Louisiana Federal Judge Blocks Drilling Moratorium 691
eldavojohn writes "In the ongoing BP debacle, the Obama administration imposed a six-month moratorium on offshore drilling and a halt to 33 exploratory wells going into the Gulf of Mexico. Now a federal judge (in New Orleans, no less) is unsatisfied with the reasons for this and stated, 'An invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country.' The state's governor agrees on the grounds that blocking drilling will cost the state thousands of lucrative jobs." The government quickly vowed to appeal, pointing out that a moratorium on 33 wells is unlikely to have a devastating impact in a region hosting 3,600 active wells. And reader thomst adds this insight on the judge involved in the case: "Yahoo's Newsroom is reporting that the judge who overturned the drilling moratorium holds stock in drilling companies. You can view his financial disclosure forms listing his stock holdings online at Judicial Watch (PDF)."
So? (Score:5, Funny)
Yahoo's Newsroom is reporting that the judge who overturned the drilling moratorium holds stock in drilling companies.
No conflict of interest here, no sir...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Have a 401k or any investment vehicle that has DJIA or S&P400 indexes in it? Then you do, as well.
I have no problem with this ruling, seeing as the agency concerned has no evidence to show that what happened with the problematic rig is likely to happen, with any sort of likelihood, on any other rig.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea was to hit the "pause" button on 33 new wells while we figure out why the new-well drilling at Deepwater went so wrong.
There are still 3300+ wells operating in the Gulf which were unaffected by the moratorium.
Do you think that six months of wait on 1/100th of the Gulf wells will destroy the economy?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It could be devastating to the small contingent of workers who build and supply parts for new rigs/wells/ships/etc
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't be for real. You're more worried about the .01 of wells in the Gulf that are under the moratorium and the .01 of the oil rig workers than you are about the .99 of the people along the Gulf who are adversely affected by the crude that's gushing into the Gulf and fouling communities from Texas to Florida.
You know, there are corporations that would gladly destroy the environment and peop
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would have liked to have seen all BP assets in the US nationalized until every single American, every single waitress at Denny's who's gonna lose tips because vacationers aren't coming to the Gulf because of the thick crude oozing up on the beaches, is made whole.
We live in a country of laws, not in a communist dictatorship. Our government cannot simply wave a magic wand and begin confiscating property. Instead, there will be due process in a separate court case in which BP will pay for the damage that it
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
Another article at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-22/u-s-deepwater-oil-drilling-ban-lifted-today-by-new-orleans-federal-judge.html [bloomberg.com] provides a little more insight.
They also said regulators failed to tell Obama that all active deepwater rigs passed an immediate re-inspection after the Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank, with only two rigs reporting minor violations and the rest getting approval to continue operations.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Were these the same regulators that were "inspecting" Deepwater Horizon?
Re:So? (Score:4, Interesting)
Would those inspections be conducted by the MMS whose head was recently kicked out when it was discovered just how much they were in bed with the industry?
Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)
This concern isn't about producing wells. It is about drilling rigs.
It was recently reported in various news channels that Anadarko was trying to break a contract with a drilling operator in the gulf because Anadarko couldn't use their contracted drilling equipment due to the moratorium. The owner of the equipment replied they could use it elsewhere. The drilling costs IIRC were on the order of $400,000/day. Other deep water drilling day rates I've seen go up to $800,000/day.
If the moratorium continues, the drilling rigs will move where they can be utilized, and they'll stay there while there is work. Most won't just sit around and wait the moratorium out and hope it isn't extended. There are limited numbers of deep water drilling rigs, they take time to build, and nobody wants to build replacement rigs to meet a spot shortage because they've all moved to other areas due to this. So there could be a longer term impact even if the moratorium does end in 6 months.
Likewise, the exploration companies are going to pick places to explore for oil based on the likelihood of being able to produce from them, and the moratorium also puts that at risk. There are many variables in that equation that are continually reviewed, but politics in all its forms factors in heavily.
Take a nominal production rate from the Deepwater Horizon experience (as it'll be replaced ASAP), multiply it by 365 and then by 33+. That's a lot of barrels of oil and cubic feet of gas produced locally each year that we don't have to depend on less stable countries for. Regardless of your opinions on alternative forms of energy for cars, we're going to be dependent on oil for many years to come. Why shut off a good source?
Everybody learned something from this disaster, including the major oil companies. Nobody wants to repeat it, although at some point one probably will. If the government doesn't like the consequences, maybe they should open up more shallow water tracts in other areas of the country where problems can be fixed more easily when things go wrong.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the moratorium continues, the drilling rigs will move where they can be utilized, and they'll stay there while there is work. Most won't just sit around and wait the moratorium out and hope it isn't extended. There are limited numbers of deep water drilling rigs, they take time to build, and nobody wants to build replacement rigs to meet a spot shortage because they've all moved to other areas due to this. So there could be a longer term impact even if the moratorium does end in 6 months.
So they are saying "if you don't let me play I'm going to take my toys and go home"?
Either there's oil (money) to be found in the gulf or there's not. If there is, then there will be companies ready to drill when the moratorium is lifted. Maybe it will take them 6 months to relocate equipment there, but they'll definitely be back.
