Oil spill

Post Reply New Topic

There are never any guarantees. But that isn't an excuse for sitting around and doing nothing. There is no assurance that seat belts and air bags will save you in a car crash. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. But you've got to be completely divorced from reality to say they don't help your odds.

RIght-wingers: "We need to get the government out of our lives! They don't know how to do anything and shouldn't be allowed to regulate anything. The people in the industry know what's best!"

[Right-wingers come into power, refuse to implement or enforce any regulations. Disaster and death ensues.]

"You see! Government can't do anything right! This is just another example of how government isn't able to protect anyone. Let's deregulate even more!"

Orwell: What'd you think of the videos on the previous page?

What is there to think? Rambling and largely incoherent nonsense.

We watch the same video?

Assuming you wanted me to watch the ones you just posted, yes. The talk radio host from Louisiana? He was all over the place, wasn't very clear about what he was getting at.

Maybe his points were a little too fast because there's a lot going on with the spill here and then work in how we've been neglected in the past, too.

Basically he's saying that we contribute too much in the way of oil and the industry to be as neglected as we have been for the past few decades. We're pissed because everything is starting to come to ahead and even faster because the spill is killing our wetlands and the seafood industry. And this is all from long term neglect and disrespect over the years.


Btw, writing this on my droid while out so I'm probably a little too brief as well and not explaining some points fully. Listen to it again and try to follow the points.....but I understand that you may not be aware of just how much we've been screwed and neglected here. Growing up here, I know....and he expressed the anger in a much more civil manner than I ever could.

OK. He seemed to switch alternately between sarcasm and sincerity, which may account for some of my confusion. Here's what I have so far from those clips:

1. He's upset about industrial waste and agricultural runoff from other states damaging the Gulf ecosystem. This seems like a legitimate complaint.
2. He kept citing some 30% figure... not sure what that was in reference to, but he seemed to be angry that the Gulf states bear all the risk of offshore drilling even though other states will benefit from using the oil. Again, a valid complaint, and a reason to involve the federal government in this.
3. I'm not certain what the deal was with the Bush and Obama clips... was he saying that the federal government failed to uphold their promises to help Louisiana? If so, he is correct, but unless I misunderstood it seemed like he was using those failings to argue against federal involvement, which makes little sense.

BP is liable for steep damages under the law of torts. Ideally, tort legislation should be sufficient to give operators in a public domain strong incentives to exercise due care and caution in their operations.

The last thing we need is a department of technologically ignorant burocrats running the day to day operations of technologically complicated industries. How could the government have prevented what happened in the Gulf other than preventing drilling in the Gulf? What government buro or agency has the expertise to draft specific regulations on the design and use of complicated equipment, given that the technology is changing from year to year?

ruveyn

ruveyn

Cash doesn't repair the wetlands, nor does it fix the massive coastal erosion that'll result, nor does it fix the hit on the seafood industry that we're very likely to take. It won't fix that the area will be less able to withstand a hurricane because of coastal erosion and loss of land in the buffer zone. Tort legislation also doesn't get anyone off their asses to do anything about the problem (it's been over a month now). The state government has officially started ignoring instructions from the federal because we refuse to sit by and wait any longer and we won't have BP-run coast guard officials threatening to arrest people who are trying to show the damage the spill is creating.

You're supposed to be a lot older than I am and much more experienced and yet you come off as just absolutely naive on this...either naive or disgustingly cynical but I'd rather think better of you than worse.




Why resign yourself to such a low standard? Why demand so little from people who are given so much privilege? They're given those jobs to work hard and to hire the right people who are qualified for the job. If you take that approach, all you're doing is setting yourself up to admit and accept failure. And if that's your stance, you're welcome to leave the realm of politics and voting and you're welcome to your quiet simple life.



Enforcing regulations that already exist. Ensuring that their tests are carried out correctly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/1 ... 73839.html

"And at a hearing in Louisiana on Tuesday, the government engineer who gave oil giant BP the final approval to drill admitted that he never asked for proof that the preventer worked."

If they'd do their job, it would have helped out a lot.

But you don't expect them to. For some odd reason, you view them all as welfare checks rather than people who have the highest responsibilities.




MMS is SUPPOSED to but god knows what the hell is going on there thanks to the overly-friendly nature of interactions between the oil companies and the government.

Is there a cost-effective substitute to molotavs? I don't think I can afford to make one...NY has mad high taxes on both gasoline and bottles of liquor....

They should focus on stopping the leak, and when it's all over BP should be liable for all of the damage done. If you want to get really extreme, make them compensate the Louisiana fisherman/shrimpers for their lost livelihoods.

BP, Halliburton, and I forget the other company involved will only be liable for $75 million worth of oil cleanup. Other than that they are only liable for damages and lost wages to people in the fishing and tourist industry. At the rate the oil is pumping out and with the course the ocean currents run there will probably be tar balls in Greenland before it's all cleaned up.

Transocean, Ltd. is the third.

I am cynical (which means I am rational and logical) down to the molecular level.

All the regulation in the world will not produce the energy we need. But regulation can prevent its production.

The oil producers may be careless or less concerned with safety than we would like them to be (the cost of safety comes right off the bottom line). But the government is INCOMPETENT. Politicians have neither the brains nor inclination to produce anything useful

ruveyn

ruveyn

As John_Browning mentioned, there is a limit of $75 million in liabilities that they can legally be forced to pay. If BP actually had to pay the full costs of the damage they did, they would be bankrupted before making a serious dent in their debts.

Reconstruction and repair to the damaged areas will cost billions both in direct cost of damages to the wildlife and wetlands and in direct result of the damaged incurred.

And I could have sworn I had heard somewhere that they had recently upped the tort for this instance and is at $225 million? Which is still a joke for all that's happening and how little is being done and how much damage is being done to the area.