Obama's Katrina!

[joobz]

I have to wonder whether Obama or Salazar were getting accurate information out of the slimebags at MMS when the permits were granted. It is human nature to beleive that your staff are not all worthless maggots and to sign of on stuff based on their word.

How is he going to verify it? Put on a dry suit and SCUBA gear and grab a flashlight?

Don't forget that part of the reason for the limited studies were because the MMS reports in 2007 stated that a deep sea oil well spill WOULDN'T have a major impact on the shore line.

 

[Skeptic]

Predicting a response that is totallly reasonable doesn't make that response any less reasonable

Which is why Obama (and his supporters) used this perfectly reasonable "it's all Bush's fault" excuse 3,448 times so far in his presidency. That just shows you what reasonable men they are.

 

[Skeptic]

One good reason for the greater outrage with this incident, and really with everything, today versus 1989, the time of the Valdez spill, is the nature of the media today. In this information age, everything is up-front, real time, and spun to the viewpoints of a million bloggers.

This is both a blessing and a curse, as it is good that people care about events in the world, but it necessitates a great deal more attention to evidence and skeptical evaluation in order to get to the truth than may have been required twenty-one years ago. And that's true of everything, not just this incident.

This is certainly true, but this was still the same in 2007 as well at the time of the Catrina Hurricane, and yet Bush was crucified in the mainstream media anyway.

You're forgetting the main point, which is that during the Exxon oil spill, the president was a strong Republican and therefore, ipso facto, evil and irresponsible and disgusting and terrible according to most people who worked in what was then "the Media".

It is quite certain that, had Carter (say) been president at the time of the Exxon spill, the whole thing would have been looked at more objectively. Objective treatment -- the supposed ideal -- exists in the MSM only when someone who they generally support is criticized.

 

[BeAChooser]

Problem here is, if Obama had overhauled the MMS

More dishonesty from you. Can you show that, prior to Obama, the MMS was waiving environmental impact statements, emergency response plans, required testing of equipment or material standards … especially in situations where they were drilling under conditions that were far different from the vast proportion of previous (relatively shallow) wells? Can you show that MMS was waiving requirements when other government agencies (like NOAA) were issuing written warnings about the environmental and safety flaws of proposed drilling plans?

Furthermore, you're just trying to do what the Bush administration did in the Katrina case … use the excuse "they did it too". Well the left wasn't willing to accept that excuse in Bush's case so why are you so eager to accept it now? That's why, for consistency, you on the left have to agree that this is Obama's Katrina. And get just as riled up about this as you were about Katrina. In fact, didn't Kucinich and Wexler introduce 35 articles of impeachment against Bush … number 31 concerning failure to plan and respond to Hurricane Katrina? Why aren't you calling for Obama's impeachment now?

 

[Meadmaker]

This is certainly true, but this was still the same in 2007 as well at the time of the Catrina Hurricane, and yet Bush was crucified in the mainstream media anyway.

This overlooks something. When Katrina hit, the problem that outraged so many Americans is that there were 20,000 or more people sitting around a stadium and a convention center with no drinking water and inadequate sanitiation. The solution to this was not very difficult, and anyone who actually gave a hoot would have been able to solve this problem in a matter of hours, but the Bush administration took several days to figure it out.

The oil spill is a bit more difficult. I won't say that anyone involved, including Obama, has done a great job here, but they have done a mediocre job on an extremely difficult problem, as opposed to Bush, who did a dismal job on an easy problem.

 

[Lurker]

This overlooks something. When Katrina hit, the problem that outraged so many Americans is that there were 20,000 or more people sitting around a stadium and a convention center with no drinking water and inadequate sanitiation. The solution to this was not very difficult, and anyone who actually gave a hoot would have been able to solve this problem in a matter of hours, but the Bush administration took several days to figure it out.

The oil spill is a bit more difficult. I won't say that anyone involved, including Obama, has done a great job here, but they have done a mediocre job on an extremely difficult problem, as opposed to Bush, who did a dismal job on an easy problem.

Meadmaker:

I think you have hit the nail on the head here. I am not sure what people expect from Obama as containing the oil is a difficult problem. Booms are not 100% effective. Dispersants have their problems. I am not saying Obama is blameless, I too would like to see a more coordinated plan.

I do think Bush lacked initiative in the Katrina response and do blame him for that.

 

[eeyore1954]

Exactly. That is part of the implications I was referring to. The cause of this disaster was a poorly regulated industry.

Now who here has been advocating for less government regulation?

There is a difference between poorly regulated and less regulation. You can certainly have less regulation but still be well regulated.