Delaying a few dozen exploratory wells for a year while they investigate this accident and have a better idea of the cause *and* have time to enact new rules to prevent the same scenario from recurring doesn't seem like a bad course of action.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not at all. They're saying these toys are costing a bunch of money every day setting on the shelf when they could be drilling producing wells in my field over here, so let's go. Home moves and drilling holes to completion takes a finite amount of time.
There is money to be made in the gulf, but it isn't the only place to play. There is money to be made all over. I agree they'll definitely return assuming the political climate doesn't disintegrate. At this point that is an open question that nobody knows the
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you think that six months of wait on 1/100th of the Gulf wells will destroy the economy?
It shouldn't, but I'm sure they'll use that as an excuse to jack up the price of gas.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Go ask Gulf fishermen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or any fisherman whose catch is from the gulf stream current in a few months. The oil spill water is going to go around Florida and into the gulf stream current. This will screw up a lot more then the catch from the Gulf of Mexico.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ecosystem that a ton of people rely upon for jobs.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I love all the people that are acting like stopping related projects is this unprecedented move.
It's the same thing that happens in any other emergency when "Something bad happened and we're not sure what" FAA grounds plane because of suspected defects, FHSA will temporarily say "Don't drive trucks of such and such years", et al.
The fundamental statement by the judge here, that this isn't standard protocol, is factually wrong. When you have an emergency that casts doubt on the procedures you've been using .
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have a 401k or any investment vehicle that has DJIA or S&P400 indexes in it? Then you do, as well.
The honorable gyrogeerloose is not actually presiding over those hearings, so it's not hypocrisy to point out that a conflict of interest exists there, if that's your aim.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no problem with this ruling, seeing as the agency concerned has no evidence to show that what happened with the problematic rig is likely to happen, with any sort of likelihood, on any other rig.
This is the opposite of insightful.
The event on the problematic rig was highly unlikely to happen, but when it did happen there was no way to recover. It's still leaking now - two months later. Claiming that lightning won't strike twice is not an intelligent response.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Deepwater Horizon was a series of mistakes with known causes, not a tail-end probabilistic event. Future deep-water drilling will likely be more carefully regulated.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
BP has essentially proven that at least some oil companies don't know what to do if there is a problem. A moratorium is just saying "get your act together". Except companies are desperately trying to point to BP as an anomaly, the shoddy worker in a collection of saints. So the moratorium is also saying "ok, let's check if you guys really are that saintly after all." After a massive catastrophe like this, it makes no logical sense to go full steam ahead as if nothing happened.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
... We know that we must run deficits, large ones, in order to create a demand stimulus large enough to moderate this trough of the economic cycle. Nonetheless, we have politicians trying to score political points by railing against deficit spending -- which didn't bother them for the past 8 years when they were in charge. ...
While I won't argue with the fact that establishment Republicans are hypocrites, I believe your economic assertions are in error. Keynesian economics have been fully discredited, in my view. I subscribe to the Austrian School of economics, which states that reducing government spending and allowing bad debt to be liquidated is the only way to ensure the long-term stability of the economy.
What you essentially said is that my view is ignorant, but perhaps you should investigate your own claims, and explain w
Re:What is the opposite of insightful? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, Keynesian economic policies were recently practically killed by - believe it or not - a group of Harvard economists. Here is a link to the paper [hbs.edu]. It turns out that if you measure the economic effect of government spending, that effect is net lower employment, net lower commerce, and net lower investment.
Essentially, no one in their right mind competes with someone supported by the government.
Re:What is the opposite of insightful? (Score:5, Informative)
>>>Consider this week the news is full of European countries enacting substantial budget cuts. We know that's the wrong thing to do.
"We" do? Not all of us agree. I'd estimate about 1/3rd of economists say cutting spending & taxes is the Correct thing to do, because it frees excess money to the private sector who can use it to invest in new factories and jobs and personal goods. In fact that's why the Depression of 1921 only lasted a year - the government cut spending/taxes and it freed-up money to be invested (at the corporate level) and spent (at the consumer level).
The EU states are doing precisely the right thing according to the Hayek, Friedman, and Austrian economic models.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no problem with this ruling, seeing as the agency concerned has no evidence to show that what happened with the problematic rig is likely to happen, with any sort of likelihood, on any other rig.
Too right. And what happened on that rig was an accident, if by accident you mean "an easily foreseeable result of poor safety standards and corner-cutting that prioritized saving money over safety," what most people would call an inevitability.
Honestly, I am completely amazed at the mental gymnastics on display here. Usually you don't get failures this stark and dramatic outside of wars. We'd been assured these wells were safe, that everything was being handled to the highest standards, and then something
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd also be interested in where he lives. Nowhere near the coast or on a part of the coast that is already covered in tar, and he wants others to feel the petroleum love?
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually it's the folks on the Gulf coast who are most concerned about the moratorium, because they're the folks who make their living supplying the rigs that were put under the moratorium. A moratorium could put them, their friends, and their neighbors out of work.
