Obama's Katrina!

[BeAChooser]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/steffy/7043272.html

Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help.

It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.

The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,'” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.

Which is why this is Obama's Katrina.

 

[joobz]

For Obama loyalists to claim that the current catastrophe is all Bush's and BP's fault, and that Obama deserves none of the blame, is what is 100% detached from reality.

When did I say he deserves NONE of the blame? Clearly, based upon the evidence of the MMS waivers, I assign some of the blame at his feet. But I recognize also that this is part of the "deregulation" meme that Republicans have touted for years. It's a failed logic and one that will keep on hurting americans.

 

[joobz]

That's false. More regulation wasn't needed. Obama and the government only needed to enforce the regulations that were already inplace to have avoided this catastrophe. They only needed to show a modicum of competence in their own analysis. No amount of additional regulation would have mattered if all the Obama administration was going to do was waive it like they did over and over.

Previous regulations were MORE regulation. Removal of those regulations represents "less" regulation. Superlatives aren't hard to understand, BAC.

But, again, I agree with you. We can not trust the free markets to do what is right. this is perfect example of when you remove government checks on business, bad things happen. I'm just glad you recognize this truth.

 

[AlBell]

I don't think your safety chain is composed correctly.

It isn't generic; it's specific to Deepwater Horizon ops.

Breaking any link in a properly organized safety chain will negate the outcome. For instance, wire-logging in itself would have taken out a couple of your links. which would make that item a link(missing link).

Well, not necessarily. CBLs do not replace pressure tests.

Enforcing existing regulations is more important than drawing up a bunch of new, as the new will be hampered by the same lack of enforcement.

Existing regs coupled with well-known and understood requirements needed for safe operations were ignored. Not once, but several times. Per the Waxman memo:

In particular, the Committee is focusing on five crucial decisions made by BP: (1) the decision to use a well design with few barriers to gas flow; (2) the failure to use a sufficient number of "centralizers" to prevent channeling during the cement process; (3) the failure to run a cement bond log to evaluate the effectiveness of the cement job; (4) the failure to circulate potentially gas-bearing drilling muds out of the well; and (5) the failure to secure the wellhead with a lockdown sleeve before allowing pressure on the seal from below.

Well said, although again, a CBL is not a pressure test.

And I don't mean fining the companies-withdrawing the work permits, stopping the work is much more effective, IMO. Unless you just want to be punitive.

Huh?

As far as deep water spill containment is concerned, the most important part is where the oil hits the shoreline, and that is shallow water. Work in improving that area is necessary.

An attention to detail not yet displayed by BP or Obama et al would also be helpful in the current situation.

 

[AlBell]

I thought you were interested in acquiring and analyzing data.

Follow the thread back. I kept asking over and over again why a list of experts matters to the discussion at hand. You have avoided this question.

Sorry. I thought it was obvious.

i.e. don't drill

i.e. don't drill

Nope. "Partial drilling" is like "slightly pregnant".

I never said "partial drilling" did I? Indeed, you expose your inherent bias and unfoertunate dishonesty by trying to reframe my argument into something it isn't.

Your argument appears to consist of "OhNoes! We need more regulations!"

A better analogy is with biological safety levels used in lab research. When working with live cells/bacteria, you vary the protocols based upon the potentials risks involved.
WE have classifications for safety which vary from BSL1 to BSL4, with different protocols that are required within each level depending on what is to be done. None of those protocols prevents the work being done, they just mitigate the risk involved if needed. Impact assessments are there to define what level of safety needs to be met. the greater the risk, the greater safety precautions used. The impact assessment failed because clearly it was wrong. And that is what gave BP credence to work with protocols that were suboptimum. Coupled this with the fact that the crews were operating at even less safe conditions than what was expected is even more of a problem. Being in charge of a lab, I know for a fact that my lab only works as safe as I expect them to. If I do not enforce protocols, they will not be done. The responsibility lies on my shoulders.

As I've mentioned, protocols exist for safe drilling practice; there is no BSL1-BSL4. Either the practice is safe, or it isn't.

For your case to be analogous BSL4 has failed and you have airborne Ebola loose in the population.

 

[joobz]

Sorry. I thought it was obvious.

why not enlighten me?
How does a list of the types of experts needed support any of your arguments made?
From this end, you might as well request a list of elements expected to be encountered in the oil spill.