 

[joobz]

There is a difference between poorly regulated and less regulation. You can certainly have less regulation but still be well regulated.

please explain in the current instance of the oil spill how you can have less regulation and not result in poor regulation.

The reason for the impact waiver was a result of the 2007 report which claimed minimal shore impact from deep sea wells. A MORE regulated environment would have required further impact studies. A LESS regulated environment (the one we currently enacted) didn't require these studies.

 

[BeAChooser]

The solution to this was not very difficult, and anyone who actually gave a hoot would have been able to solve this problem in a matter of hours, but the Bush administration took several days to figure it out.

Just curious. What do you think the solution was?

Now keep in mind that the democrat Mayor of New Orleans (Ray Nagin, who, by the way, democrats reelected in 2006) had an emergency response plan IN PLACE that called for busing people out of the area in the event of major hurricanes, school yards full of buses that were just sitting there ready to be used but never were due to Nagin's orders, and didn't impliment the evacuation plan (using just city buses) until less than a day before landfall, when it was too late to evacuate many people. And by the way, both democrat Louisiana Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin were warned that the levees might overflow at the same time as Bush.

Also keep in mind that FEMA had prepositioned 3 days food and water for 15,000 people at the Superdome, but they hadn't planned on New Orleans and the state of Louisiana failing to properly follow the emergency response plans that existed. Had New Orleans' and state officials implimented the existing evacuation plan in a timely manner, and initiated contra-flow on highways earlier, the number of people stranded in the city would have been far less, in which case the FEMA supplies would have been more than adequate for the situation.

And you want to blame Bush for this?

To further prove how unfair, inconsistent, and dishonest you liberals are, part of the delay in FEMA response was because official requests for help through proper channels were not forthcoming due to local and state delays in submitting them, even after local and state officials were approached by FEMA.

And you want to blame Bush for that?

And by the way, the solution to Obama's Katrina wasn't all that difficult either. An ounce of prevention. Just make BP do a good environmental impact analysis (as required by law), have an emergency response plan in place to handle the eventualities (and the material needed to impliment it), properly test the equipment that was to be used, and follow proven standards as far as materials instead of cost cutting. And most likely this oil disaster would never have happened. In contrast, there is no way that Bush or FEMA could have prevented what happened in New Orleans.

 

[joobz]

And you want to blame Bush for this?

Doing, Heck of A job!

To further prove how unfair, inconsistent, and dishonest you liberals are, part of the delay in FEMA response was because official requests for help through proper channels were not forthcoming due to local and state delays in submitting them, even after local and state officials were approached by FEMA.

And you want to blame Bush for that?

I see, Bush is innocent because the leader of the free world's hands were tied until all file the TPS reports were properly filed.

And by the way, the solution to Obama's Katrina wasn't all that difficult either. An ounce of prevention. Just make BP do a good environmental impact analysis (as required by law), have an emergency response plan in place to handle the eventualities (and the material needed to impliment it), properly test the equipment that was to be used, and follow proven standards as far as materials instead of cost cutting. And most likely this oil disaster would never have happened.

I agree. Government messed up by giving business too much free reign. We'll make a socialist of you yet, BAC!

 

[BeAChooser]

Booms are not 100% effective.

Oh please … are you going to try the same dishonest argument that tbk did? Let me start by quoting from the sources I provided earlier:

[Charlie] Henry [an environmental scientist with NOAA] said a controlled burn of the spill could burn up to 99 percent of oil in selected areas

environmental engineer David F. Dickins, as quoted in The New York Times' Dot Earth blog, "compared to letting it stay on the surface or hit the coast." If conditions are right, fire can eliminate up to 90 percent of the oil — "no other technique is going to take that much oil out of the environment."

Jeff Bohleber, chief financial officer for Elastec, said ... snip ... "If they had six or seven of these systems in place when this happened and got out there and started burning, it would have significantly lessened the amount of oil that got loose."

And here are some more sources to prove you are dishonestly spinning to defend Obama's adminstration from the responsibility that it clearly has in this disaster:

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100428-726268.html

The controlled burning of oil corralled within a flame-retardant boom, a procedure that was slated to begin Wednesday, is considered particularly effective for the consistency of the light, sweet crude-oil spill. The process can get rid of 90%-98% of the oil, leaving behind a waxy film that can be skimmed off, said Allison Nyholm, policy adviser at the American Petroleum Institute, an industry group representing 400 oil and natural gas companies.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/fire-the-least-bad-option.html

While other response methods are generally 10 to 20 percent effective at recovering oil under ideal circumstances, burning can reduce it by 50 percent or more, Short [who spent decades studying oil spills as a chemist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and is now Pacific science director at +++Oceana+++] says.

http://owcnblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/deepwater-horizon-slick-coast-guard-will-try-burning/

Controlled burns have been done and tested before, Admiral Landry said, and had been shown to be “effective in burning 50 to 95 percent of oil collected in a fire boom.”