All at a time when lots of people (fishermen etc) are already out of work from the spill, and when the unemployment rate before the spill was already high.
This isn't a case of people who don't care. They do, because it's their homeland getting polluted with oil. But they're worried about supporting their families too.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually it's the folks on the Gulf coast who are most concerned about the moratorium, because they're the folks who make their living supplying the rigs that were put under the moratorium.
Oh, I don't know. I'm from the Gulf Coast originally, and everyone I know there is spitting mad about the spill, and would be perfectly happy to see the rigs gone, lest this get worse, or happen again, and the various malefactors severely punished. I don't know anyone opposed to the moratorium. And if oil rig workers would lose their jobs as a result, why not let them get jobs cleaning up the spill, just like the fishermen are having to do.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
would be perfectly happy to see the rigs gone, lest this get worse, or happen again
Honest question: Why do people seem to accept this argument as valid for oil rigs, but using Chernobyl as a reason against nuclear is (generally, and rightfully) rejected as irrelevant and a piss poor argument?
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because after Chernobyl the design of still operating RBMK reactors (and in fact all reactors) was improved to the point that a repeat disaster should be near-impossible.
But looking at the oil spill, we had the same problems in 1979 off the Gulf of Mexico. Since then the capability to respond to this type of problem hasn't improved. The pre-revised BP document shows they knew this. Same story in Alaska - oil pipelines are not being well maintained. That's a repeat of 1979 too.
Nuclear industry has learned their lesson and moved on. Oil industry is still crossing their fingers that risk/reward will fall in their favor.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
would be perfectly happy to see the rigs gone, lest this get worse, or happen again
Honest question: Why do people seem to accept this argument as valid for oil rigs, but using Chernobyl as a reason against nuclear is (generally, and rightfully) rejected as irrelevant and a piss poor argument?
How about the simple fact that all of this has happened 24 years ago. The government moratorium now proposed to shake up the industry is only 6 months. That is 6 months is all the regulators think is needed for an industry to get it's act together.
The statement you're questioning is talking a
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
If western nuclear plants were built the same way Chernobyl was built then I WOULD be up in arms about it, and I'm one of the strongest Nuclear supporters you would find.
Likewise, if all the other oil rigs had relief wells drilled in advance, then I'd have no problem with them continuing operating.
The difference between the two situations is that with Chernobyl we have made damn sure all nuclear plants we build have the safety features needed to prevent a similar disaster. With the oil rigs, the same is not true. Many of them still lack safety features (pre-drilled relief wells ) that are considered standard in many parts of the world.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because many years after Chernobyl, it is clear that it was a uniquely horrible reactor and beyond idiotic test procedure that lead to the accident, and that technology has developed to the point where none of its failings are in any way relevant.
In contrast, every rig in the gulf is using the same safety technology that failed at Deepwater Horizon, and many were certified by the same corrupt regulators who gave Deepwater Horizon a clean bill of health despite failing and deliberately disabled safety equipment. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this rig is unique or exceptional, other than that it is the one where the chickens came home to roost.
Chernobyl was an outstanding argument to stop construction of Chernobyl-style reactors (obviously), and to reconsider regulation of reactors (particularly in Russia) to make sure nothing as stupid as the disaster-causing test would be allowed.
Similarly, if in twenty years it's clear that the Deepwater rig was unique, and technology has moved beyond the current state of the art to a regime of "inherent safety" like nuclear, then Deepwater will no longer be a good argument to stop drilling.
In short, the difference is context.
Re: (Score:2)
he just wants some time to cash out his stocks. I bet he has done that right about now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yahoo's Newsroom is reporting that the judge who overturned the drilling moratorium holds stock in drilling companies.
No conflict of interest here, no sir...
Just like there's no conflict of interest in the fact that the US government just loaned the Brazilian state-run oil company Petrobras 2 billion dollars for offshore drilling in depths far exceeding the moratorium.
Funny coincidence also that George Soros, (who, through the Center For American Progress & John Podesta, who also headed Obama's transition team and chose who filled most of the top positions in the administration) invested a huge amount in Petrobras only days before the government's decision to invest. George Soros stands to make a killing from the drilling moratorium.
Why is the administration crippling US oil companies while investing heavily in a foreign oil company?
Strat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
US oil companies like B(ritish) P(etroleum) and (Royal Dutch) Shell, you mean?
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're so used to being shamed into believing that just because personal inclinations exist we have to throw out all logic and reason.
We're dealing with big oil. Conflicts of interest over oil companies are something we'd be idiots not to take seriously. Remember Joe Barton, on the House Energy and Commerce Committee? Actually apologized to BP a few days ago for them having to pay for the damage they caused? Should we assume that guy had public interest at heart?
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm really getting sick of this little bit of misinformation.
Joe Barton, on the House Energy and Commerce Committee? Actually apologized to BP a few days ago for them having to pay for the damage they caused?