Your argument appears to consist of "OhNoes! We need more regulations!"

Nope.

As I've mentioned, protocols exist for safe drilling practice; there is no BSL1-BSL4. Either the practice is safe, or it isn't.

That's amusingly silly view.
Why wasn't there better containment procedures in place?

For your case to be analogous BSL4 has failed and you have airborne Ebola loose in the population.

No, for my analogy to be equivalent, there would have to be a report that claimed "Well, this ebola facility is like totally far away so it's unlikely to spread..."
and then have people argue because of this low risk we don't need BSL-4 measures.

What I see here is an example of letting industry set the rules and americans suffering for it.
Please don't take this as a belief that more is always better. But rather, ignorantly pretending companies are best left alone is simply a completely and totally failed policy. One that I hope republicans will drop.

 

[BeAChooser]

Previous regulations were MORE regulation.

Do you actually have any proof of that? Do you have ANY proof that prior to Bush there was more regulation on the oil industry?

What we do know is that the Obama administration waived the requirement for an EIS for this well. And waived the requirement for a detailed emergency response plan in the event of a major spill. And waived the requirement for adequate testing of the shut off system. And waived the requirement for high strength steels. What we do know is that the Obama's administration didn't even adhere to the in-place regulations and did an incompetent job of interpreting past impact studies. So it's not an issue of needing more regulation. It's an issue of incompetence and accountability. Which is why this is Obama's Katrina, like or not.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/s...l=1&adxnnlx=1276640760-bWiRxNrXN+dvEL2X+oebYA

Efforts to Repel Oil Spill Are Described as Chaotic

… snip …

From the beginning, the effort has been bedeviled by a lack of preparation, organization, urgency and clear lines of authority among federal, state and local officials, as well as BP. As a result, officials and experts say, the damage to the coastline and wildlife has been worse than it might have been if the response had been faster and orchestrated more effectively.

Obama - "We’ve made preparations from day one to stage equipment for a worst case scenario” - LIAR

Obama - "In case you were wondering who’s responsible, I take responsibility." - LIAR

Obama - "The federal government is fully engaged, and I’m fully engaged.” - LIAR

Obama - "Salazar came in and started cleaning house, but the culture had not fully changed in MMS. And absolutely I take responsibility for that." - LIAR, LIAR

Obama - "The American people should know that from the moment this disaster began, the federal government has been in charge of the response effort". There you go. He's been in charge of this disastrous effort from day one. So the Chaos reported by the NYTimes has to be viewed as Obama's Katrina.

 

[BeAChooser]

And by the way, if Obama does what's expected tonight and appoints yet another lawyer to head MMS, he'll be demonstrating even more incompetence.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Do you actually have any proof of that? Do you have ANY proof that prior to Bush there was more regulation on the oil industry?

While I can't be certain it does seem as if Joobz was suggesting that refusing to enforce regulations on the books could indeed be defined as deregulating and enforcing those regulations would result in more regulation than is current. If I'm right, then he's simply arguing that you're presenting a bizarre oxymoron as a counter-argument.

In either case, you bashing Obama for not enforcing existing regulations and liberals bashing Obama for deregulating/not regulating more all appear to want the same goal.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Katrina was even less Bush's fault, yet democrats were quick to assign him all the blame and even call for his impeachment over it.

Which is why it's entirely appropriate to label this Obama's Katrina.

Uhhh...

Katrina is not Bush' fault -- Agreed

But liberals unfairly assigned him all the blame -- Agreed

???? -- Cosmic vacuum from which logic cannot escape

Ergo it is appropriate to label this oil spill Obama's Katrina -- Umm...so you're labelling this Obama's Katrina solely out of petty spite towards liberals? That's what your argument, as is, certainly seems to be suggesting.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/...n-katrina-than-obamas-doing-on-the-oil-spill/

Poll: Louisianans think Bush did better on Katrina than Obama’s doing on the oil spill

 

[joobz]

Do you actually have any proof of that? Do you have ANY proof that prior to Bush there was more regulation on the oil industry?

You have a bias in your ear that's preventing you from reading comprehension.

The waivers "lessened" the regulations. I wasn't talking PRE-Bush. I was talking PRE waiver.

