The BP Gulf Disaster

What is there to say really? Or do? Feels like just another disaster that has to be soaked up and lived with. In the best of worlds BP should be put out of business for all eternity and the people in charge sent to jail but I doubt it will happen. They will get some fines that will end up being paid by everyone but BP and the beaches will still be ruined.

 

I haven't heard many politicians mention off-shore drilling in their campaigns lately....

 

Only one sure-fire solution for a spill like this currently exists -- relief wells -- and digging a relief well takes months. The "top hat" works often enough to make at least attempting it worthwhile, but it's never been attempted at this depth, so the fact that it and other measures attempted failed is hardly surprising. The spill is horrible, sure, but the spill was also no surprise. Spills of this magnitude happen all the time -- just not usually here. If you drill off-shore long enough, this kind of thing is sadly inevitable. The fact that we have no good, dependable, measures in place to deal with these spills also comes as no surprise. The environmental community, after all, has been complaining about this for years, but the last nasty spill to land in our back yard happened in 1989. Maybe now some real regulation will be passed, but I kind of doubt it. Exxon Valdez wasn't a game changer, so why will this spill be any different?

 

You have a fair point Tal.


Here is what I've actually picked up from watching the the Sunday morning political shows (sometimes I learn more details with a local PBS panel than a national network show) there are possibilities that:

1. This may never have happened if the MMS (Mining & Minerals Service-I think that is what the letters stand for) wasn't so short staffed and friendly with (possibly even bought and corrupted by) the industry it regulates. The blowout prevention the US requires is less stringent than that of N. Europe/Scandinavia. The companies wanted to do things cheaper here, got less rules that made it cheaper for them to comply with in the short term (waiting to see what the bill for this will be), and pushed themselves into a pennywise and poundfoolish situation.

Companies didn't have to play it risky and the government didn't have to allow it. Both choose to (and the problems at MMS go back years so Obama didn't make this mess-he could be accused of is not fixing it as he tries to deal with 4 or 5 other issues).

2. There is a way to cap this but BP has been stalling as it tries to find a way to cap the well ("leak" is a bit weak of a word to describe the situation) that will still allow it to be used (and let BP make billions as it potentially pays billions in compensation).

3. I've been noting the irony of this happening by states like Mississippi that aren't knowing for embracing "big government" and during a time when many say big government should step back. In a crisis everyone (well not *everyone* but even many conservatives) expects government to do something. If this was one a preventable crisis then that calls for government to do more before we get into one.

4. Most of the political people repeating "Drill Baby Drill" now are democrats reminding republicans of something.

5. This could be used to push for more renewable energy, more taxes on fossil fuels, and on. But some people don't see political figures taking advantage of a readily available example to call for action in this regard.

 

T2,
striking, isn't it? What did Sarah have to say on the subject to Joe Biden? "You even called drilling -- safe, environmentally-friendly drilling offshore -- as raping the outer continental shelf. There -- with new technology, with tiny footprints even on land, it is safe to drill and we need to do more of that."

That footprint sure does look relatively tiny. Compared to an ocean.

Now that the "top kill" procedure has apparently failed, attention is falling on the 'russian way' of sealing big leaks: Nuke it! Apparently the Russians did that a couple of times, and successfully sealed such large spills.

Matt Simmons, founder of energy investment bank Simmons & Company, says that the probably only way to fix this disaster is to nuke the well and to call in large tankers and pump up the oil that hasn't reached the surface yet before hurricanes disperse it, and that it has become too big for BP to handle.

​

 

Drew, business suffered then too but I think there is a scale of economic damage that wasn't apparent in 1989 that may crop up here.

People are really discussing the possibility that this will lead to billions in damages.

This isn't just environmental reasons to be concerned (though many of them are decent reasons too). This is the price tag for both fossil fuels and poor regulation revealing itself to be likely larger, more complex, and (often) more hidden than the simple and marked price we pay for our gasoline at a station.

 

Oh, definitely corrupted by. I've been hearing reports of drug-fueled sex parties featuring the regulators and regulatees. The rules as I've seen them are more than sufficient, they just need to be enforced. The blowout preventer that should have prevented this was half-dismanled, with dead batteries, and should have been under regular maintenance.