That is NOT what happened. I don't think anyone, including Joe Barton, thinks that BP should not pay for the mess thy have made. The apology was for the methods used by the administration to basically force BP to set up a $20B fund, completely bypassing due process. To be clear, I believe that BP should pay for everything but I question I question the viability of forcing BP to liquidate assets and set aside $20B - even big evil oil companies need operating revenue. Don't forget that a log of British citizens stand to lose a large chunk of their retirement if BP goes belly up.
If the preceding makes no sense to you take a basic finance class.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
To be clear, I believe that BP should pay for everything but I question I question the viability of forcing BP to liquidate assets and set aside $20B
They way you make it sound, BP was forced to go down to the local pawn shop and sell all the family heirlooms the next day. The Obama administration got a promise from BP that they would set aside a $20 billion account. The details have not been worked out but one detail that I did hear was that it was $5 billion a year for 4 years. Considering that BP made $16 billion in profits last year, I would think they could figure out a method to do so without disrupting the company financially.
- even big evil oil companies need operating revenue.
As a company, BP's revenue of $246 billion in 2009. Asking for less about 2% of revenue to be funded over the course of a year isn't a major strain on their revenue.
Don't forget that a log of British citizens stand to lose a large chunk of their retirement if BP goes belly up.
Did anyone say anything about bankrupting BP? No. BP made profits of $16, $22, $21, and $22 billion the last 4 years. At most, they will be losing out on profits for one of their last 4 years or 25% of the profits for the last 4 years.
One main reason that the administration was insistent about a fund is that though the Exxon Valdez incident happened over 20 years ago, some litigants in Alaska still haven't been paid yet. Could you wait 20 years for money that was owed to you?
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
He was right that the government basically telling BP "Start coughing up without a being found guilty because we said so or we'll might start fining you/killing your licenses" should be illegal. Due process exists, and it should be followed. That's extortion.
He was an idiot for phrasing it as an apology to BP.
The idea that the government is setting a precedent that it can interfere with a business like that worries me. The BP case is really clear cut. Even if it was the contractor that messed up, BP was supposed to keep tabs on them and owned the well. But what happens when some large company gets accused of something else (say the Vioxx lawsuits) and the government starts pressuring them to pay out before any legal decision? What happens if it turns out, like power line cancer and thimerosol autism, that the company isn't at fault? How do they get all that money back?
I understand getting people money faster instead of the 20 year Exxon-Valdeeze thing, but this seemed so close to coercion.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
He didn't give it to people, he put it in escrow. You can argue that this is still wrong, but at least accuse him of what he actually did. He didn't just hand out a bunch of money to whomever he wanted.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sure that there was no issue of "due process" here. BP did not have to do as the President requested. It was just the President asking BP to step up and do what they should do out of moral decency. Of course, they could have turned down the President. Of course, in that case they probably would have been sued by the Federal government into even greater oblivion for the damages they have caused. They also could have had their regulatory ass handed to them for the next how ever many years this administration was in power over every little infraction. I think BP just made a reasonable business accommodation. And for those of you whining about how unfair to BP this is... it's our local ecosystem. They can always go home and screw up their own if they don't like the way the game is played here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, they could have turned down the President. Of course, in that case they...could have had their regulatory ass handed to them for the next how ever many years this administration was in power over every little infraction.
Sure sounds like a thuggish shakedown to me. "Nice company you got there...it'd be a shame if something happened to it." The fact that everyone is (understandably) hating on BP right now makes Obama's shakedown no less despicable--and a very dangerous precedent (though admittedly with this president the precedent of shaking down corporations has already been set, this is just taking it to new levels).
I believe you just described a shakedown (Score:4, Insightful)
Give us the money now or things could get hard for you later.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is to BP's credit that they have said since the beginning that they would not hide behind the liability cap. However, the cap does not apply if negligence was involved in the spill. The rig, quite frankly, was not up to the level of industry standards at the time of the spill. That is strong evidence of negligence. Even if BP had tried to hide behind the liability shield, they likely would have failed.
Bush 41 didn't establish the liability cap. He *raised* it to 75 Million.
As most people are now rea
Re:You don't know what you're talking about. (Score:5, Informative)
I apologize, I do not want to live in a country where anytime a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is again in my words amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.
For the record, even Fox News has his statement. Many of his fellow Republicans were ashamed of his original statement. They even continued to be ashamed of his spoken statement and he later sent out a written statement in an attempt to appease members of his own party. Rep. Barton's statements were completely self serving considering he is on the House Energy and Commerce Committee as well as a very large recipient of big oil and BP's campaign donations. Even more so, if you take his statement for face value, he is saying that nobody should ever be punished for their misdeeds.
That's just smart thinking. (Score:4, Funny)
Now when the same problems cause a second leak we can 100% confirm those problems are the cause!
How else will we address the third leak?
Corporate ownership of Judicial Branch? (Score:2)
Maybe he should get a nice BP logo tatooed on his lower back, so that his corporate master has something pretty to look at while buggering justice
As always, units matter (Score:5, Informative)
The above quote should read "a moratorium on 33 drilling wells". Drilling wells are a rate (ie 33 wells per month), active wells are a stock. The distinction is important. The vast majority of oil and gas jobs are involved in the drilling and completion process. Operating a well after it has been completed requires very little resources. For example, a typical onshore well may cost $2-3 million to drill and complete in a 14-30 day time period, but only cost around $2,000/month to operate after completion.