 

[joobz]

While I can't be certain it does seem as if Joobz was suggesting that refusing to enforce regulations on the books could indeed be defined as deregulating and enforcing those regulations would result in more regulation than is current. If I'm right, then he's simply arguing that you're presenting a bizarre oxymoron as a counter-argument.

In either case, you bashing Obama for not enforcing existing regulations and liberals bashing Obama for deregulating/not regulating more all appear to want the same goal.

EXACTLY!!!

Thank you.

I am just impressed that BeAChooser is willing to admit that the free market is unable to self-regulate.


ETA: Note, prior to learning of the MMS waivers, I didn't think Obama was to blame. After the waivers, I believe he is partially to blame. Specifically, I believe the entire "Drill, baby, Drill" mantra on the hill is responsible for this.

 

[leftysergeant]

No one suggested that. But using school buses to evacuate those with no cars isn't at all unreasonable. This

[qimg]http://911review.org/Hurricane_Katrina/img/Flooded_New_Orleans_school_buses.jpg[/qimg]

was criminal negligence on Nagin's part, lefty.

Did Nagin own the buses, or were they owned by a contractor who was not in a mood to sit and await Nagin's orders? Where were the drivers? You can commandeer anything you want if you have the authorioty, but if you can't find the keys, you're screwed.

I don't "assume" anything, lefty. It's a FACT that they weren't. The decisions were made and signed off by the director Obama appointed. (Which, by the way, is why she's now gone.)

She's gone because she didn't take into account that her agency had been overrun by worthless little Republican snots who fed her mushroom food. I doubt that anybody would have expected the degree to which the agency had been corrupted under the Shrub and his oil-loving nosferatu sidekick.

Did you expect Birnbaum to go out and inspect the siter herself? Supposedly, she had a staff of adults to do that for her. Turns out she didn't.

If Obama flew into a rage today and started kicking the worthless slime that the Shrub hired to the curb, you would be shriejking about a "witch hunt."

 

[BeAChooser]

The waivers "lessened" the regulations.

The waivers didn't lessen the regulations. The regulations are what the regulations still are. Still on the books. Still "required". All the waivers did was allow BP to ignore the regulations. Government by fiat rather than by law, science and reason. And that's on Obama and his administration ... no one else. I really think BP should fight Obama's pompous demands that they pay for the entire accident in court by showing that Obama's administration shares a large portion of the responsibility for this accident. When you put into place regulations, you assume some of the responsibility if you then waive those regulations. Because you are then giving approval for what is done. Since BP can't sue the government directly, they might be able to discredit the government or least shift a large portion of the blame (and monetary responsibility) onto the government. That would likely save BP (and it's stockholders) billions of dollars. Provided they can get a fair judge/jury.

 

[joobz]

The waivers didn't lessen the regulations. The regulations are what the regulations still are. Still on the books. Still "required". All the waivers did was allow BP to ignore the regulations. Government by fiat rather than by law, science and reason. And that's on Obama and his administration ... no one else. I really think BP should fight Obama's pompous demands that they pay for the entire accident in court by showing that Obama's administration shares a large portion of the responsibility for this accident. When you put into place regulations, you assume some of the responsibility if you then waive those regulations. Because you are then giving approval for what is done. Since BP can't sue the government directly, they might be able to discredit the government or least shift a large portion of the blame (and monetary responsibility) onto the government. That would likely save BP (and it's stockholders) billions of dollars. Provided they can get a fair judge/jury.

having regulations, but dismissing them = less regulation.


But, I will be sure to send you any petition calling for the end of free markets, you socialist you!

 

[BeAChooser]

Lefty ... thanks for reminding me why it is a complete waste of time to debate you.

 

[BeAChooser]

having regulations, but dismissing them = less regulation.

No, the regulations are still the same. They just aren't being enforced. And maybe that's the quid pro quo for the fat campaign donations BP gave Obama and company. And you can bet that Chicago style politicians understand the Quid Pro Quo business.

 

[joobz]

No, the regulations are still the same. They just aren't being enforced.

Not enforcing regulations = less regulation (no S).

And maybe that's the quid pro quo for the fat campaign donations BP gave Obama and company. And you can bet that Chicago style politicians understand the Quid Pro Quo business.

Maybe. or maybe it was policies set in motion in the MMS prior to Obama admin. Or maybe pressure from local "drill baby drill" Congressional republicans were responsible?

In either case, the Free market failed once again.