There just isn't an adequate excuse for not having had sufficient fire proof booms available to handle an accident (they didn't even have ONE). And Obama's administration missed a key opportunity to insure there were. In fact, Obama's administration missed a key opportunity to avoid the spill in the first place. That's why this is Obama's Katrina.

 

[jimbob]

This overlooks something. When Katrina hit, the problem that outraged so many Americans is that there were 20,000 or more people sitting around a stadium and a convention center with no drinking water and inadequate sanitiation. The solution to this was not very difficult, and anyone who actually gave a hoot would have been able to solve this problem in a matter of hours, but the Bush administration took several days to figure it out.

The oil spill is a bit more difficult. I won't say that anyone involved, including Obama, has done a great job here, but they have done a mediocre job on an extremely difficult problem, as opposed to Bush, who did a dismal job on an easy problem.

This is the issue. The experts are with in the oil industry.

Although BP does seem to have a bit of a recent record in the US for accidents.

 

[joobz]

That's why this is Obama's Katrina.

keep telling yourself that, you may start to believe it soon.

Also, keep repeating how Obama messed up by using less regulation to aide business along. I won't get tired of hearing you sounding like leftysergeant.

 

[BeAChooser]

The reason for the impact waiver was a result of the 2007 report which claimed minimal shore impact from deep sea wells.

You are being dishonest again. Not telling the whole story. Shading the facts. Suggesting there were no concerns expressed in that report. When there were. In fact …

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/deepwaterhorizon/6980770.html

Investigators with the U.S. Minerals Management Service raised concerns three years ago about oil rig blowouts associated with cementing wells, noting that accidents were continuing with regularity, most in the Gulf of Mexico.

Though the cause of last week's explosion on the Deepwater Horizon remains under investigation, officials with Transocean have said a blowout within the deep oil well was likely to blame for the deadly blast. At the time of the accident, crews were "cementing," or installing casing to secure the walls of the well.

A 2007 MMS study found that although blowouts with offshore drilling operations were becoming less frequent, less deadly and less polluting, cementing-associated troubles persisted.

Cementing problems were associated with 18 of 39 blowouts between 1992 and 2006, and 18 of 70 from 1971 to 1991. There were 17 blowouts in the earlier period where contributing factors weren't identified.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/deepwater-horizon-was-not-pushin.html

Deepwater Horizon 's containment failure may have come in the cement injected between the well wall and its steel liner, experts say. According to press reports, workers had just finished that "cement job." A failure could have also come in the temporary cement plug set in the well. Problems with cement—a batch that fails to properly set up, for example—were the cause of 18 of 39 blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico over a 14-year period, according to a 2007 report from the U.S. Minerals Management Service, the agency that supervises offshore drilling.

http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2...er-threatens-future-of-offshore-drilling.html

The Deepwater Horizon accident occurred at the final stage of the job, as the rig crew was preparing to put a temporary seal on the well and move on to another site. The exact circumstances aren’t likely to be known for months, though it’s clear that pressurized natural gas was able to infiltrate upward, meaning the seal was imperfect. A 2007 MMS study found that cementing was a factor in 18 of 39 Gulf of Mexico blowouts over 14 years. The pressure surge from a gas bubble has a nickname: the kick.

Here's a summary of the MMS report by MMS staff:

http://drillingcontractor.org/dcpi/dc-julyaug07/DC_July07_MMSBlowouts.pdf

It doesn't say that there weren't concerns or that blowouts weren't a problem. It states

It is important for industry to minimize the occurrence of these events by implementing safety programs and procedures that will prevent and reduce the severity of blowouts during drilling operations.

It states

The current 15-year study period had a blowout rate of one for every 387 wells drilled, compared with a rate of one blowout for every 246 wells drilled during the previous study period.

It shows there were 1 in 499 blowouts for wells over 1000 feet deep. Still a significant possibility.

It states

The severity of blowouts, based on the duration and resulting fatalities and injuries, decreased significantly compared with the previous period. Similar to the 1971-1991 study period, shallow gas influx persisted as a major contributor to blowouts that occurred between 1992 and 2006. During the current period, the percentage of blowouts associated with cementing operations increased significantly from the previous period.

