5 ms·

I can understand -- sort of -- holding up lax regulation as something blameworthy here. More to fault is BP for not taking the possibility of disaster seriously

I can understand -- sort of -- holding up lax regulation as something blameworthy here. More to fault is BP for not taking the possibility of disaster seriously and (apparently) having a dramatically worse safety record than other large oil companies. But other than that, I don't get it. Why blame Obama for taking a week to act? What could he have done? And what can he do now? Imagine the volcano in Iceland had been caused by human agency somehow. Would people still demand "action" or "leadership", especially from politicians, to magically stop the volcanic eruption? Maybe it's just not possible to stop once it's started.

grandalf 16y ago
Lax regulation? Not only was regulation lax, but there was a liability cap on spill damages. That's a regulation that amounts to a handout! To your second point, at the critical moment of public outrage Obama lowballed the estimate of how much oil was flowing into the gulf. His actions have mainly had the effect of buying time and preventing public outrage. What if he handn't acted this way? Maybe the American people would have demanded an end to all offshore drilling. I think it's relevant to point out that if Obama were the kind of guy who would even remotely consider cracking down on oil industry excesses he would not be in the oval office today.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  For the nth time, the $75m liability cap only applied to cases of genuine accident, not those involving gross negligence; it only capped punitive liability and not mitigation costs anyway; and it was a statutory provision made into law back in 1990, a generation ago. Pointing to this as if it was indicative of current political machinations is completely misleading.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    What is an accident? Why was the recent spill the result of negligence rather than an accident? The difference is a matter of some bureaucratic definition, not of reality. Offshore drilling is always a gamble. Any diffusion of the risk to the public / taxpayers shows that the firms used their influence with regulators to stack the deck in their favor, and that regulators complied.
    - anigbrowl 16y ago
      Absurd. The public necessarily shares some risk to the extent that it asserts a claim over, and collects royalties for mineral resources extracted from US territorial waters.
      - grandalf 16y ago
        You did not address my remark about the difference between accidents and negligence. Also, the public bears the risk of environmental damage which should be offset by an additional disincentive not to have 'accidents' underwritten by taxpayers.
      - grandalf 16y ago
        You are saying that the American Public should feel lucky that BP is extracting oil and just tolerate spills and incompetence?
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  "...but there was a liability cap on spill damages." I believe it is called "tort reform".
anamax 16y ago
> But other than that, I don't get it. Why blame Obama for taking a week to act? What could he have done? He could have invoked the plan for such leaks the very first day. (Yes, there was a plan. A lot of the "surprises" were actually addressed by said plan. For example, burning would have made a huge difference at the beginning.) It's not just the first week. There are choke points where barriers (sand and others) can be constructed to block oil from getting to sensitive places. In many cases, the regulatory agencies didn't bother to approve until too late. (Yup, the sand might cause some disruption, but the alternative is oil....) And there's the small matter of the Dutch skimmers. Can't have them - they're foreign, but the Jones act can be waived by the president. This weekend, we found out that a number of oil sucking barges were sent back to the docks (after they'd spent several days sucking up oil). Why? Because the Coast Guard couldn't verify the number of life preservers and fire extinguishers on board and couldn't contact the owners. Coasties can and do count LPs and FEs on boats every day, so the count question is bureaucratic ass-covering and ownership matters only if you still haven't waived the Jones act requiring domestic ownership.

grandalf 16y ago

Lax regulation? Not only was regulation lax, but there was a liability cap on spill damages. That's a regulation that amounts to a handout! To your second point, at the critical moment of public outrage Obama lowballed the estimate of how much oil was flowing into the gulf. His actions have mainly had the effect of buying time and preventing public outrage. What if he handn't acted this way? Maybe the American people would have demanded an end to all offshore drilling. I think it's relevant to point out that if Obama were the kind of guy who would even remotely consider cracking down on oil industry excesses he would not be in the oval office today.

anigbrowl 16y ago
For the nth time, the $75m liability cap only applied to cases of genuine accident, not those involving gross negligence; it only capped punitive liability and not mitigation costs anyway; and it was a statutory provision made into law back in 1990, a generation ago. Pointing to this as if it was indicative of current political machinations is completely misleading.
- grandalf 16y ago
  What is an accident? Why was the recent spill the result of negligence rather than an accident? The difference is a matter of some bureaucratic definition, not of reality. Offshore drilling is always a gamble. Any diffusion of the risk to the public / taxpayers shows that the firms used their influence with regulators to stack the deck in their favor, and that regulators complied.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    Absurd. The public necessarily shares some risk to the extent that it asserts a claim over, and collects royalties for mineral resources extracted from US territorial waters.
    - grandalf 16y ago
      You did not address my remark about the difference between accidents and negligence. Also, the public bears the risk of environmental damage which should be offset by an additional disincentive not to have 'accidents' underwritten by taxpayers.
    - grandalf 16y ago
      You are saying that the American Public should feel lucky that BP is extracting oil and just tolerate spills and incompetence?
chopsueyar 16y ago
"...but there was a liability cap on spill damages." I believe it is called "tort reform".

anamax 16y ago

> But other than that, I don't get it. Why blame Obama for taking a week to act? What could he have done? He could have invoked the plan for such leaks the very first day. (Yes, there was a plan. A lot of the "surprises" were actually addressed by said plan. For example, burning would have made a huge difference at the beginning.) It's not just the first week. There are choke points where barriers (sand and others) can be constructed to block oil from getting to sensitive places. In many cases, the regulatory agencies didn't bother to approve until too late. (Yup, the sand might cause some disruption, but the alternative is oil....) And there's the small matter of the Dutch skimmers. Can't have them - they're foreign, but the Jones act can be waived by the president. This weekend, we found out that a number of oil sucking barges were sent back to the docks (after they'd spent several days sucking up oil). Why? Because the Coast Guard couldn't verify the number of life preservers and fire extinguishers on board and couldn't contact the owners. Coasties can and do count LPs and FEs on boats every day, so the count question is bureaucratic ass-covering and ownership matters only if you still haven't waived the Jones act requiring domestic ownership.