of course, everyone will see the check BP has to write for all of this, and they will make sure they have double-redundant, fail-safe procedures in place to make sure they don't get stuck in the same situation. they'll do this with or without new government rules. so some new government safety rules aren't really a hugh issue either way. BUT, if it ends up banning drilling in the gulf and/or near US shores, which is where a lot of people are trying to take this and where the "political opportunism" I was talking about comes into play, that ends up having a pretty big impact on a lot of people.

[bushwacked]

TSA procedures aren't the only thing that happened in the government-growing department after 9/11, now was it? there was also the patriot act. and, well, the iraq war (your whole schtick about "The fact of the matter is when you fail to prepare, you prepare for failure...Success comes through proactive planning" sounds very neo-connish, if put into a different context). and gitmo, and torture, and all that other stuff you love.

 

I need to be in favor of every expanded governmental program, regulation, action in order to be consistent instead of evaluating every scenario on its own individual merits? Brilliant.

Edited June 7, 2010 by bushwacked

[Azazello1313]

I need to be in favor of every expanded governmental program, regulation, action in order to be consistent instead of evaluating every scenario on its own individual merits? Brilliant.

 

not at all. but you talked about 9/11 and disingenuously pretended the only politically opportunistic government-growing response were some new TSA regulations. I am just pointing to some others that are perhaps a little more significant.

[SuperBalla]

Sad...no regulation could have stopped this. Read the article about interviewing witnesses of rig explosion.

BP cutting corners, remember what I said

Edited June 9, 2010 by SuperBalla

[wiegie]

Sad...no regulation could have stopped this. Read the article about interviewing witnesses of rig explosion.

BP cutting corners, remember what I said

Actually, it seems to me like BP's behavior is exactly the sort of thing that well-informed and well-enforced regulations could have prevented.

Edited June 8, 2010 by wiegie

[evil_gop_liars]

I hear the distant murmur of a young boy singing "paparazzi". Go get em AZ!!1!

[bushwacked]

not at all. but you talked about 9/11 and disingenuously pretended the only politically opportunistic government-growing response were some new TSA regulations.

 

That's incorrect. You said "everytime" the govt. changes policy after a disaster it only leads to political opportunism and bad policy.

 

You obviously believe that the TSA should have kept the same screening procedures after 9/11 or you don't really believe the BS you were saying. Which one?

 

How bout you bless us with a minor miracle and acknowledge how silly your comment sounds and maybe open up to the obvious possibility that both govt. and private enterprise should revise some of their future practices in deep water drilling.

Edited June 9, 2010 by bushwacked

[SuperBalla]

Actually, it seems to me like BP's behavior is exactly the sort of thing that well-informed and well-enforced regulations could have prevented.

 

 

Sounds like BP was cool with breaking regulations, and although there was an attempt to stand up for regulations, they weren't enforced because of Big Oil greed and downward pressure. My son will not know my paradise, as I saw it.

[SuperBalla]

Can a mod or admin remove the subtitle to this thread? I hate that this thread, go down in huddle history with such douchbaggery. I don't even care if you delete the posts where Tbimm and myself, along with others showed off our ability to say the F bomb. TIA

[Azazello1313]

That's incorrect. You said "everytime" the govt. changes policy after a disaster it only leads to political opportunism and bad policy.

 

You obviously believe that the TSA should have kept the same screening procedures after 9/11 or you don't really believe the BS you were saying. Which one?

 

How bout you bless us with a minor miracle and acknowledge how silly your comment sounds and maybe open up to the obvious possibility that both govt. and private enterprise should revise some of their future practices in deep water drilling.

 

you're holding up the TSA? as a success story of good government and good policy? seriously??

[bushwacked]

you're holding up the TSA? as a success story of good government and good policy? seriously??

 

No, I'm using it as an example that you provided.

Edited June 9, 2010 by bushwacked