It states

One of the most important factors in the planning and conduct of oil and gas operations is the control of underground pressures. With continued increases in drilling depth come increasingly higher formation pressures that need to be controlled during the drilling process. Improper well control procedures can result in sudden, uncontrolled escape of hydrocarbons. Such an event may lead to fires, explosions, injuries, property damage or pollution and can also delay drilling operations for days or even months.

Sounds like something MMS was expressing concerned about exactly what happened … even back in that 2007 report.

It shows that 2.5% of blowouts lasted from 7 to 30 days. That's significant.

It only states that

The blowout rate in deep water (water depths greater than 1,000 ft) was one every 499 wells drilled during the current period, compared with one per 359 wells drilled previously. This improvement in blowout rate is encouraging since deepwater drilling has increased signifi- cantly (2,439 wells drilled during the current period, compared with 718 wells drilled during the previous period) over the last 15 years and is expected to increase in the future.

Who would think that "encouraging" means there was no longer any risk in drilling deep wells? In fact, the risk was only marginally decreased (a 30% reduction). That does not merit waiving environmental impact studies.

It states that

During the current period, more than one contributing factor was identified for just over half of the blowouts. The most significant factors included cementing problems resulting in gas migration during or after cementing of the well casing (18 blowouts), equipment failure (12 blowouts), and casing failure (nine blowouts). … snip … Cementing problems increased significantly during the current period as these problems were associated with 18 of the 39 blowouts, compared with 18 of the 70 blowouts with identified contributing factors during the previous study.

That fact should have been a warning rather than reason to give a waiver.

The report concludes

MMS drilling blowout data shows that blowout rates during the current study period improved, seen in drilling at all water depths. The duration of blowouts also improved. Drilling through shallow gas sands was a major contributing factor causing blowouts, as was found in the previous study, and needs continuing attention by OCS operators. The percentage of blowouts during or after cementing operations increased significantly during the current period.

That conclusion in no way justified eliminating the environment impact statement or the emergency response plan. And it certainly didn't justify not testing the shutoff system and ensuring that proper materials were used. To claim that it does is nothing more than transparent spinning to protect the Obama administration from deserved criticism. Especially when the final sentence in that 2007 report is

Continued success will depend on sustained efforts by industry and government to improve safety management practices related to drilling and well control operations.

That conclusion most certainly doesn't rationally lead to the many waivers by the Obama MMS to BP that created this disaster. Why don't you just admit this is Obama's Katrina? Why can't he have one too?

And BTW, according to http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/06/what-the-spill-will-kill.html , the 2007 MMS report concluded that methane plums were a real possibility. Did Obama just ignore that too? According to experts cited by the Newsweek article, such plumes would have "devastating consequences" to ocean life in the area. And various scientists are saying they see evidents of plumes from this accident.

In fact, the MMS was warned about this danger again in 2009:

http://solveclimate.com/blog/201005...2009-about-deepwater-gas-blowouts-gulf-mexico

A sixty-page memorandum addressed to Renee Orr, the chief of the leasing division of the Minerals Management Service (MMS), was sent in September 2009 by an environmental investigator, warning of potential disaster in offshore drilling operations and the particular dangers posed by gas hydrates.

It was written as a public comment to the federal government's proposed rule for oil and gas leasing between 2010 and 2015 on the outer continental shelf, and offers a wide-ranging compilation and analysis, based on meticulously documented scientific, industry and government sources, of many accidents little known to the general public.

… snip …

Between 1992 and 2006, almost 2,500 deepwater wells were drilled — more than three times as many as in the previous 20-year period. There were 39 blowouts during that period — 38 of them in the Gulf of Mexico — recorded in MMS accident investigation reports.

Most were in shallow water, short-lived and "environmental impacts were negligible," according to an MMS analysis. Because the fatality rate of these blowouts showed a decrease, the analysis was touted as pointing to an improving safety record. (See "Absence of Blowout Fatalities Encouraging in MMS OCS Study 1992-2006.")

Yet the analysis revealed that problems with cementing caused most of the blowouts; and that the chances of a blowout were better than 1 in 400. These facts did not set off any alarm bells, or raise concern about the possibility that a blowout in deepwater could one day be catastrophic.

But they should have.

And you know the real irony here, joobz?

http://www.news-gate.info/fdl/nyt-m...ermits-and-nepa-waivers-despite-“moratorium”/

The New York Times has been tracking the Mineral Management Service’s compliance with the moratorium on new OCS/Gulf drilling permits announced by President Obama and Interior Secretary Salazar.

Their finding: MMS continues to issue new drilling and related permits, as well as environmental waivers that assume no environmental impact on activities just like those which resulted in the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.