Agreed again. Obama could have prevented it, but only if the corruption were brought to his attention. That it came to his attention with something this big is sad, but not his fault. The response since then is all on him (by law), but the spill itself isn't his fault at all. The company responsable (probably BP, but there are two others, not sure of the division here) should (and probably will) pay out the nose.

I've heard this, but only as pseudo-conspiracy theories, and I haven't heard what 'sure-fire' way BP is supposed to use. Nuking it sounds awefully extreme. Nukes today are cleaner than they were 40 years ago, but they're still not really clean. I'm not sure that would be much of a better solution. As I hear it, the only other sure-fire solution is a relief well, and they've been working on that for a while now.

The problems with the 'conspiracy theory' angle are two fold:
1.) BP is loosing money every second the well goes unsealed. Not just paying for damages and the like, but lossing oil to the Gulf that they could sell. It's not in their bottom-line best interest to stall.
2.) BP doesn't have (I hope) ready access to nukes. They could ask the government, but I think it should be the Fed's responsability to decide when it's reached that point, not BP's.

The government should address problems that approach a national level and can't be solved locally. This is one of them. Immigration is another. Armies are a third. I'm not conviced healthcare was. Or speed limits.

Actually, I've seen a lot of push to open up more land-based drilling now. I guess they're easier to handle.

I see a push for renewable and nuclear energy (basically the energy bill that was on the table, but without off-shore drilling, or maybe only off-shore for natural gas).

 

Isn't it ironic? And from all those who have been carping about how business should be left alone by big government? You know, those complaining of the government "take over" of business, at the first hint of any real regulation that would protect citizens and the environment? Nevertheless, it probably won't be a game changer in regards to the "government take over" crowd. In fact, they will still find a twisted way to blame Obama and those who cautioned about the continued use of fossil fuels. Instead, I heard one conservative moron actually complain on FIX NEWS that liberals "sabotaged" the rig in question. Really! I couldn't make this stuff up.

http://www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-O...hy-conservatives-are-a-conspiracy---of-dunces

That the conservative media crowd can be this vile is hardly surprising, since the queen of hype and "drill, baby drill," Ms. Palin, went on to accuse Obama of "being in bed with the oil companies." Isn't she a hoot? That is, if she wasn't such an obvious dishonest moron.

This is what would have been "our" vice-president had not there been at least a majorty of Americans who saw through this political opportunist and shameful self-promoter in the last election. Yep, dishonest conservatives will still continue to link Obama to this oil spill, despite the fact that he couldn't give out off-shore oil leases fast enough to satisfy this despicable buch of consevative corporate lackeys. Please note that I'm not speaking "generally" of conservatives, only the "Drill, baby drill," crowd, who have suddenly turned into the "Spill, baby spill crowd," as their lastest political weapon against Obama, since the "show me the birth certificate" mantra has blown-up in their faces.

http://chicagopressrelease.com/news/palin-accuses-obama-of-being-in-bed-with-big-oil-afp

Here she is, in all her stupidity:

 

To paraphrase Kanye West "Barack Obama doesn't care about sea creatures"

@Chandos- Is this any different then the libs blaming Katrina on Bush and that GOP blew up the levees to wipe out the black people? Who is in charge of FEMA now (or whatever alphabet group is in charge)? Will there be a telethon? Strangely, the media has been silent about the entire affair except to blame BP.

The latest rumors are that Obama has been the single largest receipient of campaign donations from BP employees and their PAC. I'm curious if that is true or just a rumour?

 

...And Bush [or fill in the Republican of your choice] would have?

A lot of Americans - not just liberals - thought that Bush did not handle Katrina [a natural disaster] very well; but they did not believe that Bush actually caused it to happen. Although Republican and conservative, Pat Robertson, commented that "God caused" Katrina to happen, because of all the "sin" and gay people in NO.

Really? You are THERE, Snook? Should we look at ALL donations now, regardless of party and the issue at hand? You sound like Ralph Nader, with that comment...welcome to the side with the good guys. Glad to have you with us.