Please note that I'm not saying a drilling moratorium should not be passed. Just that the moratorium will likely have significant impact on the Gulf economy, and that the state of Louisiana's concerns are quite valid, and that the Federal government's dismissal of them here is misleading and likely inaccurate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. And "undoing" the moratorium at the end of six months may be substantially more difficult then starting it has been. The rent on a large semi-submersible drilling rig such as the one that burned and sank when the BP well blew out may exceed $500,000 per day just for the rig. The rig owners — generally not the oil companies — will not let these sit idle for 180 days if there are opportunities elsewhere. Once the rigs have been relocated to Brazil or Africa, it may be quite expensive to enti
Re:As always, units matter (Score:4, Insightful)
The long term consequences are of the petroleum industry's own fault. BP (and others) should have weighed the risks of something really bad happening against cutting corners during drilling. Consequences include the swift reactive and punitive response of federal and local governments.
Where's the incentive for industries to regulate themselves (which they should do in addition to the government) if they are quickly relieved of the consequences?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep in mind this is the first major off shore drilling accident in almost 20 years, how many other industries can claim as good of record. This was just a particularly bad one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except the Deepwater Horizon is not the only oil well leaking in the Gulf of Mexico. From the Mobile Press Register dated Jun 7:
Re:As always, units matter (Score:5, Insightful)
How many other industries have consequences of the same magnitude when they fuck up?
Re:As always, units matter (Score:5, Insightful)
The proper solution is not to stop drilling, but to require a relief drill to be dug at every site. That way if this happens again, we don't have to wait 4 months. This way we can be safe, collect oil, AND double employment on drilling platforms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The distinction is important.
Excellent point. And does anyone believe that the Obama administration would be able to complete a study or make meaningful changes (or even suggestions for changes) in six months? They haven't shown any sign that they could. It's been over two months and so far all we've seen is finger pointing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> So I think the key factors that need to be considered are: how much damage a moratorium does to the local economy, the likelihood of a second spill during the next several months (and how much that likelihood can be reduced through simply properly enforcing existing regulation), and the potential damage to the local economies in the event of a second spill.
Right. This is an excellent example of "managed risk". Impact of not drilling, vs likelihood of another blowout, vs impact of another blowout.
Biased article much? (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah - but does the reasoning make sense? (Score:2)
You can sit there and be critical of the judge all you choose - but the question still remains. Does his ruling make sense? If you look at the economic impact of the President's decision - it's just as much of a catastrophe for the region as the Oil! Further - these accidents don't happen every 15 minutes - those arguing against drilling because of possible second episode are just playing an emotional argument, not a logical one.
Gee - why not pick on the judge because he was a Reagan appointee?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. His ruling does not make sense. The fact he has an apparent conflict of interest does not make is lapse in judgment any better.
I disagree. It's a perfectly logical one. Here is what the President is saying:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Six months is a very long time if you are the owner of one of the drilling rigs. Especially since there are no guarantees about how soon drilling might reasonably resume, or the pace of drilling when it does. Globally, there are other opportunities to rent out the rig. Once activities in the Gulf are shut down, it may take a few years to recover to the current level.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah - but does the reasoning make sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been waiting for someone to bring up this argument. It is completely flawed. If someone doesn't drill a well the oil doesn't magically disappear. If someone doesn't know how to drill a well without flooding the gulf with it they need to get the fuck out of the business. Another rig will be right behind them. If not, the oil isn't going anywhere.
Re:Yeah - but does the reasoning make sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe because it hasn't been exploding every day for three months and promising to do so for at least another four, affecting the fishing and tourism industries of four states?
But really, I don't think you want to hitch your rhetorical wagon to Massey Mining. They have more safety violations than BP, and their CEO should be in goddam jail.
Crooked Judge (Score:3, Insightful)
Why in the world would a judge hear a case when the outcome could effect his own wealth? Secondly does the judicial branch even have standing to enter the fray when the president makes a decision in time of great national emergency? I would think that even the Supreme Court may lack the authority in this case.
I can not exactly quote Bill Maher on the lost jobs issue but I will amend it to say that he said stuff your damn job. You people want to destroy the oceans, destroy the forests and completely destroy the Earth. It's time for you absurd red necks to get an education and work in areas that do not destroy nature. His version was much more insulting. But the man does have a point. Whether it is the coal mine areas of our nation or the oil rig areas or the areas being deforested by sprawl and timber harvesting it is not the Ph.D. people that we see doing those tasks. It is left to people who have very rudimentary educations or no education at all. The more we allow them to continue in ways that they have done in the past the more harm will fall upon all of us.
not a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Kind of like how Ford, GM, and Honda were probably double and triple checking their acceleration systems after Toyota's little stint in the headlines recently.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're a deep water drilling company and you don't have all your ducks in a row after that, you're an idiot. So Obama's reasoning for the moratorium, until the safety measures can be re-evaluated, is redundant because these companies had better be at the forefront of responsibility without further external incentives.