… snip …

The Secretary of the Interior is telling us the executive branch is powerless to stop now demonstrated potential threats to public safety by oil rig operators whose initial permits likely never complied with the nation’s environmental and safety statutes in the first place. If anything, Interior and MMS should be pushing to expand the reach of this essential safety check, not minimize it.

Is there any accountability in this Administration? Because this shell game should get some people fired.

 

[joobz]

You are being dishonest again. Not telling the whole story. Shading the facts. Suggesting there were no concerns expressed in that report. When there were.

Dishonesty? shading facts? You are projecting again.

Why not actually link to the report in question instead of linking to other people writing about the report?
http://www.mms.gov/5-year/2007-2012FEIS/Chapter4A-BImpactsProposedAction.pdf


Impact on Terrestrial mammals:

Conclusion
The four federally endangered Gulf Coast beach mice species and the federally endangered Florida salt marsh vole and their habitats would not be significantly affected by normal operations under the proposed action. Impacts are expected to be minimized through appropriate mitigation and the existence of these species’ habitats in protected areas. Because of their locations on inner dunes, the habitats of the beach mice are unlikely to be affected by an accidental offshore oil spill. While the habitat of the Florida salt marsh vole could be affected by an oil spill, this species and its habitat are located far from areas where oil leasing and development may occur under the proposed action. Thus, it is highly unlikely that this habitat would be contacted by an accidental oil spill from OCS oil and gas activities.

Impact on fish

Conclusion
Impacts on Gulf sturgeon associated with routine operations and accidents under the proposed action are expected to be minimal because there is relatively little overlap among the locations that could be affected by activities and the distribution of Gulf sturgeon.

Conclusion
Routine operations associated with the proposed action will not affect the overall fish population numbers or viability in the Gulf of Mexico. Effects of individual spills would depend on the location, timing, and volume of the spill, in addition to other environmental factors. Small spills that may occur under the proposed action are unlikely to affect a large number of fish before dilution and weathering would reduce concentrations of toxic fractions to sublethal or nonlethal levels and would, therefore, not have substantial effects on fish populations. It is anticipated that any single large spill would affect only a small proportion of a given fish population within the Gulf of Mexico and that fish resources would not be permanently affected.

MOST IMPORTANTLY (going to my claim the entire time)
Effect on beaches

Conclusion
Although routine operations could have impacts on coastal barrier beaches and dunes, primarily as a result of pipeline construction, maintenance dredging of inlets and channels, and vessel traffic, modern methods of pipeline construction could result in minimal beach erosion. The MMS studies have shown few effects of pipeline landfalls and navigation channels on barrier beach stability. Potential impacts from spills could occur to both surface and subsurface sands. Oiled beach sediments could weaken dune and other beach vegetation, resulting in accelerated erosion. The likelihood of a large spill resulting in heavy oiling of a barrier beach area is expected to be low, however, because 75 percent of the development associated with the 2007-2012 program is assumed to occur far from the coast in deep and ultradeep water.

And you know the real irony here, joobz?

That you are so blinded by Hate for Obama that you are actually advocating bigger government to claim he did something wrong?

Indeed, I agree with you on this point. I think the MMS failed miserably and BP's actions are a perfect example WHY free markets can't self regulate.

 

[AlBell]

I think the MMS failed miserably and BP's actions are a perfect example WHY free markets can't self regulate.

Where do you suggest MMS gets the needed petroleum engineers with sufficient experience to write meaningful regulations, and staff capable of ensuring those regulations are followed correctly?

There is a reason industry professionals write the regulations, and basically police themselves.

 

[joobz]

Where do you suggest MMS gets the needed petroleum engineers with sufficient experience to write meaningful regulations, and staff capable of ensuring those regulations are followed correctly?

There is a reason industry professionals write the regulations, and basically police themselves.

i really don't see how your question follows from my post.

 

[eeyore1954]

please explain in the current instance of the oil spill how you can have less regulation and not result in poor regulation.

The reason for the impact waiver was a result of the 2007 report which claimed minimal shore impact from deep sea wells. A MORE regulated environment would have required further impact studies. A LESS regulated environment (the one we currently enacted) didn't require these studies.

I was speaking in general you can be well regulated with less regulation.
So if there were 2 impact studies and they also said minimum impact then would you need more regulation which would require 5 impact studies.

Was the impact study actually incorrect or did it say the likelihood of more than minimal shore impact was low which might have been correct.

 

[eeyore1954]

The likelihood of a large spill resulting in heavy oiling of a barrier beach area is expected to be low, however, because 75 percent of the development associated with the 2007-2012 program is assumed to occur far from the coast in deep and ultradeep water.

Was this incorrect?

 

[joobz]

Was this incorrect?

Obviously, yes.