 

That campaign donation thing in US politics with Big-Oil or Big-Whatnot funding this or that candidate will continue to remain an issue unless America affords it campaign finance reform. The situation certainly wasn't made any better by the Supreme Court's conservatives pushing through that corporations are just like ... people. Hello Mr. BP!

I can't understand why in this spill the federal government, and the states for that matter, still let BP handle the clean-up. In any comparable disaster we in Germany would have long seen the Army, Navy, Coast Guard, disaster relief and corporate assets under the command of the oil pollution centre (that includes all bordering states and neighbouring countries and that does two or so annual pollution control exercises) handling the issue.

Leaving this for BP to handle (or blunder) means affording the US the same responsible corporate governance regarding regarding pollution control that Nigeria has. Not very encouraging, since it suggests that the only self-interest large oil corporations is after is direct profit, and if they lose some oil, well, so what? Liabilities? They pay fines and damages, if they ever manifest themselves, out of their mail budget, after fighting them for four years in court.

But hey, maybe this disaster drives a point home for conservatives, that conserving the national heritage of a healthy environment is neither gay nor liberal, but, and literally so, conservative. There is nothing liberal in wanting to make sure that your children will be able to eat the fish they fish or deer they hunt. Well, I don't get my hopes up since so far for orthodox conservatives free market über alles sentiment still trumps common sense. Tweets Sarah:

​

Of course, 'all industry efforts'. That this is too big for BP hasn't apparently occurred to her. Yes, I can hear it already coming: The day Obama announces that BP has screwed up badly and that it's time for the government to step in - Glenn Beck, and she and all the other nuts will immediately start hyperventilating about government takeover! After taking control of the banks, Obama now imposes his pernicious socialist agenda on the energy sector!

I think that sadly Obama's response so far has been indecisive. He ought to have stepped in already. He ought to have taken a hard look at the environmental regulation agencies already, considering that it was well known what people Bush put there and how they didn't enforce standards. Tellingly NOG, the promiscuity at the oil regulator was a Bush-era phenomenon, and indeed, one would be hard pressed to find a better example for the argument that, under Bush, regulators and industry were basically, and sometimes literally, in bed together.

And it doesn't help that a Republican minority has adopted as a paste time the sport of blocking Obama's political appointees (filter for EPA) - so far for about ... 16 months? That certainly hobbled Obama in fixing pre-existing problems in these or any other agencies. Not that these fact helps him, as the bucks stops with him no matter his actual culpability, (as indicated by NOG's comment). In his best self-interest Obama ought to have recess appointed his candidates, just to get the work started.

It really doesn't matter if this oil well is forever sealed, if that means that the gulf coast and wherever else that oil wanders to will not be devastated. Fishermen need fish, Ocean front restaurants don't go so well on the oil coast, and besides, that idea that nature has some immaterial value as the basis of life for wildlife and man alike isn't all that new either.

 

I don't understand all the clamoring for the government to get involved. Why do people think that the government has the knowledge, skill, or ability to solve this type of problem? How some senator in Washington (who happens to be a lawyer) is better equipped to judge what to do and determine what mistakes were made seems ludicrous to me.

Of course if a nuke is the only option, they will need the military's help.

 

You miss the point. While BP is arguably a large company with oil expertise, what do you think qualifies them for the clean-up beyond you-broke-it-you-fix-it? BP is in the business of recovering and selling oil. They don't specialise in disaster relief or oil spill clean-up, and if they did, their shareholders would probably lynch the CEO. More to the point, BP does not have a standing army of oil spill first responders, as their shareholders would consider that a waste of money since BP isn't compelled by law to do so. They have to hire people to do their clean-up.

The effort to seal the leak and to clean the coast over hundreds to thousands of kilometres length apparently overwhelms BP. Successive attempts have failed. How long do you want to wait? Time is running out while the oil continues to leak and pollute the cost and the ocean. This is a disaster we are talking about. So lets address this like disaster relief.