Incentives being in place failed to prevent this in the first place, why would you assume they'll prevent another case? It was clearly in their interests to do that before. BP going bankrupt because of this is not surprising. Yet that apparently didn't stop BP from cutting corners everywhere they could, gambling with not only the investors' money, but the entire gulf region as well. It's not like the big investors and executives are going to see any negative consequences of BP going under. I see no rea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm just saying that if another company doesn't swap those BOP batteries out on schedule and cuts corners like BP did and there's another blowout in the next couple of decades, people will come after them with pitchforks.
They didn't come after BP "with pitchforks", despite this being eerily similar to Ixtoc. What makes you think that story won't repeat in 30 more years?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're a deep water drilling company and you don't have all your ducks in a row after that, you're an idiot.
Are actually assuming that there is a shortage of idiots?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What happened exactly?
They lost less than the amount of money they make in a year. I fail to see how anything bad really happened. If anything BP will do this again since the cost of doing it right may well be higher.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:not a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Fallacy. You assume there is just a single point of failure. There was not.
Something is wrong with the current way of doing business.
Something is wrong with current drilling methods in US shores.
Something is wrong with disaster recovery.
Going about business as usual without identifying what is wrong ion all those process is fool hardy.
The Economist's opinion (Score:3, Interesting)
Mr Obama decided to "inform" BP that it must put adequate funds to meet all compensation claims into an escrow account beyond its control, although he has no authority to do so. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, instructed it not to pay a dividend until all claims tied to the spill are settled. Her fellow Democrats in Congress are trying to raise BP's liability retroactively--the sort of move America's courts rightly frown on. Mr Salazar, on even thinner legal ice, suggested that the government would hold BP accountable not just for the harm directly done by the spill, but also for the jobs lost in the oil business thanks to the freeze on oil drilling in deep water that he himself has imposed.
The magazine frowns upon all these things and it makes some sense. If, as The Economist suggests, BP's value has already dropped by $89 billion and that's "far in excess of all but the most dire forecasts of the ultimate costs of the spill," what is to be gained by all this backlash against the oil industry but a bunch of political posturing?
News flash: The United States is still inexorably reliant on its oil industry. If the Obama administration wants to do something about future oil disasters, maybe it should think more seriously about that and what can be done about it. Also, had government done a better job of regulating the oil industry in the first place, BP's shoddy practices might not have gone unchecked and this disaster might never have happened.
Re:The Economist's opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
The magazine frowns upon all these things and it makes some sense. If, as The Economist suggests, BP's value has already dropped by $89 billion and that's "far in excess of all but the most dire forecasts of the ultimate costs of the spill," what is to be gained by all this backlash against the oil industry but a bunch of political posturing?
If a reduction in market capitalization was an actual expense for BP, this would be a moderately reasonable point.
Since that's absolutely not the case, then the point of the backlash is to ensure that BP actually pays the price for the spill, with the result that they and other companies are actually driven to improve their safety procedures and more importantly follow those procedures that they already should have been.
All that $89 billion means for BP is that they're a somewhat easier target for a stock buyout. It means that the fraction of their own stock that they own is less valuable, so if they were planning on any acquisitions using stock it's going to be more costly as long as the stock price is low. It means anyone who plans on cashing out their holdings in BP right now will make less money. It's not insignificant from a larger corporate strategy perspective, but it's actual impact to BP is nothing like what an actual $89 billion actually suggests.
Shame on The Freaking Economist for suggesting otherwise.
News flash: The United States is still inexorably reliant on its oil industry. If the Obama administration wants to do something about future oil disasters, maybe it should think more seriously about that and what can be done about it.
Like developing alternative energy sources from solar to nuclear, and encouraging the development and adoption of fuel efficient and preferably electric vehicles? Yeah, that's being done. I'm sure more can be done. I'm all for it. I hope you are too.
Also, had government done a better job of regulating the oil industry in the first place, BP's shoddy practices might not have gone unchecked and this disaster might never have happened.
Yes, that's very true. Who would have thought that doing everything possible to deregulate, and the underlying philosophy that regulation is unnecessary, would result in insufficient regulatory action?
Unfortunately firing the new MMS head for not cleaning up the cesspool of corruption and deliberate inefficacy that she inherited was only just the beginning of a long, long road to fixing this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All that $89 billion means for BP is that they're a somewhat easier target for a stock buyout.
Tell that to the shareholders who lost $89 Billion. Just because you don't understand this loss doesn't make it any less real to the people who used to own something valuable and now they no longer do.
Like developing alternative energy sources from solar to nuclear, and encouraging the development and adoption of fuel efficient and preferably electric vehicles?
The President develops energy sources now? How does he find time to do all that scientific work and still fit in so many parties and rounds of golf?
Also, alternative energy sources are still so economically inferior to petroleum that we could have a spill like this every summer, make oil companies pay doubl
TL;DR: The Key Sentence in the ruling (Score:4, Interesting)
From page 20:
The Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency, but the agency must "cogently explain why it has exercised its discretion in a given manner" (State Farm, 463 U.S. at 48). It has not done so.
