Crying Over Spilt Oil
This post may upset some of my conservative friends, and I have delayed writing it because of some self-agonizing as well as personal issues of time availability. We have to recognize that as tempting as it is to characterize our opponents as idiots or evil conspirators, this is rarely if ever true. More than that, it is a mistake that often leads to underestimating them. Many of us intensely dislike the Obama administration, often for good reason, but they are not fools nor evil.
What happened was that due to an unwise overreaction to perceived missteps by the Bush administration, all Republicans were tarred with a broad brush and the Democrats ended up not only with the presidency but also with Congressional supermajorities. This latter is the real problem. A key element of governmental checks and balances was lost and, as Lord Acton wisely observed, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." The corruption I'm talking about is ideological and legislative corruption, not personal.
With this power comes arrogance and complacency. The former engendered the Tea Party movement as an instinctive attempt to re-establish some check and balance, as well as a degree of voter disenchantment. The latter is a major factor in the Deep Water Horizon tragedy of errors playing out in the Gulf of Mexico. Make no mistake, this is an environmental catastrophe that will eventually eclipse everything in the last 100 years. There are credible predictions that this thing will not be contained until the end of the year.The oil will pollute major parts of the Gulf from Louisiana through Florida and most likely the Atlantic seaboard up the Carolina coast before it's done.
Oil in sea water forms a heavier-than-water tar that sinks to the bottom, destroying or blocking necessary nutrients and devastating coral reefs. The beaches are the least of the problems as they can be cleaned. The sea bottom in the Gulf will suffer damage that could take decades to recover. The loss of some oil-soaked Brown Pelicans, while tragic and visually heart-rending, is another relatively minor issue. The good news is that Nature will eventually clean it all up or work around it. Prince William Sound has been virtually wiped clean by the action of the sea, and wildlife is pretty much back to normal. The same will happen in the Gulf, but it will probably take even longer because of the massive size of this thing, despite our President's assurances.
O.K., whose fault is it? Obviously, British Petroleum--BP, a London-based corporate monster--bears the brunt of the blame. An incompent and corrupted (there's that word again!) federal Materials Management Service (MMS) bureaucracy also bears major responsibility for being in the pockets of major oil companies and not providing competent oversight. The Obama administration, who woefully underestimated the magnitude and potential impact of this accident, delayed significant reaction and even today is doing little more than jawboning and promising. (They're very good at promises.)
I do not see a conspiracy here to make the situation worse in order to push through environmental legislation like a carbon tax, although there may be some opportunism at play. I think this was simply a very large error in judgement by the Obama administration to rely solely on their (former) friends at BP to solve the problem. BP obviously has no clue how to stop the oil flow at that depth and pressure--over 2,200 pounds per square inch--and is playing this solely by ear. The government is now well behind and in an impossible position to catch up.
Congress of course let it all happen and also went along with BP and the Obama administration in downplaying and ludicrously underestimating the magnitude of this disaster. Now of course there is a frantic scramble to hold hearings and beat up on oil companies in general. That'll fix it!
Perhaps there was some consideration of BP's generous political contributions leading to an over-reliance on BP to "fix the problem." That's really irrelevent at this point. There was an obvious policy of "hands off and let BP fix it" until recently, when it is really too late to do much of anything to contain this thing.
Even today, there is significant help available, and has been since the first week after the explosion, via foreign expertise from Norway, the Dutch and Belgians, and probably others. They were and are being prevented from supplying real expertise, ships and equipment because of an antiquated union-pandering law, the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly known as the Jones Act, which forbids any foreign ships or crew in U.S. waters or ports.
For example, three days after the explosion the Dutch government offered to assist the U.S. with ships equipped with oil-skimming booms and expertise in building sand barriers to protect the Gulf coast. The Obama administration official response was, "Thanks, but no, thanks." Seven weeks later, we accepted the booms but not the ships. The administration also finally accepted advisors to help with sand barriers, but again no ships allowed. There are also reports of domestically-available skimmer boats (foreign-owned) and other oil-barriers available but all turned down, apparently in deference to BP.
Lurking in the background of all this is the question: why are we drilling oil wells 5000 feet under water? This has to be terrifically expensive for the oil companies, besides being very dangerous and an incredibly difficult environment in which to work in the event of a problem. I don't pretend to know all the reasons and regulations behind this, but I don't think it was BP's or anyone else's choice. Drilling on land, say in Alaska, is much cheaper, safer and more easily controlled in the event of an accident. Even drilling in shallow water on the Continental Shelf would entail less risk and expense. I detect an environmentalist influence here, but really don't know all the specifics. I suspect no-one does.
The thrust of much of the rhetoric is to "wean us from our obsession with fossil fuels." (I even read a suggestion to "nationalize BP," ignoring the fact that it is British.) O.K., what do we use instead? Wind and solar, despite all the subsidies and incentives, account for less than 1% of our energy needs and display an inconvenient unreliability. (The sun goes down and the wind doesn't always blow.) Ethanol is a joke and an environmental disaster in its own right. Electric propulsion requires power generating capacity which means....power plants and fossil fuels. Oh, shucks! Or we could import more ... . Ditto.
The only solution in the near term--I know, it's not all that near--is domestic oil obtained in the safest and most economical way possible, drilling on land. We should have been doing this all along instead of fooling around far out to sea. The Deepwater Horizon deep-sea drilling platform and its like are certainly not the answer.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.






19 Comments
Carl Hicks - Jun 17, 2010 9:26 AM
With this power comes arrogance and complacency
It's like a replay from 2000 to 06...
Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand in hand...
Complacency kills.
Carl Hicks - Jun 17, 2010 10:09 AM
just drain off the gulf and put up a parking lot...ooooh bop bop bop bop..
yert49 - Jun 17, 2010 6:33 PM
yert49 - Jun 17, 2010 9:41 PM
Onlyoneme - Jun 17, 2010 10:10 PM
Ironically, BP has been the driving force for ecologist wanting to stop oil exploration in Alaska. Anyone remember the burst pipeline that gushed for five days before a BP field worker smelt the oil while driving through the area. BP didn’t even realized they were not getting the same quantity out that they were pumping into the pipeline. BP has a record of neglecting regular maintenance and safety measures. But hey it isn’t their fault that this happened it is just an accident.
I do agree that it is fool hardy to not accept foreign assistance with the clean up. The merchant marine act of 1920 is concerned with commerce between US ports and has nothing to do with the current situation in the Gulf.
While it is amazing how well nature can heal itself over time, I must admit that I am taken back by the cavalier attitude that conservatives express towards this type of event. Maybe I should just dump my old oil and antifreeze in the local woods, and let nature take care of it.
yert49 - Jun 17, 2010 10:43 PM
Carl Hicks - Jun 18, 2010 9:43 AM
sirlaughsalittle - Jun 18, 2010 10:21 AM
GOOD REASONS TO INTENSELY DISLIKE OBAMA
1) He's a Marxist Socialist Nazi.
2) He's not an American citizen.
3) He pals around with terrorists.
4) He doesn't approve of torture.
5) He doesn't respect our fallen war heroes (absent on Memorial Day at Arlington).
6) He's in favor of health care death panels for our seniors (get in line Al).
7) He's in favor of killing unborn babies (psst ... don't tell anyone, but so is Laura Bush).
8) He's a Muslim (does Barack Hussein Obama sound Christian to you?)
9) He wants to destroy America (it's like ... so obvious!).
9) Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and other exalted leaders of the Republican Party tell us to.
I could go on but the list is endless.
" The Obama administration official response was, "Thanks, but no, thanks."
That doesn't sound like an "official response" to me. I would expect something more like: "hey thanks dudes, but were doin just fine widout ya". Al, I think you're confusing "things that administration officials say" with "things that mindless MILFS say".
Alex, Ill take "Things That Mindless MILFS Say" for $200.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvqH6GnE3k0
And do you really believe that "significant help" was available and that an "antiquated union-pandering law" stood in the way of receiving it? Are we to believe that in the face of an "environmental catastrophe" the president wouldn't consider issuing an Executive Order that would temporarily waive the "antiquated union-pandering law"?
Duh! What am I thinking? Of course he wouldn't issue an Executive Order. His goal is to destroy America!
yert49 - Jun 18, 2010 5:35 PM
yert49 - Jun 18, 2010 5:36 PM
aneuhauser - Jun 18, 2010 5:48 PM
The Obama administration has not waived the Jones Act. (Bush did three days after Katrina.) They claim that they "weren't asked." As I noted, some containment equipment has been allowed in to be deployed in the Gulf, but it had to be airlifted from the Netherlands.
I believe "the goal" was to rely totally on BP to fix this, based on their optimistic assurances and for largely political reasons. Only recently when it became obvious that this was not working did the administration attempt to become more involved, just a bit--7 weeks--late.
aneuhauser - Jun 18, 2010 5:56 PM
aneuhauser - Jun 18, 2010 6:03 PM
aneuhauser - Jun 19, 2010 12:30 AM
Onlyoneme - Jun 19, 2010 9:03 PM
Bp is undoubtedly the culprit, and apparently, in the oil business necessity is the mother of invention. I was watching a video of a reporter flying around in a helicopter with a BP representative. The representative said that the oil companies had not invested in technologies for recovering and removing oil from water and containing spills because there had not been any spills. We both know that just because something hasn’t gone wrong is no reason to believe that it cannot go wrong. Could a Company be held liable for not planning for the inevitable.
While a failure event is when engineering learns the most, must we have the actual disaster to figure out what we need to watch out for? Did the Titanic have to sink to provide proof that you need to equip the ship with enough lifeboats for all the passengers.
Onlyoneme - Jun 19, 2010 9:45 PM
I meant to say that I am speaking of those with extreme right-wing authoritarian values like Hemmer and Hayett.
aneuhauser - Jun 20, 2010 1:11 AM
I really think there's too much use of assumptive accusations by both sides. I wish we could just discuss the issues without all the invective, insults and lurid language. Communication gets lost when the verbal bricks start flying.
Onlyoneme - Jun 21, 2010 1:11 PM
I was watching a video of a reporter flying around in a helicopter with a BP representative. The representative said that the oil companies had not invested in technologies for recovering and removing oil from water and containing spills because there had not been any spills.
We both know that just because something hasn’t gone wrong is no reason to believe that it cannot go wrong. So should a Company be held liable for not planning for the inevitable.
While a failure event is when engineering learns the most, must we have the actual disaster to figure out what we need to watch out for? Did the Titanic have to sink to provide proof that you need to equip the ship with enough lifeboats for all the passengers.
aneuhauser - Jun 21, 2010 6:11 PM
However, I do believe that a major contributor was to allow deep-water drilling in the first place. This is an extremely hostile environment--over one ton water pressure per square inch--in the event of a problem. On-land drilling is much safer and easier to contain and repair should a problem occur.