One thing to remember in all of this is we have not yet determined the root cause of the disaster.
But Obama, the democrat demogogues in Congress, the liberal mainstream media, and even some around here at JREF sure act like they've already determined that BP is the root cause … shoulders 100% of the blame. They've even said it. There has been hardly a mention about the government's role in all this by Obama, the democrats controlling Congress or the MSM. Just deflection by them of charges they were involved. Has anyone from MMS been grilled before Congress yet?
From what I have heard, it was operational practices that BP chose to follow (circulating out mud and replaceing with water for example). If that is the case, those operational practices are not determined by the government but by the oil company. In that case, the government has no liability, right?
Oh there is no doubt that BP has considerable liability in this. I'm not suggesting otherwise. But we should leave to courts to really figure that out and punish it. Rather than starting out pointing fingers, like the Obama administration and democrats did, before we knew any facts and while the catastophe was unfolding.
And part of the overall *system* … part of what the government stated was required in it's own laws …. was a DETAILED environmental and safety analysis, and advanced preparation for what to do if something went wrong. And we already know for a fact the government has been entirely remiss in those two departments. They waived the detailed environmental and safety analysis requirement. And they had basically NO preparations for what to do in the event of a large blowout. They set the standards … so they share the responsibility if they then waive those standards.
Afterall, they certainly knew that blowouts are possible .. especially in deep Gulf of Mexico water … because there have already been many blowouts in recent years. They certainly knew that a large blowout was possible. There have already been examples of large blowouts around the world and physics is physics. They simply waived those concerns away when they elected not to do the detailed analyses. Perhaps because of the way the government allows (and yes, they don't have to allow it) oil companies to lobby them and buy political influence. The bottom line is if those analyses had been done and preparations made (as was required by laws already passed), we wouldn't be sitting here debating this right now.
Because this would never have developed into the catastrophe it has become. The oil coming from the well would have been skimmed and burned in the vicinity of the well, rather than being ALLOWED to approach the beaches as it has. If the Obama administration had even accepted the help offered by the Dutch and others the first few days after the explosion, this wouldn't be the catastrophe it's become. No, administration lawyers (because lawyers is virtually all this administration consists of) claimed the Jones Act prevented that from happening. But George Bush waived the Jones Act within 24 of Katrina. Why couldn't Obama? Again, responsibility for that lies squarely on the Obama administration. And you know where the buck stops … in the oval office. Which is why this is Obama's Katrina.
By the way, now the Obama adminstration is using other excuses for not responding effectively to this crisis where oil skimmers are concerned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyyL50dFkMc&feature=player_embedded . It would be laughable if the consequences weren't so serious.
Another issue is the government's involvement in the shut off (blow out prevention) system. In my view, this is a key liability on their part. Things go wrong despite the best intentions. No technology is without unknowns and flaws. No construction is always perfect. That's why blowout preventers are deemed necessary (and mandated elsewhere in the world). And this particular blowout preventer was being used at depths it had not been designed for. Plus there were signs of problems well before the accident:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/us/30rig.html?pagewanted=all
The documents show that in March, after problems on the rig that included drilling mud falling into the formation, sudden gas releases known as “kicks” and a pipe falling into the well, BP officials informed federal regulators that they were struggling with a loss of “well control.”
On at least three occasions, BP records indicate, the blowout preventer was leaking fluid, which the manufacturer of the device has said limits its ability to operate properly.
“The most important thing at a time like this is to stop everything and get the operation under control,” said Greg McCormack, director of the Petroleum Extension Service at the University of Texas, Austin, offering his assessment about the documents.
He added that he was surprised that regulators and company officials did not commence a review of whether drilling should continue after the well was brought under control.
After informing regulators of their struggles, company officials asked for permission to delay their federally mandated test of the blowout preventer, which is supposed to occur every two weeks, until the problems were resolved, BP documents say.
At first, the minerals agency declined.
“Sorry, we cannot grant a departure on the B.O.P. test further than when you get the well under control,” wrote Frank Patton, a minerals agency official. But BP officials pressed harder, citing “major concerns” about doing the test the next day. And by 10:58 p.m., David Trocquet, another M.M.S. official, acquiesced.
“After further consideration,” Mr. Trocquet wrote, “an extension is approved to delay the B.O.P. test until the lower cement plug is set.”
When the blowout preventer was eventually tested again, it was tested at a lower pressure — 6,500 pounds per square inch — than the 10,000-pounds-per-square-inch tests used on the device before the delay. It tested at this lower pressure until the explosion.
You want to talk about root causes of this disaster. Read that article. It was the government's responsibilty to make sure the blow out preventer would work under the drilling circumstances being used. Instead, they just approved what was installed without much in the way of analysis, test or thought. The last sentence in that article is telling: "Less than 10 minutes after the request was submitted, federal regulators approved the permit."
Again one must wonder at the motivations in doing that in an administration that promised to bring us *change* in regards to lobbying, public safety, and the environment. The government demands oversight power and so it should get oversight responsibility as well. That's the way it works. If you grab the power, you get the responsibility/liability too. That's a time tested principle in courts of law. Why change it? Because Obama is king?
In fact, do you know that a few years back, the government elected not to require a remote (acoustic) shut off system (a backup to the primary shutoff). Even though they are routinely used by many other countries. Now the fact that BP argued against them doesn't relieve the government of doing a detailed analyis to determine their need and utility, and mandating them if they made sense. Norway has had them on every drilling rig since 1993. Here in the US, a MMS report concluded that "acoustic systems are not recommended
because they tend to be very costly." The question is to whom?
Still waiting on this other question.
Well, you are not going to get one now because of your dishonesty in the way you posed it originally. Besides, I really think I already answered it, if you'd bother to read what I've already posted.