- AJ
My answer - nuke em (Score:5, Interesting)
Having worked in nuclear power for 25+ years I know something about how accidents happen and how to prevent them. This event was a total institutional failure. BP failed, the MMS failed, the other oil companies and supporting companies failed. This is epic failure like we haven't seen since Chernobyl, worse in my view because the reactor (in this case, the well) is still critical, still on fire, and a mile under water. The blow out preventers have been shown to not work, the emergency plan has been shown to be a fraud (walruses anyone - dead people phone numbers anyone, buhler?) the technology to respond to blowouts and 10-100,000 barrel a day leaks simply does not exist, and the regulator might have well been saboteurs for all the good they did. A 6 month moratorium is not even close to enough time to fix these problems. But I would put the ball back in the industry's court, my solution would be to make 10CFR50 App B (nuclear power regulation for quality) apply to deep well drilling and tell the industry they can start drilling as soon as their CEO states under oath or affirmation (i.e. lie and its a crime) that their rigs comply. Safely handling high hazards ain't new, many industries do a fine job - BP has proven it can't and by the above revelations we have no assurance that Exxon, Shell, Halliburton or anyone else can either. Shutting down a few wells will hurt the economy of Louisiana and I say tough shit until you fix your problem. But on the other hand I never saw so many people working at a nuke like the ones that have been shut down for safety problems. Once the oil companies see what they have to do to get their practices fixed there will be many many many jobs for the people that will be doing the fixing.
Pissed about this whole process (Score:4, Insightful)
Oil industry apologists are saying we're all being whining, ungrateful children because we reap the benefits of cheap energy but bash the poor, hard-working people who put the gas in our cars. But what they don't mention is the fantastic amount of money spent buying this oil-dependent reality in the first place. From buying politicians to clouding the issues in the public forum to preventing research in clean alternatives. It's a sick, terrible system. And it's impossible to use the tools of democracy to fix it because even when we try to vote for change it's bait and switch.
The thing that gets me is how the writing can be plain on the wall and people who don't know better take their cue from people who do know better but whose financial best interests depend on pretending they don't. "Global warming is just a theory! It's still debatable!" Yeah, about as debatable as the theory that tobacco is a carcinogen. Hell, we can even get Republican presidents to mouth the words "oil addiction" and "we need to kick the habit." We just can't get anyone -- reps or dems -- to do a fucking thing about it. They're both beholden to the special interests.
I can't even begin to fathom that latest talking point, Obama's being mean to BP. Chicago-style takedown! What the fuck?! And I bet you're still upset about those fucking Eskimos beating up on poor ol' Exxon for all those decades trying to get the money they've been promised. $20 billion is going to be a drop in the bucket for all the damages wracked up and there will never be a full accounting. Most victims will never be made whole.
From the bleating on the right, you'd think that Obama had nationalized BP, crucified their board of directors on a line of crosses on a tarred beach, and signed an executive order to go to 100% renewables before 2012. If only! I'm actually pissed at how anemic his response has been. No, he can't snap his fingers and make the well go shut, he can't stand on the heads of the engineers and make them work faster but he could at least help unsnarl the clusterfuck that is the disaster response. He could take BP's management out of the loop on disaster mitigation. He could put the environmental experts in the control room so they can get the unfiltered information from the well head minus the BP spin. At the very least he could prevent the BP contractors from burning the sea turtles.
Yeah, yeah, mod me down. Go and confirm exactly what I'm saying.
Re:Pissed about this whole process (Score:5, Insightful)
Oil industry apologists are saying we're all being whining, ungrateful children because we reap the benefits of cheap energy but bash the poor, hard-working people who put the gas in our cars. But what they don't mention is the fantastic amount of money spent buying this oil-dependent reality in the first place.
You know, its common for people to say how corporations, and especially oil companies, throw around lots of money to protect their interests and enact legislation and all that...
...but I just dont see it being true in the case of the oil industry. I see an industry that was forced to drill many miles off the coast in 5000 feet of water when they could have (and very much would have) drilled closer to shore in shallower water, where it was easier, cheaper, and knowledge was greater.
Apparently you would have us believe that the awesome power of oil money was used for everything but cutting costs.
Every few years Congress goes up-in-arms over the oil industry even when no disaster happens, such as the recent cry for a 'windfall tax' on them, even though their profit per revenue was significantly less than the governments share of the pie, and also significantly less than most other industries.
The oil industry has been the bitch of the government for decades. If you have evidence that this is not the case, please present it. I am thinking that, no, you don't... you are just blowing wind.
Re:Pissed about this whole process (Score:4, Insightful)
Because those on the right are fucking idiots, that's why. Those on the left are pissed that Obama has left BP in charge of the response effort, that Obama is continuing Bush's wars, that Obama is continuing Bush's abuses of executive power, and pissed that his policies consistently place a higher priority on Wall Street profits than the well being of the working class.
Whereas the right whines about concentration camps, socialism/communism, and started off Obama's presidency by protesting taxes right after Obama actually made good on one of his campaign promises and pushed for a tax cut on the middle class. And then spent the next few months parading around with signs like "keep your government hands off my medicare".