The government has a lot more manpower and resources readily at their disposal (i.e. they can just order army and national guard to the beaches and mobilise a couple thousand helping hands in a day or two!), they have authority under emergency the law (i.e. they can just order measures and can coordinate across state borders) and would have to hire experts anyway. Unlike with BP, the Government would probably even be inclined to listen to them (that BP didn't is a point that Simmons makes).

As I said, it works in our part of the world, reasonably well even. We currently have floods in Eastern Germany and the Army is helping fortify the dykes. When I was in the army we also did flood relief in our area. The government excels in such roles because, unlike your average company, they have a lot of available manpower, transportation capacity and independent logistics.

 

The only difference is that humans caused the BP disaster, while nature caused the Katrina disaster.

Obama's been the larges single recipient of BP donations, but not the only one, and collectively he's been among the smallest recipients of Big Oil donations (a fraction of what McCain got).

Actually, as I understand it, this goes back to Clinton at least. Of course, I seem to recall you saying that, since the economy collapsed on Bush's watch, it's his, regardless of how old the cause was. If it was true then, the same is true now.

I agree entirely however, again, I don't see nukes as a way to protect those things.

Here, Ragusa and I agree completely. From the moment it became apparent that BP couldn't reliably fix this, Obama should have appointed a (probably Naval) commander of the shut-down effort, with Navy resources at his disposal, and anything that BP has, including engineers. At the same time, he should have appointed a commander (from either Coast Guard or Army Corps of Engineers) over the recovery efforts. A singular authority for each, with military power and resources, should have been the solution (and the same for Katrina).

 

I'll mark that in my calendar

 

It mostly happened on Bush's watch (but that still doesn't mean that it is specifically Bush's fault). However, one can make a case against Greenspan. That the repeal of GS set the stage for it, has very little bearing, since once one deregulates, it then becomes up to the deregulated industry to pretty much regulate itself. Notice that in that respect (GS), nothing has changed, even with current WS reform.

 

I just read that BP has hired private security contractors to prevent press and bystanders to speak with clean-up personnel, while they work on public (i.e. non-BP-owned) beaches and coast line.

I have a feeling that, too, will blow up in BP's face. Being stupid PR wise aside, it also reeks of having a legality deficit.

 

I don't know, they could probably make the arguement that it's their responsability to keep people safe from the oil, thus keeping the public from harm on oily beaches. I'm sure the fact that all their workers work on the beaches is just a coincidence. :wink:

I thought they were doing a good job on trying to cap the well: keeping people informed, admitting when they had a problem, not getting too optomistic, always ready to try something else, etc. Their cleanup job, however, has left a lot to be desired. Not to mention the stench of taking advantage of people they hurt with their hiring and employment practices.

 

Oh, that's not the worst of it. They are preventing their workers (under penalty of being fired), that they are not allowed to use respirators while cleaning up the oily beaches. After a few days of sifting oily sand, some workers complained of repiratory issues, which isn't surprising - extended exposure to crude is known to induce such symptoms. However, when some workers went out a bought respirators (basically face shields that cover the nose and mouth) on their own dime - they didn't make BP pay for them - they were told to remove them because it made BP "look bad". The next day they issued a statement where you could be fired for wearing a respirator.

I don't know if anyone is following this, but the CEOs and presidents of a lot of the oil companies where at the capitol yesterday, to testify in front of a Congressional panel. Rex Tillerman, the CEO of Exxon Mobile, had a very telling comment, in basically admitting the futility of BP's current efforts. This is his actual statement in front of Congress, "When these [problems] happen, we are ill-equipped to deal with them." Well that's just great. So when a pipe bursts deep underwater, NONE of the oil comapanies have a plan to do much about it. Linky

It is further infuriating that these oil companies like BP, which makes billions of dollars in profits every year, are willing to (and in fact did) cut corners on safety to improve their bottom line. The reason for that is obvious - they are beholden to their stockholders - not the public at large. It would be nice to think that companies which are so profitable from oil would be better prepared to deal with problems like this.

I was also not particularly impressed with Obama's speech last night. The overall tone of the message was fine, but it was light on the detail as far as I was concerned. It's great for him to say, that they'll do everything they can to clean up the region and move away from fossil fuels and cleaner energy. There just weren't any detail about HOW they actually plan on doing so.