Obama gets overturned and spanked by a Judge!

Rockdoc Franz wrote: If you just think for a moment, you would realize that 1) Our government does not have the expertise to dictate safety issues. 2) Every oil company has a vested interest in not having a blown well... it's simple economics. How long do you suppose it will take BP to recover from the economic losses this disaster inflicts on it? 3) It is the only blow out of a well that has happened out of the tens of thousands that have been drilled and are producing HC. (this excludes the Mexican well) 4) Deep water wells are no different than shallow water wells in terms of operations and safety requirements it's the technology and execution of the back up plans, etc that is the challenge and government is not in a position to do better.

It just amazes me the assumptions advocates for government intervention make, namely, that every oil company does not have effective safety measures, back-up plans, emergency contingency plans, etc. Are you really so naive to think that a company would enter a high risk drilling project without due consideration of the situation? High risk ventures will have failures, no matter how many safety regulations are in place. Take the space program as an alternative example. It's safety checks are better known by all, yet people loose their lives there too due to accidents.

Coal mining, "gas" mining??? these have nothing to do with the oil industry.

1. No, that's why the government establishes institutions like the National Academy of Sciences, or for quick, specific responses, commissions/task forces of experts in fields that pertain to the issue at hand to give their judgement. I'm sure they can find some top engineers and geologists who might know a thing or two to help frame policy recommendations. When a democracy becomes as complex as ours, no one person or group can have all the answers - trusted, independent, objective experts give their advice and let policy be shaped from there.

2. Yes, they also have a vested interest in the bottom line and reporting to their shareholders. Obviously BP didn't care enough about simple economics in this case as they ignored warnings from both Halliburton and Transocean. Sorry, but I'm not going to accept that businesses have our health and well-being at heart. History is riddled with cases where the government had to step in and legislate regulations, especially after tragic accidents brought problems to light or public outcry demanded it - or do you think that child labor wouldn't return if that law was repealed? Or that we wouldn't be eating more rat feces in meat products of there weren't enforced inspections and regulations on acceptable levels? I know it would; it's simple economics. Companies take risks in order to maximize their profits all the time, this time BP lost the gamble and will pay the price. Does that mean we should leave the system as it is and hope another disaster of this magnitude is avoided by their own volition? Or should we try to learn from the failures here and apply them to similar situations in order to minimize the risk of another such disaster?

3. True. But it also true that easy access oil is coming to an end and we will be facing more and more environmental damage with harvesting other more difficult sources of oil - this deep well is an example of that and possibly a harbinger of things to come.

4. Maybe not in terms of equipment used or operations protocols, but you must admit that there is a whole degree of difference in the level of technical difficulty, and in the ability to respond to a problem, at a lower depth. Obviously the government doesn't have the answers either (or they'd be cleaning up the spill already), but if companies have no incentive to plan for low-chance, unexpected but not impossible scenarios, then we all lose.

What assumptions? Of course companies have SOPs on hand for emergency situations- they are mandated to do so. The question is, will the company do the right thing or try to cut corners and make extra money? High risk ventures will have failures, but are they accidental/unanticipated/human error or due to negligence/greed/hubris? No, government regulations are not the be-all, end-all solution, but there needs to be tighter ones in place than there were. There needs to not be a cozy relationship between those watchdogs and the companies they are to be policing. We are a nation built on the push-pull of regulation versus economic growth provided by business, one that will not have all the answers ahead of time, but one that must react appropriately when a challenge does present itself. At the moment, we need oil in large quantities - we will need these more difficult oil sources accessed. BUT it must be done with an eye on those who would damn the consequences and full speed ahead; otherwise our government, which was commissioned to protect the People, will not be doing its job.
I only mentioned coal and natural gas to highlight that not "whole parts" of the energy industry is under attack, just one small segment is being forced to slow down and look at its practices before continuing. There is focus on how much might be lost be idling deep offshore wells, without taking into account the sum total that is still being made every day. Life goes on.

neptunechimney wrote: Left wing SOP. If you can not argue the legal ruling attack the man.

Yes, because conservatives and corporate institutions have NEVER stooped to such practices before. *cough* Michael Mann *cough*
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ckey-stick

Take down Mann, it seemed, and the rest of the IPCC's conclusions about anthropogenic climate change would follow.

And the legal ruling IS being challenged.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/201006 ... PK480.html

The White House promised an immediate appeal. Later Tuesday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement that within the next few days he will issue a new order imposing a moratorium that will eliminate any doubt it is needed and appropriate.

edit to add: I couldn't find this link last night but have now: http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03 ... ry-lesson/
a very brief overview of some of the cases where government regulations were required to prevent abuses by businesses. Do I think the government is the all-wise benevolent protector? H#ll no, I trust it as far as I could toss any politician, but I do believe that there need to be balances. Wily Weasel stated it well over on the PC thread:

Wily wrote: here's what I see the bottom line is:

(*) Corporations are working for their shareholders (i.e. profit) not the public.

(*) Gov't Regulations are supposed to be looking out for the public.

I think that there needs to be a balance in here that is not suffocated by over reaching and overly complex bureaucratic regulations. You know what I would just love? Laws and regulations that are NOT created by the 4th branch of gov't - Bureaucracy. I would love to see simple, easy to understand, implement and follow kinds of regulations.

We don't yet know the total root cause of the disaster, but facts presented so far do seem to point to purposeful shortcuts that did not count for total safety for humans and environment for the sake of shaving the daily operation costs. Maybe we can drill safely and this was an anomaly, but until it is really looked at and we make sure that the off shore drill sites are following the industry standard techniques; I think we do need to look at them and make changes as needed to bring them up to optimal safety first. I don't see that as too much to ask.