Ruled by Law, not by men... (Score:5, Interesting)
We can argue day and night about whether more drilling is a good idea. But that's not the question -- the real question is:
Does the law give the President the power to impose a moratorium in this situation?
If not, then it doesn't matter whether it was a good idea or not. The President is not a King or an Emperor. He does not have the authority to decree how things should be, no matter how mad he is or how great of an idea his decree is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does the law give the President the power to impose a moratorium in this situation?
The president is the head of the Interior Department, the institution responsible for the leases that permit drilling, and the Interior Department is a creation of Congress, which has the power to establish the cabinet. Those leases come with strings attached; the Interior Department reserves the right to suspend the leases for various reasons. Seems pretty clear to me that Obama does have the authority.
Judicial activism is judicial activism whether it's pro- or anti- oil, gays, guns or whatever. We ha
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Hope that judge gets disbarred (Score:5, Interesting)
First, a disclaimer.
I happen to live on planet Earth. I am, therefore, somewhat biased to protect it. This bias may affect my perception of decisions, such as drilling oil wells that could have "immeasurable effects" on the ecology of the drilling site if done wrong.
Now, this article summary, and the statement from the judge, shows clearly in my opinion why we should never use the word immeasurable as a way to justify one action or another. It seems the opposition quite quickly was able to measure the impact, and the impact is about 1%. The first oil company willing to pledge enough cash to completely recover from a second disaster like the BP one, I'd say happy drilling. Until then, we need to suspend drilling holes at depths where we aren't technologically far enough along to fix things if they go wrong.
It does surprise me, that we've found the technology to destroy this planet hundreds of times over with nuclear energy, but we can't plug a hole a mile underwater. Kinda leads you to which way this planet's headed.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Crying in your oil... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's how it works. A portion of your pay in some firms is indirectly slotted toward campaign contributions for certain candidates. That way, the company isn't making one, big, glaring contribution.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, no. That would be illegal. Unless they are offering an accounting service opt in where by employees could choose to donate some portion of their pay.
In any case, we're not talking about "millions" here. We're talking about less than $80,000. None of which came from PACs. $80k out of the $800,000,000 that Obama raised for his election campaign. From BP alone, the amount it's employees donated to Obama was more than the amount that it's employees and PAC donated to McCain, but for the oil industry as a w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you just play politics right after complaining about people playing politics?
Here's a tip for next time: if you had used a semicolon instead of a period, you could have made a statement and then contradicted yourself in the same sentence.
LOL @ What? Millions Share His Belief. (Score:5, Insightful)
LOL, tool.
Exactly what are you laughing at? A year ago, the common wisdom -- particularly on towards the right side of the political spectrum -- was that environmental concerns are just handwringing by whacko liberal moonbats, that increased offshore drilling is a necessary part of a comprehensive energy plan, that it would help reduce our dependency on foreign oil (somehow, magically, despite the fact that in free market system it all goes on the global market anyway), and that The Industry can be trusted to self-regulate.
Hell, if you read this thread, you'll *still* see people saying the industry can be trusted to self-regulate... it'll all take care of itself, don't you worry now.
You know what's behind this? You know that meme that probably more than half of slashdot FIRMLY believes -- that the private sector is always more competent than the public? That the public sector can't do anything right, can't regulate correctly, can't do anything other than act as a net negative drag on the private sector?
Yeah. Obama the radical socialist that he is? He partially believed that too. He believe what he was told by the executive apparatus and the oil companies -- that the oil companies had top expertise, that they knew exactly what they were doing, that they had safety dialed in and had right incentives to behave without further regulation. And, of course, that there wasn't massive regulatory capture during a presidential administration headed up by two guys who've been Oil guys for a long time.
What would be funny if it weren't so utterly pathetic and gravely consequential for the future of our society is that even though Obama has apparently learned his lessons, there's millions who won't.
Funny how it's playing out that way in financial regulation, too. We're all going to be asked to believe that cosmetic choices that won't cause any real pain for Wall Street are the best way to go -- and after all, the bankers and finance guys are the industry experts, so who better to advise us? We certainly wouldn't want meddling outsider officeholders drafting legislation about an industry they know little about without heavily consulting the industry about the best path, right? We wouldn't want heavy government involvement, anyway. That's a drag on The Market at best... and Socialism at worst.
You're going to hear this stuff. Again. And Again. Lots of times between now and the election. Some of you with fiscal conservative tendencies are going to fall for it. Some of you with libertarian tendencies are going to fall for it hook, line, and sinker. If enough of you fall for it, we're going to be here again in 5-10 years, same people saying loudly that the real problem was government meddling, socialism, we should have just let the private sector work. And the same actors in the private system will be racing their yachts and walking away with billions while socialized environmental and financial cleanup costs mount, one way or another.
Well, that's what you'll hear from some commentators. From others, you'll hear "LOL, tool."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
o sense in stopping now. Imposing a drilling moratorium now is like shutting the barn door after the horse has run off.
I dare say that shutting the barn door is the only reasonable thing to do if there are more horses still remaining in the barn!